X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4568B9F29
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:46:53 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 33234-04
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:46:21 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mx-00.sil.at (mx-00.sil.at [62.116.68.196])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B718B9FB2
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:36:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: (qmail-ldap/ctrl 95755 invoked from network);
	16 Feb 2005 18:36:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO jupiter.sonorys.at) ([213.235.243.42])
	(envelope-sender <robert.koepferl@sonorys.at>)
	by mx-00.sil.at (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; 16 Feb 2005 18:36:40 -0000
Received: from neptun.sonorys.at (neptun.sonorys.at [172.24.1.17])
	by jupiter.sonorys.at (8.11.7+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id j1GIb6s19336
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:37:06 +0100 (MET)
Received: by neptun.sonorys.at with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <C8SL8AX8>; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:36:45 +0100
Message-ID: <ED4E30DD9C43D5118DFB00508BBBA76EB165CF@neptun.sonorys.at>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=D6PFERL_Robert?= <robert.koepferl@sonorys.at>
To: PostgreSQL SQL <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: More efficient OR
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:36:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Archive-Number: 200502/166
X-Sequence-Number: 20277

At least for between, I read that pgSQL rewrites it to a  (a<x) AND (x<b).
And my experience shows that IN is translated into a series of ORs. 
I may be wrong

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Worthington [mailto:keithw@narrowpathinc.com]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 16. Februar 2005 17:36
> To: PostgreSQL SQL
> Cc: Sean Davis; Scott Marlowe
> Subject: Re: [SQL] More efficient OR
> 
> 
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > In several of my SQL statements I have to use a WHERE clause
> > > that contains mutiple ORs.  i.e.
> > >
> > > WHERE column1 = 'A' OR
> > >       column1 = 'B' OR
> > >       column1 = 'C'
> > >
> > > Is there a more efficient SQL statement that accomplishes the
> > > same limiting functionality?
> > >
> > > Kind Regards,
> > > Keith
> > >
> >
> > Scott wrote:
> > The in() construct is (nowadays) basically the same as
> > ORing multiple columns;
> > 
> > where column1 in ('A','B','C') 
> > 
> > 
> > Sean Davis wrote
> > Could 'in' or 'between' do what you want?  I know that using 'in'
> > is equivalent to what you have below.  Could 'between' be more 
> > efficient--you could do explain analyze on various options to see 
> > what the actual plan would be.
> > 
> > Sean
> 
> Thanks Scott and Sean for the post.
> 
> It sounds like IN will save some typing and code space but 
> not decrease the
> execution time.
> 
> BETWEEN won't work for my real life query because the 
> limiting values are
> quite disparate.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Keith
> 
> ---------------------------(end of 
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> 
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>