| From: | Mathieu De Zutter <mathieu(at)dezutter(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Brad Jorsch <programmer(at)protech1inc(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: UNION ALL and sequential scans |
| Date: | 2009-05-14 15:10:29 |
| Message-ID: | d4468d970905140810j2b15ce9eq736ef479ae6b02f0@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Brad Jorsch" <programmer(at)protech1inc(dot)com> writes:
>> But if I add a constant-valued column to indicate which branch of the
>> union each result came from:
>
>> explain analyze select * from baz join (
>> select id, val, 'foo'::text as source from foo
>> union all
>> select id, val, 'bar'::text as source from bar
>> ) as foobar on(baz.id2=foobar.id) where baz.id1=42;
>
>> All of a sudden it insists on a sequential scan (and takes 800 times as
>> long to run) even when enable_seqscan is set false. Is there a good
>> reason for this, or is it just a missed opportunity in the optimizer?
>
> It's an ancient and fundamental limitation that is fixed in 8.4.
> Do not expect to see it fixed in 8.3.x.
Does this also apply to the case of a join on an inherited table ?
example: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2003-10/msg00018.php
Kind regards,
Mathieu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-14 15:20:33 | Re: UNION ALL and sequential scans |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-14 14:52:47 | Re: UNION ALL and sequential scans |