Hi Richard and group,
Thanks for the alternative approach. The code is certainly cleaner and easier to follow, but I do have a couple outer joins for fields #2 and #3 that could contain null values that are not captured in your example.
Also, I ran an 'explain query' and the performance differences were negligable. Any further thoughts or should I just stick with what I have and move on?
Thanks in advance.
Cheers, Jim
From: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> To: T- Bone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [SQL] Comments on subquery performance Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:15:14 +0000
T- Bone wrote:(second attempt in two days to post this message...I appologise if for some reason a duplicate appears)
Hello all,
I created a query that contains two subqueries and joins and would like some feedback on whether:
1) this approach is logical; and,
2) if this is an optimal approach (performance wise) to return the records I seek.
Well you could just do:
SELECT l.*, c1.catname, c2.catname, c3.catname FROM tbl_listing l, tbl_categories c1, tbl_categories c2, tbl_categories c3 WHERE l.catid1 = c1.catid AND l.catid2 = c2.catid AND l.catid3 = c3.catid
-- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound e-mail and attachments. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSNŽ Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
