From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Anton <anton200@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESCLIMIT 1
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:13:53 +0000
Message-ID: <1193562833.4242.670.camel@ebony.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C3E62232E3BCF24CBA20D72BFDCB6BF8044A24A5@MI8NYCMAIL08.Mi8.com>
References: <C3E62232E3BCF24CBA20D72BFDCB6BF8044A24A5@MI8NYCMAIL08.Mi8.com>
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 17:48 -0400, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Works great - plans no longer sort, but rather use indices as
> expected. It's in use in Greenplum now.
>
> It's a simple approach, should easily extend from gpdb to postgres.
> The patch is against gpdb so someone needs to 'port' it.
The part of the patch that didn't work for me was the nrels==1 bit. The
way it currently works there is only ever 0 or 2+ rels. The normal
Postgres code has to cater for the possibility of a non-empty parent
table, which seems to destroy the possibility of using this technique.
I agree its annoying and I have a way of doing this, but that's an 8.4
thing now.
Anybody think different?
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: simon@2ndquadrant.com, LLonergan@greenplum.com, heikki@enterprisedb.com, anton200@gmail.com
Subject: Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESCLIMIT 1
In-Reply-To: <1193562833.4242.670.camel@ebony.site>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox