What is the difference between UNION
and UNION ALL
?
19 Answers
UNION
removes duplicate rows (where all columns in the results are the same), UNION ALL
does not.
There is a performance hit when using UNION
instead of UNION ALL
, since the database server must do additional work to remove the duplicate rows, but usually you do not want the duplicates (especially when developing reports).
To identify duplicates, rows must be comparable types as well as compatible types. This will depend on the SQL system. For example the system may truncate all long text columns to make short text columns for comparison (MS Jet), or may refuse to compare binary columns (ORACLE)
UNION Example:
SELECT 'foo' AS bar
UNION
SELECT 'foo' AS bar
Result:
+-----+
| bar |
+-----+
| foo |
+-----+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
UNION ALL example:
SELECT 'foo' AS bar
UNION ALL
SELECT 'foo' AS bar
Result:
+-----+
| bar |
+-----+
| foo |
| foo |
+-----+
2 rows in set (0.00 sec)
-
218The implication of this, is that union is much less performant as it must scan the result for duplicates Sep 8, 2008 at 23:55
-
9Just noticed that there are a lot of good comments/answers here, so I turned on the wiki flag and added a note about performance... Jul 13, 2011 at 13:16
-
305UNION ALL can be slower than UNION in real-world cases where the network such as the internet, is a bottleneck. The cost of transferring many duplicate rows can exceed the query execution time benefit. This has to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Apr 4, 2012 at 22:38
Both UNION and UNION ALL concatenate the result of two different SQLs. They differ in the way they handle duplicates.
UNION performs a DISTINCT on the result set, eliminating any duplicate rows.
UNION ALL does not remove duplicates, and it therefore faster than UNION.
Note: While using this commands all selected columns need to be of the same data type.
Example: If we have two tables, 1) Employee and 2) Customer
- Employee table data:
- Customer table data:
- UNION Example (It removes all duplicate records):
- UNION ALL Example (It just concatenate records, not eliminate duplicates, so it is faster than UNION):
-
4"all selected columns need to be of the same data type" -- actually, things aren't that strict (not a good thing from a relational model point of view!). The SQL standard says their respective column descriptor must be the same except in name. Dec 5, 2016 at 9:13
-
1@onedaywhen What's an example where data types are different but column descriptors are the same? Feb 12 at 19:10
UNION
removes duplicates, whereas UNION ALL
does not.
In order to remove duplicates the result set must be sorted, and this may have an impact on the performance of the UNION, depending on the volume of data being sorted, and the settings of various RDBMS parameters ( For Oracle PGA_AGGREGATE_TARGET
with WORKAREA_SIZE_POLICY=AUTO
or SORT_AREA_SIZE
and SOR_AREA_RETAINED_SIZE
if WORKAREA_SIZE_POLICY=MANUAL
).
Basically, the sort is faster if it can be carried out in memory, but the same caveat about the volume of data applies.
Of course, if you need data returned without duplicates then you must use UNION, depending on the source of your data.
I would have commented on the first post to qualify the "is much less performant" comment, but have insufficient reputation (points) to do so.
-
2"In order to remove duplicates the result set must be sorted" -- maybe you have a particular vendor in mind but there are no vendor-specific tags on the question. Even if there was, could you prove that duplicates cannot be removed without sorting? Dec 5, 2016 at 8:51
-
6distinct will "implicitly" sort the results, because removing duplicates is quicker on a sorted set. this does not mean the returned resultset is actually sorted that way, but in most cases distinct (and therefore, UNION) will internally sort the set of results. Oct 25, 2017 at 8:01
In ORACLE: UNION does not support BLOB (or CLOB) column types, UNION ALL does.
-
1
The basic difference between UNION and UNION ALL is union operation eliminates the duplicated rows from the result set, but union all returns all rows including duplicate rows after joining.
-
1Unfortunately the Linked wordpress.com article does not seem to be available anymore. Oops! That page can’t be found Do you have an alternative URL by chance, George? Apr 15, 2022 at 9:35
UNION
The UNION
command is used to select related information from two tables, much like the JOIN
command. However, when using the UNION
command all selected columns need to be of the same data type. With UNION
, only distinct values are selected.
UNION ALL
The UNION ALL
command is equal to the UNION
command, except that UNION ALL
selects all values.
The difference between Union
and Union all
is that Union all
will not eliminate duplicate rows, instead it just pulls all rows from all tables fitting your query specifics and combines them into a table.
A UNION
statement effectively does a SELECT DISTINCT
on the results set. If you know that all the records returned are unique from your union, use UNION ALL
instead, it gives faster results.
You can avoid duplicates and still run much faster than UNION DISTINCT (which is actually same as UNION) by running query like this:
SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE a=X UNION ALL SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE b=Y AND a!=X
Notice the AND a!=X
part. This is much faster then UNION.
-
8This will omit rows and therefore fail to produce the expected result if a contains NULL values. Also, it still does not return the same result as a
UNION
-UNION
also removes duplicates that are returned by the subqueries, whereas your approach won't. Sep 19, 2017 at 6:57 -
@FrankSchmitt - thanks for this answer; this bit about subqueries is exactly what I wanted to know!– DoradusMar 15, 2018 at 22:55
Just to add my two cents to the discussion here: one could understand the UNION
operator as a pure, SET-oriented UNION - e.g. set A={2,4,6,8}, set B={1,2,3,4}, A UNION B = {1,2,3,4,6,8}
When dealing with sets, you would not want numbers 2 and 4 appearing twice, as an element either is or is not in a set.
In the world of SQL, though, you might want to see all the elements from the two sets together in one "bag" {2,4,6,8,1,2,3,4}. And for this purpose T-SQL offers the operator UNION ALL
.
-
3Nitpick:
UNION ALL
isn't "offered" by T-SQL.UNION ALL
is part of the ANSI SQL standard and not specific to MS SQL Server. Jun 22, 2017 at 7:08 -
3The 'Nitpick' comment could imply that you can't use "Union All" in TSQL, but you can. Of course, the comment doesn't say that, but someone reading it may infer it. Oct 24, 2018 at 19:41
-
I really like the math-oriented discussion of this answer, by the way! Dec 14, 2022 at 13:51
UNION - results in distinct records
while
UNION ALL - results in all the records including duplicates.
Both are blocking operators and hence I personally prefer using JOINS over Blocking Operators(UNION, INTERSECT, UNION ALL etc. ) anytime.
To illustrate why Union operation performs poorly in comparison to Union All checkout the following example.
CREATE TABLE #T1 (data VARCHAR(10))
INSERT INTO #T1
SELECT 'abc'
UNION ALL
SELECT 'bcd'
UNION ALL
SELECT 'cde'
UNION ALL
SELECT 'def'
UNION ALL
SELECT 'efg'
CREATE TABLE #T2 (data VARCHAR(10))
INSERT INTO #T2
SELECT 'abc'
UNION ALL
SELECT 'cde'
UNION ALL
SELECT 'efg'
Following are results of UNION ALL and UNION operations.
A UNION statement effectively does a SELECT DISTINCT on the results set. If you know that all the records returned are unique from your union, use UNION ALL instead, it gives faster results.
Using UNION results in Distinct Sort operations in the Execution Plan. Proof to prove this statement is shown below:
-
3Everything in this answer has been said already, is too confusing to be useful (suggesting joins over unions when they do different things, giving "blocking" as a reason without explaining what you mean by that or which database servers it applies to), or is highly misleading (your percentages in your screenshot are not applicable to real actual use of
UNION
/UNION ALL
).– user743382Jun 21, 2016 at 17:30 -
Blocking Operators are well known operators in TSQL. Everything that blocking operators do can be achieved by Joins but not vice versa. Distinct Sort operation is circled in the picture to show why union all performs better than union and also to show exactly where it exists in the execution plan. Feel free to add more data to the tables T1 and T2 to play around with the percentages!– DBAJun 21, 2016 at 18:20
-
You technically CAN produce the results of a
union
using a combination ofjoin
s and some really nastycase
s, but it makes the query darn-near impossible to read and maintain, and in my experience it is also terrible for performance. Compare:select foo.bar from foo union select fizz.buzz from fizz
againstselect case when foo.bar is null then fizz.buzz else foo.bar end from foo join fizz where foo.bar is null or fizz.buzz is null
Oct 17, 2016 at 22:22 -
1@DBA Your answer is only relevant for users of MS SQL Server. The OP never mentioned the RDBMS they're using - they might be using MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, SQLite, ... Jun 22, 2017 at 7:15
Not sure that it matters which database
UNION
and UNION ALL
should work on all SQL Servers.
You should avoid of unnecessary UNION
s they are huge performance leak. As a rule of thumb use UNION ALL
if you are not sure which to use.
-
1There is no SQL Server tag on this question. I think the option that returns duplicates just because it usual perform best is the wrong advice. Dec 5, 2016 at 9:02
-
3@onedaywhen I guess the OP used the phrase "SQL Servers" as a synonym for all RDBMSs (e.g. MySQL, PostGreSQL, Oracle, SQL Server). The wording is unfortunate, though (and of course, I might be mistaken). Jun 22, 2017 at 7:05
-
1@FrankSchmitt: none of the products you listed are truly RDBMSs :) Sep 14, 2017 at 10:35
-
2@onedaywhen care to elaborate? At least en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_database_management_system seems to agree with me - it explicitly mentions Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle Database and MySQL. Or are you nitpicky about the difference between Oracle and Oracle Database e.g. ? Sep 14, 2017 at 13:00
-
1@FrankSchmitt, to me it's just like Windows rather being holes in walls of houses and not so much an M$ Operating System. "Opinion-based" of course :) Apr 15, 2022 at 9:44
(From Microsoft SQL Server Book Online)
UNION [ALL]
Specifies that multiple result sets are to be combined and returned as a single result set.
ALL
Incorporates all rows into the results. This includes duplicates. If not specified, duplicate rows are removed.
UNION
will take too long as a duplicate rows finding like DISTINCT
is applied on the results.
SELECT * FROM Table1
UNION
SELECT * FROM Table2
is equivalent of:
SELECT DISTINCT * FROM (
SELECT * FROM Table1
UNION ALL
SELECT * FROM Table2) DT
A side effect of applying
DISTINCT
over results is a sorting operation on results.
UNION ALL
results will be shown as arbitrary order on results But UNION
results will be shown as ORDER BY 1, 2, 3, ..., n (n = column number of Tables)
applied on results. You can see this side effect when you don't have any duplicate row.
I add an example,
UNION, it is merging with distinct --> slower, because it need comparing (In Oracle SQL developer, choose query, press F10 to see cost analysis).
UNION ALL, it is merging without distinct --> faster.
SELECT to_date(sysdate, 'yyyy-mm-dd') FROM dual
UNION
SELECT to_date(sysdate, 'yyyy-mm-dd') FROM dual;
and
SELECT to_date(sysdate, 'yyyy-mm-dd') FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT to_date(sysdate, 'yyyy-mm-dd') FROM dual;
UNION
merges the contents of two structurally-compatible tables into a single combined table.
- Difference:
The difference between UNION
and UNION ALL
is that UNION will
omit duplicate records whereas UNION ALL
will include duplicate records.
Union
Result set is sorted in ascending order whereas UNION ALL
Result set is not sorted
UNION
performs a DISTINCT
on its Result set so it will eliminate any duplicate rows. Whereas UNION ALL
won't remove duplicates and therefore it is faster than UNION
.*
Note: The performance of UNION ALL
will typically be better than UNION
, since UNION
requires the server to do the additional work of removing any duplicates. So, in cases where it is certain that there will not be any duplicates, or where having duplicates is not a problem, use of UNION ALL
would be recommended for performance reasons.
-
1"Union Result set is sorted in ascending order" -- Unless there is an
ORDER BY
, sorted results are not guaranteed. Maybe you have a particular SQL vendor in mind (even then, ascending order what exactly...?) but this question has no vendor=specific tags. Dec 5, 2016 at 8:49 -
"merges the contents of two structurally-compatible tables" -- I think you've stated this part really well :) Dec 5, 2016 at 9:19
Suppose that you have two table Teacher & Student
Both have 4 Column with different Name like this
Teacher - ID(int), Name(varchar(50)), Address(varchar(50)), PositionID(varchar(50))
Student- ID(int), Name(varchar(50)), Email(varchar(50)), PositionID(int)
You can apply UNION or UNION ALL for those two table which have same number of columns. But they have different name or data type.
When you apply UNION
operation on 2 tables, it neglects all duplicate entries(all columns value of row in a table is same of another table). Like this
SELECT * FROM Student
UNION
SELECT * FROM Teacher
the result will be
When you apply UNION ALL
operation on 2 tables, it returns all entries with duplicate(if there is any difference between any column value of a row in 2 tables). Like this
SELECT * FROM Student
UNION ALL
SELECT * FROM Teacher
Performance:
Obviously UNION ALL performance is better that UNION as they do additional task to remove the duplicate values. You can check that from Execution Estimated Time by press ctrl+L at MSSQL
-
Really? For a four-row result?! I would think this is a scenario where you would want to use
UNION
to convey intent (i.e. no duplicates) becauseUNION ALL
is unlikely to given any real life performance gain in absolute terms. Dec 5, 2016 at 9:18
UNION removes duplicate records in other hand UNION ALL does not. But one need to check the bulk of data that is going to be processed and the column and data type must be same.
since union internally uses "distinct" behavior to select the rows hence it is more costly in terms of time and performance. like
select project_id from t_project
union
select project_id from t_project_contact
this gives me 2020 records
on other hand
select project_id from t_project
union all
select project_id from t_project_contact
gives me more than 17402 rows
on precedence perspective both has same precedence.
If there is no ORDER BY
, a UNION ALL
may bring rows back as it goes, whereas a UNION
would make you wait until the very end of the query before giving you the whole result set at once. This can make a difference in a time-out situation - a UNION ALL
keeps the connection alive, as it were.
So if you have a time-out issue, and there's no sorting, and duplicates aren't an issue, UNION ALL
may be rather helpful.
-
But your first chunk of results could be one row duplicated many times: how useful is that?! Dec 5, 2016 at 9:21
One more thing i would like to add-
Union:- Result set is sorted in ascending order.
Union All:- Result set is not sorted. two Query output just gets appended.
-
-
10This is wrong. A
UNION
will NOT sort the result in ascending order. Any ordering you see in a result without usingorder by
is pure coincidence. The DBMS is free to use any strategy it thinks is efficient to remove the duplicates. This might be sorting, but it could also be a hashing algorithm or something entirely different - and the strategy will change with the number of rows. Aunion
that appears sorted with 100 rows might not be with 100.000 rows– user330315Apr 27, 2016 at 6:12 -
5Without an ORDER BY clause on the query, the RDBMS is free to return the rows in any sequence. The observation that the result set from a UNION operation is returned "in ascending order" is only a byproduct of a "sort unique" operation performed by the database. The behavior observed is not guaranteed. So don't rely on it. If the specification is to return rows in a particular order, then add an appropriate
ORDER BY
clause. Oct 12, 2016 at 21:56
Important! Difference between Oracle and Mysql: Let's say that t1 t2 don't have duplicate rows between them but they have duplicate rows individual. Example: t1 has sales from 2017 and t2 from 2018
SELECT T1.YEAR, T1.PRODUCT FROM T1
UNION ALL
SELECT T2.YEAR, T2.PRODUCT FROM T2
In ORACLE UNION ALL fetches all rows from both tables. The same will occur in MySQL.
However:
SELECT T1.YEAR, T1.PRODUCT FROM T1
UNION
SELECT T2.YEAR, T2.PRODUCT FROM T2
In ORACLE, UNION fetches all rows from both tables because there are no duplicate values between t1 and t2. On the other hand in MySQL the resultset will have fewer rows because there will be duplicate rows within table t1 and also within table t2!
-
1This is wrong.
x union y
isselect distinct * from (x union all y)
.select 1 from dual union select 1 from dual
&(select 1 from dual union all select 1 from dual) union select 1 from dual
both return 1 row. PS I don't know whether by t1 & t2 you mean T1 & T1, but what matters is what's in the selects. PS For the UNION (distinct) example you don't clearly say, in terms of duplicates, what is input & for each DBMS what it returns or why. Use enough words & sentences & references to parts of examples to be clear.– philipxyFeb 24, 2021 at 13:59
UNION ALL
also works on more data types as well. For example when trying to union spatial data types. For example:
select a.SHAPE from tableA a
union
select b.SHAPE from tableB b
will throw
The data type geometry cannot be used as an operand to the UNION, INTERSECT or EXCEPT operators because it is not comparable.
However union all
will not.