Message-ID: <532BCF3B.3090202@free.fr>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 06:33:47 +0100
From: Jean-Max Reymond <jmreymond@free.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance of UNION vs IN
References: <532B1E05.70409@free.fr> <532B21D6.2030309@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <532B21D6.2030309@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

Le 20/03/2014 18:13, Torsten Förtsch a écrit :
> On 20/03/14 17:57, Jean-Max Reymond wrote:
>> I have a very complex view zinfoexp and running the view as:
>> SELECT * FROM zinfoexp  WHERE idmembre in (1,84)
>> take 2700 ms
>>
>> So, I try another syntax:
>> SELECT * FROM zinfoexp  WHERE idmembre = 1
>> union
>> SELECT * FROM zinfoexp  WHERE idmembre = 84
>>
>> and for me, two calls to my view takes a lot of time (may be x2) and it
>> takes 134 ms !
>
> try
>
>    SELECT * FROM zinfoexp  WHERE idmembre=1 OR idmembre=84
>
> This will probably be even faster.
>
> Also, the 2 statements of your's are not semantically equal. UNION
> implies DISTINCT, see:
>
> select * from (values (1), (1), (2)) t(i) UNION select 19;
>   i
> ----
>   19
>    1
>    2
> (3 rows)
>
> What you want is UNION ALL:
>
> select * from (values (1), (1), (2)) t(i) UNION ALL select 19;
>   i
> ----
>    1
>    1
>    2
>   19
> (4 rows)
>
>
> Torsten
>

same numbers with DISTINCT and UNION ALL (construction of VIEW does an 
implicit DISTINCT).

-- 
Jean-Max Reymond
Éruption de l'Etna: http://jmreymond.free.fr/Etna2002


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance