From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Scott Cain <cain@cshl.org>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: OR vs UNION
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:00:18 -0700
Message-ID: <200307171200.18626.josh@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1058465506.3345.15.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1058465506.3345.15.camel@localhost.localdomain>
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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, cain@cshl.org
Subject: Re: OR vs UNION
In-Reply-To: <200307171200.18626.josh@agliodbs.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox