Re: Indexing UNIONs

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  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