From: | "Jaime Casanova" <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Ulrich <ulrich(dot)mierendorff(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Subquery WHERE IN or WHERE EXISTS faster? |
Date: | 2008-06-30 04:33:57 |
Message-ID: | 3073cc9b0806292133l397f0d8etef06b5bb3aba13ae@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Ulrich <ulrich(dot)mierendorff(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> People say that [EXISTS is faster]
>
> People who say that are not reliable authorities, at least as far as
> Postgres is concerned. But it is always a bad idea to extrapolate
> results on toy tables to large tables --- quite aside from measurement
> noise and caching issues, the planner might pick a different plan when
> faced with large tables. Load up a realistic amount of data and then
> see what you get.
>
i've made some queries run faster using EXISTS instead of large IN
clauses... actually, it was NOT EXISTS replacing a NOT IN
while i'm not telling EXISTS is better i actually know in some cases is better
--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. (593) 87171157
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-30 04:48:44 | Re: Subquery WHERE IN or WHERE EXISTS faster? |
Previous Message | Nimesh Satam | 2008-06-30 04:20:15 | Out of memory for Select query. |