Re: UNION ALL has higher cost than inheritance

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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 18:10:35
Message-ID: AANLkTikkOfG7wC+Fds+zm=eVd8vHZMywwbG2j3yTOCyO@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Thanks. It also explains my another question why Merge Append cannot
>> be used for UNION ALL plans.
>
> Hmm, seems like the example you show ought to work.  I wonder if there
> was an oversight in that patch...
>

Huh, that definitely worked in the earlier versions of the patch (as
much as it "worked" at all)

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jesper Krogh 2010-10-21 18:13:24 Re: Slow count(*) again...
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-10-21 18:07:25 Exposing an installation's default value of unix_socket_directory