Message-ID: <1134.219.65.226.199.1057594425.squirrel@mail.trade-india.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:43:45 +0530 (IST)
Subject: Re: max length of sql select statement ?
From: <mallah@trade-india.com>
To: <brosch@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <1057594050.886.104.camel@sam>
References: <1057592658.881.93.camel@sam>
	<1101.219.65.226.199.1057593454.squirrel@mail.trade-india.com>
	<1057594050.886.104.camel@sam>
Importance: Normal
Cc: <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

> 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?


Well i DO NOT know the exact limit.
May be someone else can answer it accurately.

But you could  produce the list within IN using a subselect
that again depends on the exact problem.

regds
Mallah.


>
> And what means efficient? Goes the DB only once through the table?
>
> Cheers, Markus
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists
> at once with the unregister command
>    (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)


-----------------------------------------
Get your free web based email at trade-india.com.
   "India's Leading B2B eMarketplace.!"
http://www.trade-india.com/