>
> > It is not your fault. We frequently get reports of this type, and the
> > behavior of the subquery is very non-intuitive. You would think that a
> > subquery and a join would have the same performance, but because of the
> > limitation of subqueries as being nested loop joined, this is not the
> > case, and subqueries are slower. We tell people to rewrite their query
> > as EXISTS, but by the time we tell them that, they have already spent
> > much time trying to figure out why the query is so slow, and I am sure
> > many people don't even know about the EXISTS workaround.
>
> You are right: I spend some time scratching my head, then some time
> searching the mailing lists and I finally made the query with a EXISTS,
> which works great for me :) Thanks
> Can this be a candidate to include in the FAQ?
>
> On the same idea, is there any good document out there with all the SQL
> "recipes" or common practice for things like : "Give me all the rows which
> have this value in this column more than once, etc"
> I do it with:
> select my_index, count(my_index) from my_table group by my_index having
> count(my_index) > 1;
>
> But this is a common query and would be interested in knowing which is the
> commonly accepted way of doing this
New FAQ:
4.23) Why are my subqueries using IN so slow?
Currently, we join subqueries to outer queries by sequential scanning
the result of the subquery for each row of the outer query. A workaround
is to replace IN with EXISTS. For example, change:
SELECT * FROM tab WHERE col1 IN (SELECT col2 FROM TAB2)
to:
SELECT * FROM tab WHERE EXISTS (SELECT col2 FROM TAB2 WHERE col1 = col2)
We hope to fix this limitation in a future release.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
