| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)[66(dot)92(dot)219(dot)49]> |
|---|---|
| To: | Leandro Fanzone <leandro(at)hasar(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Multiple IN |
| Date: | 2001-12-11 16:30:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20011211103057.A29055@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 12:43:08PM -0300,
Leandro Fanzone <leandro(at)hasar(dot)com> wrote:
>
> When that list is long, on the one hand I suppose it won't have a good
> performance; on the other, the resultant clause is clumsy and too long.
> Is there any other (more elegant) solution for this? If the field would
> be just one, a simple IN would do better, but as far as I know there is
> no IN for multiple fields.
I am not sure if this is a new feature or just more complete documenation,
but you might want to take a look at this from the 7.2 docs:
http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/functions-subquery.html
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2001-12-11 16:37:17 | Re: Storing number '001' ? |
| Previous Message | Leandro Fanzone | 2001-12-11 15:43:08 | Multiple IN |