Group by more efficient than distinct?
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?
Re: Group by more efficient than distinct? Re: Group by more efficient than distinct? |
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: