First I would suggest to ignore the view and try out a query which has the required filters as part of the subqueries on both sides of the union (for both the database and partitioned parquet data). The plan for such a query should have the answers to your question. If both the subqueries independently prune out un-necessary data, using partitions or indexes, I don't think adding a union between them would alter that behavior.
-Rahul On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > IF I create a view that is a union of partitioned parquet files and a > database that has secondary indexes, will Drill be able to properly push > down query limits into both parts of the union? > > In particular, if I have lots of archival data and parquet partitioned by > time but my query only asks for recent data that is in the database, will > the query avoid the parquet files entirely (as you would wish)? > > Conversely, if the data I am asking for is entirely in the archive, will > the query make use of the partitioning on my parquet files correctly? >
