Re: Overhead of union versus union all

From: Scott Bailey <artacus(at)comcast(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Overhead of union versus union all
Date: 2009-07-10 01:55:31
Message-ID: 4A569F93.8040504@comcast.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.
>

I think I read somewhere that as of 8.4 it no longer required the sort
step, due to the improvements in hashing. Here it is

http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/WhatsNew84#Performance

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2009-07-10 01:58:17 Re: Overhead of union versus union all
Previous Message Bret Fledderjohn 2009-07-10 01:39:10 Re: ubuntu packages for 8.4