Hack around lack of CORRESPONDING BY in EXCEPT?

From: "Lucas Adamski" <ladamski(at)manageww(dot)com>
To: "Postgresql Performance Mailing list (E-mail)" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Hack around lack of CORRESPONDING BY in EXCEPT?
Date: 2003-05-07 19:11:46
Message-ID: 000301c314cc$81c4ad20$11f5ec0c@LADAMSKI
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

I'm not sure if this a performance question or a sql question really, but
since my primarily peeve here is performance, here goes:

I'm trying to write a query which takes the output of a join and shows me
only what the items that are in the main join but not in the subselect of
just one of the tables in the join, using EXCEPT.

This is a little complicated, so please bear with me.

I have two tables: an event table that logs random events as they come in,
and a tracking table that keeps a state of events it cares about. In this
particular case I'm trying to obtain a list of tracking pkeys for related
event data that do not correspond to a certain (other) set of event data.

Ideally, here is what I want:

SELECT tracking.pk,events.data1,events.data2 FROM tracking,events WHERE
tracking.event_fk = event.pk EXCEPT (SELECT events.data1,events.data2 FROM
events WHERE event.type = 10)

The problem I have of course is that I get an error regarding trying to use
different columns for the two queries in EXCEPT. I'm sure someone will
point this out, but the following suggestion will not work:

SELECT tracking.pk,events.data1,events.data2 FROM tracking,events WHERE
tracking.event_fk = event.pk EXCEPT (SELECT
tracking.pk,events.data1,events.data2 FROM tracking,events WHERE
tracking.event_fk = event.pk AND event.type = 10)

That won't work for two reasons... first, there are no matching entries in
the tracking table pointing to events where event.type = 10, meaning this
query would always return an empty set. And even if there were, I don't
want to do the join twice if its not necessary, as the events table is
liable to be very large.

The official solution to this I believe would be to just use CORRESPONDING
BY, but that's not supported by PG (why exactly, oh why!)

Suggestions, anyone? Thanks in advance,
Lucas.

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephan Szabo 2003-05-07 19:36:42 Re: Hack around lack of CORRESPONDING BY in EXCEPT?
Previous Message Achilleus Mantzios 2003-05-07 19:09:17 Re: An unresolved performance problem.