| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Matheus de Oliveira <matioli(dot)matheus(at)gmail(dot)com>, joe meiring <josephmeiring(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Odd behavior with indices |
| Date: | 2016-03-04 23:53:41 |
| Message-ID: | 3108.1457135621@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> FWIW, PG >= 9.5 will ignore a LIMIT 1 inside an EXISTS, so that you get
>> the same plan with or without it. But that does act as an optimization
>> fence in earlier releases.
> Does 'offset 0' still work as it did?
Yes.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tory M Blue | 2016-03-09 00:18:19 | using stale statistics instead of current ones because stats collector is not responding |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2016-03-04 22:58:11 | Re: Clarification on using pg_upgrade |