mes certainly, and in this case it made things much
> better...
>
> Terry Fielder
> Manager Software Development and Deployment
> Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Fax: (416) 441-9085
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL
ter...
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fax: (416) 441-9085
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Josh Berkus
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 3:00 PM
&g
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Certainly a query of the above form would not benefit from being a union.
Actually we used to have code in the planner that would automatically
transform an OR query to a UNION ALL construct (the old "ksqo" option).
It fell into disfavor, partly because it
On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 15:00, Josh Berkus wrote:
> 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, i
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.
> s
Hello,
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. Are there any rules of thumb for when this might be the
case? As an example here is a query of the type I am discussing:
select di
