Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFC0B9FB838 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:33:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 43818-03 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:32:27 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from outmail136073.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail136073.authsmtp.co.uk [62.13.136.73]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33E89FB7A6 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:32:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from outmail128184.authsmtp.net (outmail128184.authsmtp.net [62.13.128.184]) by punt2.authsmtp.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Kp) with ESMTP id l9RLWqmt049975; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:32:52 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (62-3-250-177.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk [62.3.250.177]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Kp) with ESMTP id l9RLWpKp099455; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:32:51 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 From: Simon Riggs To: Luke Lonergan Cc: Heikki Linnakangas , Anton , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:31:22 +0100 Message-Id: <1193520682.4242.607.camel@ebony.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Quench: 2beb202f-84d4-11dc-b86a-001185d377ca X-AuthRoute: OCdxZQATClZOTQEd DAteCiNZVAwpPBRK HVkIKg5MJUcNSQVJ NksachtFagJbYlpF HGQLW1NEUl97WmF/ bgsfawdDYVRMWgV0 UU9OXVBXCwUmXRVj enleKVlyfgxCfXs+ ZEZiWT5ZDhEod0Z/ FFNcETkCeGZhPDMC AkheJh5UcAJLdhoR aVd4ByJDAzANdhEA MjUdGAoUCH1HIT5J Qx0MKlQfTQ4XFzQ4 SlgLGzlnOncpah97 BS1uK1gQEVYcPnI8 MFYlVRo0HiQ5aGx6 PmRsPGcAT0FM X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633235383639.squirrel.dmpriest.net.uk:752/Kp X-Report-SPAM: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-Virus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system! X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.084 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=-0.073, BAYES_50=0.001, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200710/325 X-Sequence-Number: 27347 On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 15:12 -0400, Luke Lonergan wrote: > And I repeat - 'we fixed that and submitted a patch' - you can find it > in the unapplied patches queue. I got the impression it was a suggestion rather than a tested patch, forgive me if that was wrong. Did the patch work? Do you have timings/different plan? -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com