| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Indexing UNIONs |
| Date: | 2002-07-16 00:31:24 |
| Message-ID: | 200207151731.24567.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Stephan,
> We had a discussion recently on -general about this. Right now the
> planner won't push the conditions down into the arms of the union because
> noone's been sure under what conditions the optimization is safe.
So, if performance is horrible with the view, I should use a dummy table to
hold the Unioned data and index that instead?
I can understand the difficultyof optimization. However, the example I
supplied is the simplest of unions, and the two Seq Scans do seem to be
proceeding against each table seperately. I think for very simple Unions
(i.e. no grouping, no filtering within subqueries, etc.) that index usage
would be reasonable to implement.
However, I can't program it myself, so I'll have to just stick to whining and
pitiful pleading <blink puppy-dog eyes, sniffle>
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-07-16 00:42:51 | Re: Indexing UNIONs |
| Previous Message | Jie Liang | 2002-07-15 23:39:23 | pg_restore --flag |