In some cases, NOT IN is better than NOT EXISTS. In
other cases, the opposite is true.
Moral: It never pays to discount an option out of hand
- eg, NOT IN often works very very nicely for
uncorrelated subqueries
hth
connor
--- Post, Ethan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hold
the press. NOT IN
Dick,
it's a beauty thing...
Tom Mercadante
Oracle Certified Professional
-Original Message-
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:34 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Raj,
I needed a 12 pack adter this one, it's from PeopleSlop:
SELECT
Title: RE: RE: RE: CONSISTANT GETS
I've seen worse. My programmers don't know how to use NOT EXISTS even though I've explained it many times. And that's the least of my problems. Look at this mess:
SELECT *
FROM sar.pax_header_suspense_err_temp
WHERE manifest_type
.
Jared
Whittle Jerome Contr NCI [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11/15/2002 08:21 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: RE: RE: CONSISTANT GETS
I've seen worse. My programmers
Hold the press. NOT IN better than NOT EXISTS? Is this theory or fact? If
so is there any supporting evidence out there? This is the first I have
heard of this.
Thanks!
-Original Message-
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 11:35 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Jerry,
I
Hold the press. NOT IN better than NOT EXISTS?
If so is there any supporting evidence out there?
I think you're joking, but if not there's a nice comparison chart of several
tests in Harrison, p. 268.
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Greg Moore
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: RE: RE: CONSISTANT GETS
Hold the press. NOT IN better than NOT EXISTS? Is this theory or fact?
If
so is there any supporting evidence out there? This is the first I have
heard
