From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Adi Alurkar <adi(at)sf(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: UNION ALL vs INHERITANCE |
Date: | 2004-12-16 22:13:14 |
Message-ID: | 1869.1103235194@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Adi Alurkar <adi(at)sf(dot)net> writes:
> Why does the append resulting from a inheritance take longer than one
> resulting from UNION ALL?
The index scan is where the time difference is:
> -> Index Scan using fftiallbgrgfid_1102715649 on
> f_f_all_base (cost=0.00..3.52 rows=1 width=51) (actual
> time=3.871..244.356 rows=28 loops=1)
> Index Cond: (group_id = 78745)
> Filter: (all_tidx @@ '\'mmcach\''::tsquery)
> -> Index Scan using fftiallbgrgfid_1102715649 on
> f_f_all_base (cost=0.00..3.52 rows=1 width=51) (actual
> time=3.714..79.996 rows=28 loops=1)
> Index Cond: (group_id = 78745)
> Filter: (all_tidx @@ '\'mmcach\''::tsquery)
One would have to suppose this is a caching effect, ie, the data is
already in RAM on the second try and doesn't have to be read from disk
again.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-12-16 22:15:13 | Updates for beta/rc stamping |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-16 22:08:35 | Re: port report: [FAILURE] FreeBSD 6, Intel icc7 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Brown | 2004-12-17 11:18:36 | Re: Seqscan rather than Index |
Previous Message | Adi Alurkar | 2004-12-16 20:06:46 | UNION ALL vs INHERITANCE |