Thank you Marti,
I will go with the ``reduced number of matched rows'' and naturally be waiting
for postgres 9.1 expectantly.
Kind regards,
Kim
On 2011-02-15 22:13, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 21:33, Kim A. Brandt wrote:
removing the ORDER BY worked. But I am afraid to
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 21:33, Kim A. Brandt wrote:
> removing the ORDER BY worked. But I am afraid to ask this. How can I order
> by partition? It seams that the planner has picked a random(!?) order of
> partition to select from. The returned records, from the selected partition,
> are correctly
Thank you Shaun,
removing the ORDER BY worked. But I am afraid to ask this. How can I order by
partition? It seams that the planner has picked a random(!?) order of partition
to select from. The returned records, from the selected partition, are
correctly sorted bythe index though.
On 2011-02
On 02/15/2011 08:23 AM, Kim A. Brandt wrote:
does `postgres (PostgreSQL) 8.4.5' use the LIMIT of a query when it
is run on a partitioned-table or am I doing something wrong? It looks
as if postgres queries all partitions and then LIMITing the records
afterwards!? This results in a long (>3 minut
Hello list,
does `postgres (PostgreSQL) 8.4.5' use the LIMIT of a query when it is run on a
partitioned-table or am I doing something wrong? It looks as if postgres queries
all partitions and then LIMITing the records afterwards!? This results in a long
(>3 minutes) running query. What can I d