SELECT DISTINCT <constant> scans the table?

From: Markus Demleitner <msdemlei(at)ari(dot)uni-heidelberg(dot)de>
To: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: SELECT DISTINCT <constant> scans the table?
Date: 2021-12-16 11:00:14
Message-ID: 20211216110014.27xcbjfs2rkpjz7t@victor
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Dear list,

This feels like a FAQ, but neither the postgres docs nor web searches
got me a single step towards some sort of insight.

Maximally stripped down, my problem is that

select distinct 300 from <bigtable>

seqscans <bigtable> (at least in PostgreSQL 11.14). To me, it seems
obvious that this ought be be just one row containing 300 once
Postgres has established that <bigtable> is nonempty.

Why do things not work like this? Am I missing something major?

The reason I'm interested in this is of course a bit more involved.
I have a view that looks somewhat like this:

CREATE VIEW a_view AS (
SELECT 'abc' as coll, ...
FROM table1
UNION
SELECT 'def' as coll, ...
FROM table2
UNION
SELECT coll, ...
FROM table3
...)

and so on for perhaps 50 tables; where, as for table3 in this
example, the coll column is not simply a constant, there is an index
on the source column (these then are actually fast).

I'd now like to be able to say

SELECT DISTINCT coll FROM a_view

-- which takes forever once some of the tables involved are
sufficiently large.

I'd assume in an ideal world the query would be essentally
instantaneous -- merging the constants and doing a few index scans
for the tables that have non-constant coll. In reality, it's not.
The tables with constant coll are all completely scanned, either
sequentially or index-only.

Assuming this is the expected behaviour: Is there perhaps some trick
I could use to make postgres use the information that there are
constants in the select clauses?

Thanks,

Markus

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bryn Llewellyn 2021-12-16 19:21:56 Re: Why can't I have a "language sql" anonymous block?
Previous Message Matt Magoffin 2021-12-16 02:11:12 Re: Properly handling aggregate in nested function call