From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Scott Bailey <artacus(at)comcast(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Overhead of union versus union all |
Date: | 2009-07-10 13:22:44 |
Message-ID: | 1247232164.11347.568.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 08:59 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I think it should be possible to use predtest theorem proving to
> discard
> > the sort/hash step in cases where we can prove the sets are
> disjoint.
> > Often there are top-level quals that can be compared in the WHERE
> > clauses of the sub-queries, so a shallow search could be quite
> > profitable in allowing us to rewrite a UNION into a UNION ALL.
>
> I assume we would still need the distinct removal step; we just avoid
> the sort/hash.
I mean it seems possible to prove that the distinct removal step is not
necessary, by proving that the various sub-queries are already disjoint.
It's a common manual optimization, so automating it seems a reasonable
future goal.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-07-10 13:28:50 | Re: Overhead of union versus union all |
Previous Message | Jasen Betts | 2009-07-10 13:05:40 | Re: PostgreSQL and Poker |