From: | <mallah(at)trade-india(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <brosch(at)gmx(dot)de> |
Cc: | <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: max length of sql select statement ? |
Date: | 2003-07-07 16:13:45 |
Message-ID: | 1134.219.65.226.199.1057594425.squirrel@mail.trade-india.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
> On Mon, 2003-07-07 at 17:57, mallah(at)trade-india(dot)com wrote:
>> Depending on ur original problem EXISTS or IN may be usable
>> EXISTS is efficient and IN can be used efficiently in 7.4 version of
>> postgresql
>
> Could be a solution?!
> The question is - how long could the IN be?
>
> I mean, if I write something like:
> SELECT * FROM table WHERE columnX IN ('a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', ... );
> How long can the collection (list) within IN be? Also thousands of
> elements?
Well i DO NOT know the exact limit.
May be someone else can answer it accurately.
But you could produce the list within IN using a subselect
that again depends on the exact problem.
regds
Mallah.
>
> And what means efficient? Goes the DB only once through the table?
>
> Cheers, Markus
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists
> at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
-----------------------------------------
Get your free web based email at trade-india.com.
"India's Leading B2B eMarketplace.!"
http://www.trade-india.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | markus brosch | 2003-07-07 16:20:20 | Re: max length of sql select statement ? |
Previous Message | markus brosch | 2003-07-07 16:07:31 | Re: max length of sql select statement ? |