Re: UNION causes horrible plan on JOIN
| От | Craig James |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: UNION causes horrible plan on JOIN |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFwQ8reerNujJvUbiL7bZOf1aQHrdvXuBUjiB3dr-QjM97Ck8A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | UNION causes horrible plan on JOIN (Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 4:31 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 04:30:24PM -0700, Craig James wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 3:45 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:40:58PM -0700, Craig James wrote:
> > > On Postgres 9.6 (config below), I have a case I don't understand: three
> > > tables that can be separately queried in milliseconds, but when put
> > > together into one view using UNION, take 150 seconds to query. Here's the
> > > rough idea (actual details below):
> >
> > Do you want UNION ALL ?
> >
> > UNION without ALL distintifies the output.
> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-select.html#SQL-UNION
>
>
> Interesting idea, thanks. But it makes no difference. Tried it and got the
> same bad performance.
Could you mail the list the plan with union ALL ?
Here it is. It is indeed different, but takes 104 seconds instead of 140 seconds.
---------------------------------
Craig A. James
Chief Technology OfficerCraig A. James
3430 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92121
---------------------------------В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: