Re: UNION versus SUB SELECT
От | Robert DiFalco |
---|---|
Тема | Re: UNION versus SUB SELECT |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAAXGW-zvQL5YbTw1iYQqhCGLxQDAz9+m-NnTrB9DQ2ZoOwjXNg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: UNION versus SUB SELECT (desmodemone <desmodemone@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: UNION versus SUB SELECT
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
UNION and subselect both performed better than EXISTS for this particular case.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:31 PM, desmodemone <desmodemone@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Robert, could you try with "exists" ?2013/11/21 Robert DiFalco <robert.difalco@gmail.com>I have found this:SELECT c.*FROM contacts cWHERE c.id IN ( SELECT p.contact_id FROM phone p WHERE p.addr = ? )OR c.id IN (SELECT e.contact_id FROM email e WHERE e.addr = ? );To have a worse plan than:SELECT * FROM contacts where id IN (( SELECT c.id FROM contacts cJOIN phone p ON c.id = p.contact_id AND p.addr = ?UNIONSELECT c.id FROM contacts cJOIN email e ON c.id = e.contact_id AND e.addr = ? );Maybe this is no surprise. But after discovering this my question is this, is there another option I dont' know about that is logically the same that can perform even better than the UNION?
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: