From: | "Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)" <dba-sql(at)ultimeth(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | JOIN vs. WHERE ... IN (subselect) |
Date: | 2003-05-17 06:51:20 |
Message-ID: | 5.1.0.14.2.20030516231811.02deac70@imaps.ultimeth.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Using PostgreSQL 7.3.2 on Linux.
One of the types of queries that I like to do on our database is:
SELECT * FROM table1
WHERE indexed_column1 IN
(SELECT column2 FROM table2 WHERE <condition>);
However, in our database table1 is quite large (~1M rows), and the above query takes "forever", EVEN IF table2 CONSISTS OF ONLY ONE ROW!
However, my third-party SQL book says that the above is equivalent to:
SELECT table1.* FROM table1, table2
WHERE indexed_column1 = column2 AND <condition>;
And indeed, the above query executes virtually instantaneously if "<condition>" results in a small number of rows from table2.
I'm fairly new to SQL; are they really equivalent? If so, is there some reason that the first form is not optimized/transformed into the second form, or is this a planned enhancement?
-- Dean
ps: If indexed_column1 has the same name as column2, then the query:
SELECT table1.* from table1
JOIN table2 USING( column )
WHERE <condition>;
Also executes quickly. I just like the readability of the first query above, but as they say, you gotta do what works ...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Linstruth | 2003-05-17 14:45:59 | Re: JOIN vs. WHERE ... IN (subselect) |
Previous Message | Mike Winter | 2003-05-16 19:28:31 | Re: Efficiency Issue with "SELECT IN (..)" and "SELECT .. OR |