From: | Anton <anton200(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 |
Date: | 2007-08-24 10:32:43 |
Message-ID: | 8cac8dd0708240332p5f213616ldf71290e725f4593@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
> > =# explain SELECT * FROM n_traf ORDER BY date_time DESC LIMIT 1;
> > QUERY PLAN
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Limit (cost=824637.69..824637.69 rows=1 width=32)
> > -> Sort (cost=824637.69..838746.44 rows=5643499 width=32)
> > Sort Key: public.n_traf.date_time
> > -> Result (cost=0.00..100877.99 rows=5643499 width=32)
> > -> Append (cost= 0.00..100877.99 rows=5643499 width=32)
> > -> Seq Scan on n_traf (cost=0.00..22.30
> > rows=1230 width=32)
> > -> Seq Scan on n_traf_y2007m01 n_traf
> > (cost=0.00..22.30 rows=1230 width=32)
...
> > -> Seq Scan on n_traf_y2007m12 n_traf
> > (cost=0.00..22.30 rows=1230 width=32)
> > (18 rows)
> >
> > Why it no uses indexes at all?
> > -------------------------------------------
> I'm no expert but I'd guess that the the planner doesn't know which
> partition holds the latest time so it has to read them all.
Agree. But why it not uses indexes when it reading them?
--
engineer
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-08-24 10:38:26 | Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 |
Previous Message | Mikko Partio | 2007-08-24 10:24:31 | Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-08-24 10:38:26 | Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 |
Previous Message | Mikko Partio | 2007-08-24 10:24:31 | Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 |