Jochem van Dieten wrote:
>
> Sorry, not behind the console at the moment. Try either:
Ok :) I tried both new versions and they work great.
But ... they are not faster than the IN version. They run at exactly the
same speed.
Another thing is that the IN query and yours don't seem to be so
dependent on the DB having been vacuum analyzed while the query with the
EXISTS does (it goes from 15 secs to 5secs after vacuuming)
I guess using IN in this case is not making the query slow.
In case it's important the table contains 16800 rows and returns 300
matches.
I'll be sticking with my IN query ...
Jc
