Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C475347598F for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 13:53:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6JHrjVk014070; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 13:53:45 -0400 (EDT) To: josh@agliodbs.com Cc: Bruno Wolff III , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Two Index Questions In-reply-to: <200207191028.18547.josh@agliodbs.com> References: <200207190933.59283.josh@agliodbs.com> <20020719170000.GB13657@wolff.to> <200207191028.18547.josh@agliodbs.com> Comments: In-reply-to Josh Berkus message dated "Fri, 19 Jul 2002 10:28:18 -0700" Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 13:53:45 -0400 Message-ID: <14069.1027101225@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200207/306 X-Sequence-Number: 8684 Josh Berkus writes: > I generally try to avoid using LIMIT, as it is a non-SQL92 extension. Fair enough ... > Also, > LIMIT in subqueries might someday be disallowed as it interferes with the > fundmentally unordered nature of subqueries. I don't think so; we went out of our way to make it work, so we're unlikely to discard the feature. It's true that it does prevent some optimizations that might otherwise occur, but not using it is a sufficient answer to that. regards, tom lane