Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: UNION ALL has higher cost than inheritance

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: UNION ALL has higher cost than inheritance
Date: 2010-10-21 21:47:25
Message-ID: 0CC179F2-A5BF-433C-9D7E-E8AC032EEACA@kineticode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> The oversight here is that we don't use appendrel planning for
> a top-level UNION ALL construct.  That didn't use to matter,
> because you always got the same stupid Append plan either way.
> Now it seems like we ought to have some more intelligence for the
> top-level SetOp case.  I smell some code refactoring coming up.

Does it smell like chicken?

Best,

David


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2010-10-21 22:30:52
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_filedump binary for CentOS
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2010-10-21 21:46:50
Subject: Re: Why do we have a database specification in .pgpass?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group