Folks, thanks everyone for the valuable inputs, I think I more-or-less understand now what the options are for my particular problem.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025, at 17:14, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:40 AM <large.goose2...@salomvary.com> wrote: > > Does this mean that it is not possible to come up with a plan that has the > > same performance as "WHERE (col_1, col_2, col_3) > (10, 20, 29)" using > > "handwritten" filters, or only for "mixed order"? Or not a theoretical > > limitation but a limitation of the current implementation of the query > > planner? > > Perhaps the query planner should be taught to rewrite the query in > such a way as to make it unnecessary for you to do so -- I think that > that's what MySQL is doing for you. That is beside the point. Would it make sense to file a feature request for PostgreSQL to implement that MySQL-like optimization mentioned earlier? On Wed, Feb 26, 2025, at 17:15, Laurenz Albe wrote: > Here are my ideas for this situation: > > https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com/en/keyset-pagination-with-descending-order/ Laurenz, your post is a goldmine of advanced solutions, thanks for sharing. Cheers, Márton
