Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1
От
Mark Kirkwood
Тема
Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1
Дата
Msg-id
472EAEE6.2090000@paradise.net.nz
Ответ на
Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 (Gregory Stark)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC
LIMIT 1 "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC
LIMIT 1 Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>
Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>
Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>
Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>
Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC
LIMIT 1 "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>
hardware and For PostgreSQL Ketema Harris <ketema@ketema.net>
Re: hardware and For PostgreSQL Joe Uhl <joeuhl@gmail.com>
Re: hardware and For PostgreSQL "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Re: hardware and For PostgreSQL Ron St-Pierre <ron.pgsql@shaw.ca>
Re: hardware and For PostgreSQL Paul Lambert <paul.lambert@autoledgers.com.au>
Re: hardware and For PostgreSQL Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Re: hardware and For PostgreSQL Joe Uhl <joeuhl@gmail.com>
libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
Re: libgcc double-free, backend won't die Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: hardware and For PostgreSQL "Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Re: hardware and For PostgreSQL Ben <bench@silentmedia.com>
Gregory Stark wrote: > cdbpathlocus_pull_above_projection > > > In particular this is the function I was hoping to see. Anyways as Tom pointed > out previously there's precedent in Postgres as well for subqueries so I'm > sure I'll be able to do it. > > (But I'm still not entirely convinced putting the append member vars into the > eclasses would be wrong btw...) > > I spent today looking at getting this patch into a self contained state. Working against HEAD I'm getting bogged down in the PathKeyItem to PathKey/EquivalenceClass/EquivalenceMember(s) change. So I figured I'd divide and conquer to some extent, and initially provide a patch: - against 8.2.(5) - self contained (i.e no mystery functions) The next step would be to update to to HEAD. That would hopefully provide some useful material for others working on this. Thoughts suggestions? regards Mark
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления
От: Gregory Stark
Дата:
