From: markus brosch <brosch@gmx.de>
To: mallah@trade-india.com
Cc: pgsql-sql <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: max length of sql select statement ?
Date: 07 Jul 2003 18:07:31 +0200
Message-ID: <1057594050.886.104.camel@sam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1101.219.65.226.199.1057593454.squirrel@mail.trade-india.com>
References: <1057592658.881.93.camel@sam>
<1101.219.65.226.199.1057593454.squirrel@mail.trade-india.com>
On Mon, 2003-07-07 at 17:57, mallah@trade-india.com wrote:
> Depending on ur original problem EXISTS or IN may be usable
> EXISTS is efficient and IN can be used efficiently in 7.4 version
> of postgresql
Could be a solution?!
The question is - how long could the IN be?
I mean, if I write something like:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE columnX IN ('a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', ... );
How long can the collection (list) within IN be? Also thousands of
elements?
And what means efficient? Goes the DB only once through the table?
Cheers, Markus
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: brosch@gmx.de, mallah@trade-india.com
Subject: Re: max length of sql select statement ?
In-Reply-To: <1057594050.886.104.camel@sam>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox