From 032858216caa0e820ddfe32ec4cd91a2de31a6b4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:00:48 +0000
Subject: Backpatch FAQ changes to 8.1.X.

---
 doc/src/FAQ/FAQ.html | 14 +++-----------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

(limited to 'doc/src/FAQ')

diff --git a/doc/src/FAQ/FAQ.html b/doc/src/FAQ/FAQ.html
index 3c10b91607a..7359ba271dc 100644
--- a/doc/src/FAQ/FAQ.html
+++ b/doc/src/FAQ/FAQ.html
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
   alink="#0000ff">
     <H1>Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for PostgreSQL</H1>
 
-    <P>Last updated: Sun Feb 12 12:15:49 EST 2006</P>
+    <P>Last updated: Fri Feb 24 09:59:35 EST 2006</P>
 
     <P>Current maintainer: Bruce Momjian (<A href=
     "mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us">pgman@candle.pha.pa.us</A>)
@@ -742,16 +742,8 @@ table?</TD><TD>unlimited</TD></TR>
     usually faster than an index scan of a large table.</P>
     However, <SMALL>LIMIT</SMALL> combined with <SMALL>ORDER BY</SMALL>
     often will use an index because only a small portion of the table
-    is returned.  In fact, though MAX() and MIN() don't use indexes,
-    it is possible to retrieve such values using an index with ORDER BY
-    and LIMIT:
-<PRE>
-    SELECT col
-    FROM tab
-    ORDER BY col [ DESC ]
-    LIMIT 1;
-</PRE>
-
+    is returned.</P>
+    
     <P>If you believe the optimizer is incorrect in choosing a
     sequential scan, use <CODE>SET enable_seqscan TO 'off'</CODE> and
     run query again to see if an index scan is indeed faster.</P>
-- 
cgit v1.2.3