From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Cain <cain(at)cshl(dot)org>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: OR vs UNION |
Date: | 2003-07-17 19:00:18 |
Message-ID: | 200307171200.18626.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Scott,
> I have a query that uses a series of ORs and I have heard that sometimes
> this type of query can be rewritten to use UNION instead and be more
> efficient.
I'd be interested to know where you heard that; as far as I know, it could
only apply to conditional left outer joins.
> select distinct f.name,fl.fmin,fl.fmax,fl.strand,f.type_id,f.feature_id
> from feature f, featureloc fl
> where
> (f.type_id = 219 OR
> f.type_id = 368 OR
> f.type_id = 514 OR
> f.type_id = 475 OR
> f.type_id = 426 OR
> f.type_id = 456 OR
> f.type_id = 461 OR
> f.type_id = 553 OR
> f.type_id = 89) and
> fl.srcfeature_id = 1 and
> f.feature_id = fl.feature_id and
> fl.fmin <= 2491413 and fl.fmax >= 2485521
Certainly a query of the above form would not benefit from being a union.
For readability, you could use an IN() statement rather than a bunch of ORs
... this would not help performance, but would make your query easier to
type/read.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-07-17 19:03:13 | Re: Table Partitioning and Rules |
Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2003-07-17 18:52:07 | Re: Table Partitioning and Rules |