On 30.4.2015 19:08, Jonathan Vanasco wrote: > > On Apr 29, 2015, at 6:50 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > >> Only because you're using UNION. Use UNION ALL instead. > > The difference between "union" and "union all" was negligible. the problem was > in the subselect and the sheer size of the tables, even when we could handle it > as an index-only scan. > > > On Apr 29, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Ladislav Lenart wrote: > >> I would expect the overall query to return only 60F nad 55F as the most recent >> data. No? You expect it to return 4 items when the LIMIT is only 2. Remember >> that the overall query should be also ordered by ts and limited to 2. > > You're right. total mistake on my part and confusion with that. I got this > query confused with the specifics of a similar one. OK :-) Have you managed to solve the problem then? I am interested in your final solution. Thank you, Ladislav Lenart -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
