Re: Optimising queries involving unions
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Optimising queries involving unions |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 3339.1117126434@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Optimising queries involving unions (Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Optimising queries involving unions
|
| Список | pgsql-performance |
Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk> writes:
> Here's a bad example:
> SELECT u.txt
> FROM smalltable t, (
> SELECT id, txt FROM largetable1
> UNION ALL
> SELECT id, txt FROM largetable2) u
> WHERE t.id = u.id
> AND t.foo = 'bar';
> I was hoping that "smalltable" would get moved up into the union,
> but it doesn't at the moment and the database does a LOT of extra
> work.
I'm afraid we're a long way away from being able to do that; the
parse/plan representation of UNION wasn't chosen with an eye to
being able to optimize it at all :-(. We can push restriction
clauses down into a union, but we can't do much with join clauses,
because they necessarily refer to tables that don't even exist
within the sub-query formed by the UNION.
It'd be nice to fix this someday, but don't hold your breath ...
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: