On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 09:03, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 21:49, David Rowley wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 00:43, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 12:37, Robins Tharakan wrote:
>> >> (SELECT 1 FROM pg_class) UNION (SELECT 1 FROM pg_class);
>> >> vs.
>> >>
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 21:49, David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 00:43, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 12:37, Robins Tharakan wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> When an SQL needs to UNION constants on either side, it should be
> possible to
> >> implicitly apply a LIMIT 1 and get go
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 00:43, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 12:37, Robins Tharakan wrote:
>
>>
>> When an SQL needs to UNION constants on either side, it should be possible to
>> implicitly apply a LIMIT 1 and get good speed up. Is this an incorrect
>> understanding,
>> or somethin
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 5:37 AM Robins Tharakan wrote:
> This need came up while reviewing generated SQL, where the need was to
> return true when
> at least one of two lists had a row.
>
Generated SQL... yep. That will happen. Manual SQL may be more work, but
often has significant reward.
If yo
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 12:37, Robins Tharakan wrote:
> When an SQL needs to UNION constants on either side, it should be possible
> to
> implicitly apply a LIMIT 1 and get good speed up. Is this an incorrect
> understanding,
> or something already discussed but rejected for some reason?
>
> This
Robins:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 1:37 PM Robins Tharakan wrote:
> When an SQL needs to UNION constants on either side, it should be possible to
> implicitly apply a LIMIT 1 and get good speed up. Is this an incorrect
> understanding,
> or something already discussed but rejected for some reason?
