Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only thing you're adding to the query is a second SORT step, so it 
> shouldn't require any more time/memory than the query's first SORT
> did.

Interesting -- I wonder if it would be possible for the optimizer to
detect this and avoid the redundant inner sort ... (/me muses to


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to