From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] TODO list updated |
Date: | 2000-01-13 01:52:22 |
Message-ID: | 200001130152.UAA25362@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Hmmm,who solved ????
> * -spinlock stuck problem when elog(FATAL) and elog(ERROR) inside bufmgr
I thought you or Tatsuo fixed that. I will remove the mark.
>
> And I have felt that the followings are almost same.
> * Allow LIMIT ability on single-table queries that have no ORDER BY to use
> a matching index [limit]
> * Improve LIMIT processing by using index to limit rows processed [limit]
> * Have optimizer take LIMIT into account when considering index scans
> [limit]
>
> And Isn't it preferable to omit 'in ORDER BY' from
> * Use indexes in ORDER BY for restrictive data sets, min(), max()
> ?
I have now made it two items:
* Use indexes in ORDER BY for restrictive data sets
* Use indexes in ORDER BY for min(), max()
We currently do not use indexes to handle ORDER BY because it is slower,
but for queries returning only a few rows, we could use the index and
skip the ORDER BY. Not sure if this is done yet, or if it is important.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-01-13 01:54:02 | Re: [HACKERS] TODO list updated |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-01-13 01:26:54 | Re: [HACKERS] TODO list updated |