2012/10/22 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Don't hold your breath. There are two ways the system could implement >>> the DISTINCT clause: either sort and uniq, or hashaggregate. >>> hashaggregate will destroy any input ordering, so there's no value in >>> using the index as input. > >> Isn't that an implementation limitation though, rather than a >> fundamental limitation? > > Perhaps, but it's not a simple one to surmount, and I'm dubious about > putting the amount of work that'd be required into such a corner case.
I don't think so this use case is too special - but workaround working well Regards Pavel > > regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
