Re: Sorted union

> select when_stopped as when_happened,
> 1 as order_hint
> from transaction t
> where '2005-10-25 15:00:00' <= when_stopped
> and when_stopped <= '2005-10-26 10:00:00'
> union all
> select when_stopped as when_happened,
> 2 as order_hint
> from transaction t
> where '2005-10-25 15:00:00' <= when_stopped
> and when_stopped <= '2005-10-26 10:00:00'
> order by when_happened, order_hint;

hmm, try pushing the union into a subquery...this is better style
because it's kind of ambiguous if the ordering will apply before/after
the union.

select q.when from
(
select 1 as hint, start_time as when [...]
union all
select 2 as hint, end_time as when [...]
) q order by q.seq, when

question: why do you want to flatten the table...is it not easier to
work with as records?

Merlin

Merlin Moncure wrote:
> hmm, try pushing the union into a subquery...this is better style
> because it's kind of ambiguous if the ordering will apply before/after
> the union.

Seems to be a little slower. There's a new "subquery scan" step.

explain analyze
select q.when_happened from (
select when_stopped as when_happened,
1 as order_hint
from transaction t
where '2005-10-25 15:00:00' <= when_stopped
and when_stopped <= '2005-10-26 10:00:00'
union all
select when_stopped as when_happened,
2 as order_hint
from transaction t
where '2005-10-25 15:00:00' <= when_stopped
and when_stopped <= '2005-10-26 10:00:00'
) q order by when_happened, order_hint;

QUERY PLAN

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sort (cost=713013.96..721751.25 rows=3494916 width=12) (actual
time=34392.264..37237.148 rows=3364006 loops=1)
Sort Key: when_happened, order_hint
-> Subquery Scan q (cost=0.00..229474.11 rows=3494916 width=12)
(actual time=0.194..20283.452 rows=3364006 loops=1)
-> Append (cost=0.00..194524.95 rows=3494916 width=8)
(actual time=0.191..14967.632 rows=3364006 loops=1)
-> Subquery Scan "*SELECT* 1" (cost=0.00..97262.48
rows=1747458 width=8) (actual time=0.189..5535.139 rows=1682003 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using transaction_stopped on
"transaction" t (cost=0.00..79787.90 rows=1747458 width=8) (actual
time=0.186..3097.268 rows=1682003 loops=1)
Index Cond: (('2005-10-25
15:00:00'::timestamp without time zone <= when_stopped) AND
(when_stopped <= '2005-10-26 10:00:00'::timestamp without time zone))
-> Subquery Scan "*SELECT* 2" (cost=0.00..97262.48
rows=1747458 width=8) (actual time=0.173..5625.155 rows=1682003 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using transaction_stopped on
"transaction" t (cost=0.00..79787.90 rows=1747458 width=8) (actual
time=0.169..3146.714 rows=1682003 loops=1)
Index Cond: (('2005-10-25
15:00:00'::timestamp without time zone <= when_stopped) AND
(when_stopped <= '2005-10-26 10:00:00'::timestamp without time zone))
Total runtime: 39775.225 ms
(11 rows)

> question: why do you want to flatten the table...is it not easier to
> work with as records?

For most things, yes. But I'm making a bunch of different graphs from
these data, and a few of them are much easier with events. The best
example is my concurrency graph. Whenever there's a start event, it goes
up one. Whenever there's a stop event, it goes down one. It's completely
trivial once you have it separated into events.

Thanks,
Scott