Hi Igor,
On Nov 12, 2011 11:45 AM, Igor Tandetnik itandet...@mvps.org wrote:
This query doesn't make much sense. It appears that quite a few
conditions are redundant, or else the parentheses are in the wrong places.
What logic were you trying to express here?
Sorry, I tried to simplify it as
On 12-11-2011 03:43, Igor Tandetnik wrote:
On 11/11/2011 9:24 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Here is a simplified version of the statement I try to run (let a, b,
and m be tables with only one column named c containing integers):
SELECT * FROM m WHERE
c IN (SELECT * FROM a) OR
c IN
On 12-11-2011 12:12, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Hi Igor,
On Nov 12, 2011 11:45 AM, Igor Tandetnik itandet...@mvps.org wrote:
This query doesn't make much sense. It appears that quite a few
conditions are redundant, or else the parentheses are in the wrong places.
What logic were you trying to
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Luuk luu...@gmail.com wrote:
Should give same results as:
SELECT * FROM m WHERE
c IN (SELECT * FROM a) OR
c IN (SELECT * FROM b)
AND (c IN (SELECT * FROM b));
Because of the 'OR' on the second line
This can be simplified to:
SELECT * FROM m
Why are you contorting yourself into just one query?
Your last clause would be a complete table scan seems to me. Sounds slow
versus 2 queries.
Why can't you just do this? (pseudo code here) -- no table scans involved at
all.
select docid from b where t match 'blah';
if (rowcount 0) // the
Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Hi everybody,
Here is a simplified version of the statement I try to run (let a, b,
and m be tables with only one column named c containing integers):
SELECT * FROM m WHERE
c IN (SELECT * FROM a) OR
c IN (SELECT * FROM b)
AND (NOT c IN (SELECT * FROM a)
On 12-11-2011 19:13, Darren Duncan wrote:
Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Hi everybody,
Here is a simplified version of the statement I try to run (let a, b,
and m be tables with only one column named c containing integers):
SELECT * FROM m WHERE
c IN (SELECT * FROM a) OR
c IN (SELECT *
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Black, Michael (IS)
michael.bla...@ngc.com wrote:
Why are you contorting yourself into just one query?
It is actually part of a larger query that joins against this result.
Granted, there are ways to workaround this, but I would be surprised
if it was not
On 13 Nov 2011, at 1:47am, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Black, Michael (IS)
michael.bla...@ngc.com wrote:
Why are you contorting yourself into just one query?
It is actually part of a larger query that joins against this result.
Granted, there are ways to
Hi everybody,
Here is a simplified version of the statement I try to run (let a, b,
and m be tables with only one column named c containing integers):
SELECT * FROM m WHERE
c IN (SELECT * FROM a) OR
c IN (SELECT * FROM b)
AND (NOT c IN (SELECT * FROM a)
OR c IN (SELECT *
I know this could be done more easily, but I have to keep this
structure (i.e. cannot JOIN for instance). My question is, how could I
avoid repeating the subqueries after the AND NOT, since they will
return the same set as the previous ones?
With your restriction on query structure you cannot
On 11/11/2011 9:24 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Here is a simplified version of the statement I try to run (let a, b,
and m be tables with only one column named c containing integers):
SELECT * FROM m WHERE
c IN (SELECT * FROM a) OR
c IN (SELECT * FROM b)
AND (NOT c IN (SELECT *
12 matches
Mail list logo
