This would be acceptable to both PG and MS databases:
select p.*
from purchasemaster as p inner join itemmaster as i on p.transactionid =
i.transactionid
where i.itempriority = 2;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Berkus [SMTP:josh@agliodbs.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 10:03 AM
> To: Kapil Tilwani; pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
> Subject: Evaluating Subselects
>
> Kapil,
>
> > I have a query like
> > select * from purchasemaster where transactionid in (select
> > transactionid from itemmaster where itempriority = 2)
>
> That's a fine query. You could even take it to meet your relatives.
> :-)
>
> > ****I need this query for MS-Access, MS-SQL and Postgres. Because
> > the application is supposed to be such that for upto 2-3 users, the
> > application would be running on MS-Access or MSDE, while for heavier
> > databases i.e., greater than 4 , the ideal database would be Postgres
>
> 1. Why? In what way is MS Access or MSDE better for a 2-3 user
> database? You may wish to re-evaluate your development strategy.
>
> 2. You're into a world of hurt, my friend. MSDE has a number of SQL
> compliance lapses; MS Access is not SQL92 compliant at all, except for
> the simplest SELECT queries. (I say this as someone who gets paid to
> develop MS Access/VB)
>
> > Only the problem is ... (correct me if i am wrong, PLEEEEEEEEEEEASE)
> > that for each tuple in purchasemaster the sub-query is re-evaluated
> > (True or False????). What I am looking at is whether it is possible
> > to execute the query in the sub-query just once, get its value as in
> > "(1,2,5,23,7,90)", etc. in place of the sub-query and accordingly,
> > execute the main query.
>
> Depends on which database you're talking about. PostgreSQL, and, in
> theory, MSDE, will only evaluate the IN() expression once (it's
> correlated sub-selects that get evaluated multiple times -- and you
> can't do these in Access at all).
>
> Access, however, lacks a temporary table space. SInce it has to
> evaluate the sub-select entirely in RAM, it evaluates it for every row
> in the main table, unless both tables are quite small. As a result,
> IN() queries run like molasses in Access. And Access doesn't support
> any alternate subselect structures at all.
>
> This does bring up an interesting question for Tom and Stephan:
>
> Which is more efficient, under what circumstances?
>
> 1. SELECT a.* FROM a WHERE a.1 IN (SELECT b.1 FROM b WHERE b.2 = 0);
>
> 2. SELECT a.* FROM a WHERE EXISTS (
> SELECT b.1 FROM b WHERE b.2 = 0 AND b.1 = a.1);
>
> 3. SELECT a.* FROM a JOIN
> (SELECT b.1 FROM b WHERE b.2 = 0) sub_b
> ON a.1 = sub_b.1;
>
> I do a lot of #3 because it's easier to return calculated expressions
> from the sub-query that way, but am I shooting myself in the foot,
> performance-wise?
>
> -Josh Berkus
>
> P.S. Kapil, you might want to consider buying O'Reilly's "SQL in a
> Nutshell" for cross-platform SQL comparisons.
>
> ______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________
> Josh Berkus
> Complete information technology josh@agliodbs.com
> and data management solutions (415) 565-7293
> for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533
> and non-profit organizations. San Francisco
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
