It seems to me that postgresql doesn't use indexes when being asked
for an ordered result sets from a partitioned table. I have an
application where this is critical, but I was hoping to use partitions
because of the ease of rotating out old rows.
metadb=> explain select * from l order by a
Shavonne Marietta Wijesinghe wrote:
Hello
I have 2 records with the same value. Even when i do a select with
DISTINCT, it returns me both the records instead of one.
SELECT DISTINCT ON (TE_COGNOME) TE_COGNOME, TE_NOME, N_GEN_TEST,
TE_SESSO, TE_ATTNASC, TE_LUONASC, TE_INDI, TE_DTNASC, TE_PROVSTA
Stuart Brooks wrote:
It seems to me that postgresql doesn't use indexes when being asked for
an ordered result sets from a partitioned table. I have an application
where this is critical, but I was hoping to use partitions because of
the ease of rotating out old rows.
metadb=> explain select
Hi,
I know this kind of a question is asked earlier, but I couldn't find an
answer there (in the previous round of posting).
Instead of wanting to update the first record in an UPDATE .. ORDER BY
condition, (because of triggers that act downward) what I want is that all
records be updated, but in
It seems to me that postgresql doesn't use indexes when being asked for
an ordered result sets from a partitioned table. I have an application
where this is critical, but I was hoping to use partitions because of
the ease of rotating out old rows.
Simply put, I have a table called LineItems wh
Hello
I have 2 records with the same value. Even when i do a select with DISTINCT, it
returns me both the records instead of one.
SELECT DISTINCT ON (TE_COGNOME) TE_COGNOME, TE_NOME, N_GEN_TEST, TE_SESSO,
TE_ATTNASC, TE_LUONASC, TE_INDI, TE_DTNASC, TE_PROVSTATO, TE_PROV,
TE_PATERNITA, TE_RICH
