Group by more efficient than distinct?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Francisco Reyes
Тема Group by more efficient than distinct?
Дата
Msg-id cone.1208490368.136870.53107.1000@zoraida.natserv.net
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответы Re: Group by more efficient than distinct?  (Thomas Pundt <mlists@rp-online.de>)
Re: Group by more efficient than distinct?  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Re: Group by more efficient than distinct?  (Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>)
Список pgsql-performance
I am trying to get a distinct set of rows from 2 tables.
After looking at someone else's query I noticed they were doing a group by
to obtain the unique list.

After comparing on multiple machines with several tables, it seems using
group by to obtain a distinct list is substantially faster than using
select distinct.

Is there any dissadvantage of using "group by" to obtain a unique list?

On a small dataset the difference was about 20% percent.

Group by
 HashAggregate  (cost=369.61..381.12 rows=1151 width=8) (actual
time=76.641..85.167 rows=2890 loops=1)

Distinct
 Unique  (cost=1088.23..1174.53 rows=1151 width=8) (actual
time=90.516..140.123 rows=2890 loops=1)

Although I don't have the numbers here with me, a simmilar result was
obtaining against a query that would return 100,000 rows. 20% and more
speed differnce between "group by" over "select distinct".

В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Craig Ringer
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: SQL Function Slowness, 8.3.0
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: SQL Function Slowness, 8.3.0