On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 20:29, Corey Edwards wrote: > On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 19:14, Daniel Crookston wrote: > > Ewww, sub-selects. Not a very efficient use of the DB, is it? I was under > > the impression that it's just as fast (with MySQL at least) to just do the > > sub-select yourself in the code instead of relying on the database to do it. > > That sounds like a dubious claim to me. I'd be interested in some hard > numbers to back it up. I can't see how adding network latency, memory > copies and data transfer can possibly speed up an algorithm. Well I can, > but this is hardly [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Fact is sometimes subselects are an appropriate construct and a query > will benefit from a server which supports them.
More importantly (IMHO) subselects are a more elegant way to express your query. It's probably true that you can convert almost any subselect to a left outer join, but that's just not an elegant way to do it, nor is it intuitive. BTW: If any subselect can be expressed as a join why can't the DB server just do that conversion for me? ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
