Re: Overhead of union versus union all

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tim Keitt <tkeitt(at)keittlab(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Overhead of union versus union all
Date: 2009-07-09 20:05:13
Message-ID: 20090709200513.GO6414@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Tim Keitt wrote:
> I am combining query results that I know are disjoint. I'm wondering
> how much overhead there is in calling union versus union all. (Just
> curious really; I can't see a reason not to use union all.)

UNION needs to uniquify the output, for which it plasters an additional
sort step, whereas UNION ALL does not need to uniquify its output and
thus it can avoid the sort step. Using UNION ALL is recommended
wherever possible.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adam Rich 2009-07-09 20:11:55 Re: Overhead of union versus union all
Previous Message Chris Spotts 2009-07-09 19:45:08 Re: constraint checking on partitions