I'm a fan of the in statement. It's easy to construct the statement with a join (I always need quotes around my values), and my guess is that it is more efficient. There is a limit in my configuration (I think its the oracle that kills it, but it may be perl), that at about 1,000 entries, it breaks.
Tim Vorce Ford Motor Company [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Tomasi [mailto:ctomasi@;plexus.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: What's more Efficient - or/in Currently I have a Perl app that reads a config file and creates an SQL "where" clause. For legacy reasons, the clause comes out like this: where group=1001 or group=1005 or group=1017 or group=1025 I was doing some reading the other day and noticed this could be done like this: where group in (1001,1005,1017,1025) Obviously it is a shorter statement, but is it any better? Currently my app support MySQL 3.23.x and Oracle 8.1.7 which both support the "in" semantic. I could change my app, but I'd like to know if spending a few hours to reconstruct the SQL statement is worth it. --Chuck
