From: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "John Smith" <john_smith_45678(at)yahoo(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: IN() alternatives |
Date: | 2003-02-05 21:12:01 |
Message-ID: | D90A5A6C612A39408103E6ECDD77B8294CD8EA@voyager.corporate.connx.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Unless the subquery is correlated, you can reformulate it as a join.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Smith [mailto:john_smith_45678(at)yahoo(dot)com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 1:03 PM
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: [GENERAL] IN() alternatives
I thought I saw a doc somewhere showing alternatives to using
IN() for better performance, but can't find it :(. Are there better
performing query alternatives to this?
delete from tab1 where id in (select id2 from tab2 where ...);
Where the subquery returns 1-10K's of records.
John
_____
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus
<http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com> -
Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
<http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2003-02-05 22:00:34 | Re: not exactly a bug report, but surprising behaviour |
Previous Message | Oliver Elphick | 2003-02-05 21:07:23 | Re: [HACKERS] [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL v7.3.2 Released |