Also what will be the scenarios where this query is used
select * from TableA where exists
(select null from TableB where TableB.Col1=TableA.Col1)
As the query is in an EXISTS then you can return anything. It is not even evaluated.
In fact, you can replace the null with (1/0) and it will not even produce a divide by zero error.
The NULL makes no sense. It's simply bad SQL.
The exists clause is supposed to use SELECT *.
People make up stories about the cost of SELECT *. They claim it does an "extra" metadata query. It doesn't. They claim it's a "macro expansion" and requires lots of extra parse time. It doesn't.
The EXISTS condition is considered "to be met" if the subquery returns at least one row.
The syntax for the EXISTS condition is:
SELECT columns
FROM tables
WHERE EXISTS ( subquery );
Please note that "Select Null from mytable" will return number of rows in mytable but all will contain only one column with null in the cell as the requirement of outer query is just to check whether any row fall in the given given condition like in your case it is "TableB.Col1=TableA.Col1"
you can change null to 1, 0 or any column name available in the table. 1/0 may not be a good idea :)
It's a tacky way of selecting all records in TableA, which have a matching record (Col1=Col1) in TableB. They might equally well have selected '1', or '*', for instance.
A more human-readable way of achieving the same would be
SELECT * FROM TableA WHERE Col1 IN ( SELECT Col1 IN TableB )
Please, please, all ....
EXISTS returns a BOOLEAN i.e. TRUE or FALSE. If the result set is non empty then return TRUE. Correlation of the sub-query is important as in the case above.
i.e Give me all the rows in A where AT LEAST one col1 exists in B.
It does not matter what is in the select list. Its just a matter of style.
Want to improve this post? Provide detailed answers to this question, including citations and an explanation of why your answer is correct. Answers without enough detail may be edited or deleted.
I'm using a stored procedure in MySQL, with a CASE statement.
In the ELSE clause of the CASE ( equivalent to default: ) I want to select and return an empty result set, thus avoiding to throw an SQL error by not handling the ELSE case, and instead return an empty result set as if a regular query would have returned no rows.
So far I've managed to do so using something like:
Select NULL From users Where False
But I have to name an existing table, like 'users' in this example.
It works, but I would prefer a way that doesn't break if eventually the table name used is renamed or dropped.
I've tried Select NULL Where False but it doesn't work.
Using Select NULL does not return an empty set, but one row with a column named NULL and with a NULL value.
There's a dummy-table in MySQL called 'dual', which you should be able to use.
select
1
from
dual
where
false
This will always give you an empty result.
This should work on most DBs, tested on Postgres and Netezza:
SELECT NULL LIMIT 0;
T-SQL (MSSQL):
SELECT Top 0 1;
How about
SELECT * FROM (SELECT 1) AS TBL WHERE 2=3
Checked in myphp, and it also works in sqlite and probably in any other db engine.
This will probably work across all databases.
SELECT * FROM (SELECT NULL AS col0) AS inner0 WHERE col0 IS NOT NULL;
SELECT TOP 0 * FROM [dbo].[TableName]
This is a reasonable approach to constant scan operator.
SELECT NULL WHERE FALSE;
it works in postgresql ,mysql, subquery in mysql.
How about this?
SELECT 'MyName' AS EmptyColumn
FROM dual
WHERE 'Me' = 'Funny'
SELECT * FROM (SELECT NULL) WHERE 0
In PostgreSQL a simple
SELECT;
works. You won't even get any columns labeled 'unknown'.
Note however, it still says 1 row retrieved.
I want to check if there are any records in a table for a certain entry. I used COUNT(*) to check the number of records and got it to work. However, when the number of records for an entry is very high, my page loads slowly.
I guess COUNT(*) is causing the problem, but how do I check if the records exist without using it? I only want to check whether any records exist for the entry and then execute some code. Please help me find an alternative solution for this.
Thanks for any help.
There are several ways that may work. You can use exists, which lets the database optimise the method to get the answer:
if exists(select * from ...)
You can use top 1 so that the database can stop after finding the first match:
if (select count(*) from (select top 1 * from ...)) > 0
use select top 1 and check is there is an row
You can try selecting the first entry for given condition.
SELECT id FROM table WHERE <condition> LIMIT 1
I'm not sure if this will be quicker but you can try.
Other possible solution. How do you use count? COUNT(*)? If yes, then try using COUNT(id). As I remember this should be faster.
I would recommend testing to see if at least 1 record exists in the table, that meets your criteria then continue accordingly. For example:
IF EXISTS
(
SELECT TOP 1 Table_Name --Or Your ColumnName
FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.Tables -- Or your TableName
)
BEGIN
PRINT 'At least one record exists in table'
END
I found this on codeproject. It's quite handy.
-- Author,,Md. Marufuzzaman
SELECT SYS_OBJ.NAME AS "TABLE NAME"
, SYS_INDX.ROWCNT AS "ROW COUNT"
FROM SYSOBJECTS SYS_OBJ, SYSINDEXES SYS_INDX
WHERE SYS_INDX.ID = SYS_OBJ.ID
AND INDID IN(0,1) --This specifies 'user' databases only
AND XTYPE = 'U' --This omits the diagrams table of the database
--You may find other system tables will need to be ommitted,
AND SYS_OBJ.NAME <> 'SYSDIAGRAMS'
ORDER BY SYS_INDX.rowcnt DESC --I found it more useful to display
--The following line adds up all the rowcount results and places
--the final result into a separate column [below the first resulting table]
COMPUTE SUM(SYS_INDX.ROWCNT)
GO
you should use
select count(1) from
If you are saying (*) it will expand all the column's and then count
What is the difference between the EXISTS and IN clause in SQL?
When should we use EXISTS, and when should we use IN?
The exists keyword can be used in that way, but really it's intended as a way to avoid counting:
--this statement needs to check the entire table
select count(*) from [table] where ...
--this statement is true as soon as one match is found
exists ( select * from [table] where ... )
This is most useful where you have if conditional statements, as exists can be a lot quicker than count.
The in is best used where you have a static list to pass:
select * from [table]
where [field] in (1, 2, 3)
When you have a table in an in statement it makes more sense to use a join, but mostly it shouldn't matter. The query optimiser should return the same plan either way. In some implementations (mostly older, such as Microsoft SQL Server 2000) in queries will always get a nested join plan, while join queries will use nested, merge or hash as appropriate. More modern implementations are smarter and can adjust the plan even when in is used.
EXISTS will tell you whether a query returned any results. e.g.:
SELECT *
FROM Orders o
WHERE EXISTS (
SELECT *
FROM Products p
WHERE p.ProductNumber = o.ProductNumber)
IN is used to compare one value to several, and can use literal values, like this:
SELECT *
FROM Orders
WHERE ProductNumber IN (1, 10, 100)
You can also use query results with the IN clause, like this:
SELECT *
FROM Orders
WHERE ProductNumber IN (
SELECT ProductNumber
FROM Products
WHERE ProductInventoryQuantity > 0)
Based on rule optimizer:
EXISTS is much faster than IN, when the sub-query results is very large.
IN is faster than EXISTS, when the sub-query results is very small.
Based on cost optimizer:
There is no difference.
I'm assuming you know what they do, and thus are used differently, so I'm going to understand your question as: When would it be a good idea to rewrite the SQL to use IN instead of EXISTS, or vice versa.
Is that a fair assumption?
Edit: The reason I'm asking is that in many cases you can rewrite an SQL based on IN to use an EXISTS instead, and vice versa, and for some database engines, the query optimizer will treat the two differently.
For instance:
SELECT *
FROM Customers
WHERE EXISTS (
SELECT *
FROM Orders
WHERE Orders.CustomerID = Customers.ID
)
can be rewritten to:
SELECT *
FROM Customers
WHERE ID IN (
SELECT CustomerID
FROM Orders
)
or with a join:
SELECT Customers.*
FROM Customers
INNER JOIN Orders ON Customers.ID = Orders.CustomerID
So my question still stands, is the original poster wondering about what IN and EXISTS does, and thus how to use it, or does he ask wether rewriting an SQL using IN to use EXISTS instead, or vice versa, will be a good idea?
EXISTS is much faster than IN when the subquery results is very large.
IN is faster than EXISTS when the subquery results is very small.
CREATE TABLE t1 (id INT, title VARCHAR(20), someIntCol INT)
GO
CREATE TABLE t2 (id INT, t1Id INT, someData VARCHAR(20))
GO
INSERT INTO t1
SELECT 1, 'title 1', 5 UNION ALL
SELECT 2, 'title 2', 5 UNION ALL
SELECT 3, 'title 3', 5 UNION ALL
SELECT 4, 'title 4', 5 UNION ALL
SELECT null, 'title 5', 5 UNION ALL
SELECT null, 'title 6', 5
INSERT INTO t2
SELECT 1, 1, 'data 1' UNION ALL
SELECT 2, 1, 'data 2' UNION ALL
SELECT 3, 2, 'data 3' UNION ALL
SELECT 4, 3, 'data 4' UNION ALL
SELECT 5, 3, 'data 5' UNION ALL
SELECT 6, 3, 'data 6' UNION ALL
SELECT 7, 4, 'data 7' UNION ALL
SELECT 8, null, 'data 8' UNION ALL
SELECT 9, 6, 'data 9' UNION ALL
SELECT 10, 6, 'data 10' UNION ALL
SELECT 11, 8, 'data 11'
Query 1
SELECT
FROM t1
WHERE not EXISTS (SELECT * FROM t2 WHERE t1.id = t2.t1id)
Query 2
SELECT t1.*
FROM t1
WHERE t1.id not in (SELECT t2.t1id FROM t2 )
If in t1 your id has null value then Query 1 will find them, but Query 2 cant find null parameters.
I mean IN can't compare anything with null, so it has no result for null, but EXISTS can compare everything with null.
If you are using the IN operator, the SQL engine will scan all records fetched from the inner query. On the other hand if we are using EXISTS, the SQL engine will stop the scanning process as soon as it found a match.
IN supports only equality relations (or inequality when preceded by NOT).
It is a synonym to =any / =some, e.g
select *
from t1
where x in (select x from t2)
;
EXISTS supports variant types of relations, that cannot be expressed using IN, e.g. -
select *
from t1
where exists (select null
from t2
where t2.x=t1.x
and t2.y>t1.y
and t2.z like '℅' || t1.z || '℅'
)
;
And on a different note -
The allegedly performance and technical differences between EXISTS and IN may result from specific vendor's implementations/limitations/bugs, but many times they are nothing but myths created due to lack of understanding of the databases internals.
The tables' definition, statistics' accuracy, database configuration and optimizer's version have all impact on the execution plan and therefore on the performance metrics.
The Exists keyword evaluates true or false, but IN keyword compare all value in the corresponding sub query column.
Another one Select 1 can be use with Exists command. Example:
SELECT * FROM Temp1 where exists(select 1 from Temp2 where conditions...)
But IN is less efficient so Exists faster.
I think,
EXISTS is when you need to match the results of query with another subquery.
Query#1 results need to be retrieved where SubQuery results match. Kind of a Join..
E.g. select customers table#1 who have placed orders table#2 too
IN is to retrieve if the value of a specific column lies IN a list (1,2,3,4,5)
E.g. Select customers who lie in the following zipcodes i.e. zip_code values lies in (....) list.
When to use one over the other... when you feel it reads appropriately (Communicates intent better).
As per my knowledge when a subquery returns a NULL value then the whole statement becomes NULL. In that cases we are using the EXITS keyword. If we want to compare particular values in subqueries then we are using the IN keyword.
Which one is faster depends on the number of queries fetched by the inner query:
When your inner query fetching thousand of rows then EXIST would be better choice
When your inner query fetching few rows, then IN will be faster
EXIST evaluate on true or false but IN compare multiple value. When you don't know the record is exist or not, your should choose EXIST
Difference lies here:
select *
from abcTable
where exists (select null)
Above query will return all the records while below one would return empty.
select *
from abcTable
where abcTable_ID in (select null)
Give it a try and observe the output.
The reason is that the EXISTS operator works based on the “at least found” principle. It returns true and stops scanning table once at least one matching row found.
On the other hands, when the IN operator is combined with a subquery, MySQL must process the subquery first, and then uses the result of the subquery to process the whole query.
The general rule of thumb is that if the subquery contains a large
volume of data, the EXISTS operator provides a better performance.
However, the query that uses the IN operator will perform faster if
the result set returned from the subquery is very small.
In certain circumstances, it is better to use IN rather than EXISTS. In general, if the selective predicate is in the subquery, then use IN. If the selective predicate is in the parent query, then use EXISTS.
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14211/sql_1016.htm#i28403
My understand is both should be the same as long as we are not dealing with NULL values.
The same reason why the query does not return the value for = NULL vs is NULL.
http://sqlinthewild.co.za/index.php/2010/02/18/not-exists-vs-not-in/
As for as boolean vs comparator argument goes, to generate a boolean both values needs to be compared and that is how any if condition works.So i fail to understand how IN and EXISTS behave differently
.
If a subquery returns more than one value, you might need to execute the outer query- if the values within the column specified in the condition match any value in the result set of the subquery. To perform this task, you need to use the in keyword.
You can use a subquery to check if a set of records exists. For this, you need to use the exists clause with a subquery. The exists keyword always return true or false value.
I believe this has a straightforward answer. Why don't you check it from the people who developed that function in their systems?
If you are a MS SQL developer, here is the answer directly from Microsoft.
IN:
Determines whether a specified value matches any value in a subquery or a list.
EXISTS:
Specifies a subquery to test for the existence of rows.
I found that using EXISTS keyword is often really slow (that is very true in Microsoft Access).
I instead use the join operator in this manner :
should-i-use-the-keyword-exists-in-sql
If you can use where in instead of where exists, then where in is probably faster.
Using where in or where exists
will go through all results of your parent result. The difference here is that the where exists will cause a lot of dependet sub-queries. If you can prevent dependet sub-queries, then where in will be the better choice.
Example
Assume we have 10,000 companies, each has 10 users (thus our users table has 100,000 entries). Now assume you want to find a user by his name or his company name.
The following query using were exists has an execution of 141ms:
select * from `users`
where `first_name` ='gates'
or exists
(
select * from `companies`
where `users`.`company_id` = `companies`.`id`
and `name` = 'gates'
)
This happens, because for each user a dependent sub query is executed:
However, if we avoid the exists query and write it using:
select * from `users`
where `first_name` ='gates'
or users.company_id in
(
select id from `companies`
where `name` = 'gates'
)
Then depended sub queries are avoided and the query would run in 0,012 ms
I did a little exercise on a query that I have recently been using. I originally created it with INNER JOINS, but I wanted to see how it looked/worked with EXISTS. I converted it. I will include both version here for comparison.
SELECT DISTINCT Category, Name, Description
FROM [CodeSets]
WHERE Category NOT IN (
SELECT def.Category
FROM [Fields] f
INNER JOIN [DataEntryFields] def ON f.DataEntryFieldId = def.Id
INNER JOIN Section s ON f.SectionId = s.Id
INNER JOIN Template t ON s.Template_Id = t.Id
WHERE t.AgencyId = (SELECT Id FROM Agencies WHERE Name = 'Some Agency')
AND def.Category NOT IN ('OFFLIST', 'AGENCYLIST', 'RELTO_UNIT', 'HOSPITALS', 'EMS', 'TOWCOMPANY', 'UIC', 'RPTAGENCY', 'REP')
AND (t.Name like '% OH %')
AND (def.Category IS NOT NULL AND def.Category <> '')
)
ORDER BY 1
Here are the statistics:
Here is the converted version:
SELECT DISTINCT cs.Category, Name, Description
FROM [CodeSets] cs
WHERE NOT Exists (
SELECT * FROM [Fields] f
WHERE EXISTS (SELECT * FROM [DataEntryFields] def
WHERE def.Id = f.DataEntryFieldId
AND def.Category NOT IN ('OFFLIST', 'AGENCYLIST', 'RELTO_UNIT', 'HOSPITALS', 'EMS', 'TOWCOMPANY', 'UIC', 'RPTAGENCY', 'REP')
AND (def.Category IS NOT NULL AND def.Category <> '')
AND def.Category = cs.Category
AND EXISTS (SELECT * FROM Section s
WHERE f.SectionId = s.Id
AND EXISTS (SELECT * FROM Template t
WHERE s.Template_Id = t.Id
AND EXISTS (SELECT * FROM Agencies
WHERE Name = 'Some Agency' and t.AgencyId = Id)
AND (t.Name like '% OH %')
)
)
)
)
ORDER BY 1
The results, at least to me, were unimpressive.
If I were more technically knowledgeable about how SQL works, I could give you an answer, but take this example as you may and make your own conclusion.
The INNER JOIN and IN () is easier to read, however.
EXISTS Is Faster in Performance than IN.
If Most of the filter criteria is in subquery then better to use IN and If most of the filter criteria is in main query then better to use EXISTS.
If you are using the IN operator, the SQL engine will scan all records fetched from the inner query. On the other hand if we are using EXISTS, the SQL engine will stop the scanning process as soon as it found a match.