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
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.
I have two tables that have exact same set of columns. I'd like to select all rows that don't exactly match. Is there a way to do that without joining by every column or typing every column's name in any other way (I have a large number of them)?
If the number, type and order of columns are exactly the same, you can use the EXCEPT (or in some DBMS MINUS) operator to remove all rows from the first table, that match a row from the second table (by every column).
SELECT *
FROM table1
EXCEPT
SELECT *
FROM table2;
(Use EXCEPT ALL, if you don't want or need duplicate elimination. If you want also the result when the operands are interchanged, you can use UNION (or UNION ALL to union the results of a second EXCEPT operation. In doubt use parenthesis to prioritize the operations as needed.)
use minus
select * from tableA
minus
select * from tableB
If the query returns no rows then the data is exactly the same.
You could use JOIN by PK and compare all other columns using:
SELECT *
FROM src s
FULL OUTER JOIN trg t
ON s.id = t.id
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT s.col1, s.col2, s.col3, s.col4
INTERSECT
SELECT t.col1, t.col2, t.col3, t.col4);
Please note that this approach allows to compare data side-by-side.
DBFiddle Demo
EDIT:
That still requires to explicitly mention every column? I'd rather not to.
Yes, but you could use drag and drop from object explorer(SSMS/TOAD/Oracle Developer) and avoid manually typing them.
There is SELECT * EXCEPT(only Google Big Query):
SELECT *
FROM src s
FULL OUTER JOIN trg t
ON s.id = t.id
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT s.* EXCEPT s.id
INTERSECT
SELECT t.* EXCEPT t.id);
I have two tables both with one column each. I want to copy/merge the data from those two tables into another table with both columns. So in the example below I want the data from Table1 and Table2 to go into Table3.
I used this query:
INSERT **TABLE3** (BIGNUMBER)
SELECT BIGNUMBER
FROM **TABLE1**;
INSERT **TABLE3** (SMALLNUMBER)
SELECT SMALLNUMBER
FROM **TABLE2**;
When I did this it copied the data from Table1 and Table2 but didn't put the data on the same lines. So it ended up like this:
I am trying to get the data to line up... match. So BIGNUMBER 1234567812345678 should have SMALLNUMBER 123456 next to it. If I am querying I could do this with a JOIN and a LIKE 'SMALLNUMBER%' but I am not sure how to do that here to make the data end up like this:
It doesn't have to be fancy comparing the smallnumber to the bignumber. When I BULK insert data into TABLE1 and TABLE2 they are in the same order so simply copying the data into TABLE3 without caring if SMALL is the start of BIG is fine with me.
There is no relationship at all in these tables. This is the simplest form I can think of. Basically two flat tables that need to be merged side by side. There is no logic to implement... start at row 1 and go to the end on BIGNUMBER. Start at row 1 again and go to the end on SMALLNUMBER. All that matters is if BIGBUMBER has 50 rows and SMALLNUMBER has 50 rows, in the end, there is still only 50 rows.
When I was using the query above I was going off of a page I was reading on MERGE. Now that I look over this I don't see MERGE anywhere... so maybe I just need to understand how to use MERGE.
If the order of numbers is not important and you don't want to add another field to your source tables as jcropp suggested, you can use ROW_NUMBER() function within a CTE to align a number to each row and then make a join based on them
WITH C1 AS(
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY TABLE1.BIGNUMBER) AS Rn1
,BIGNUMBER
FROM TABLE1
)
,C2 AS(
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY TABLE2.SMALLNUMBER) AS Rn2
,SMALLNUMBER
FROM TABLE2
)
INSERT INTO TABLE3
SELECT C1.BIGNUMBER
,C2.SMALLNUMBER
FROM C1
INNER JOIN C2 ON C1.Rn1 = C2.Rn2
More information about ROW_NUMBER(), CTE and INSERT INTO SELECT
In order to use a JOIN statement to merge the two tables they each have to have a column that has common data. You don’t have that, but you may be able to introduce it:
Edit the structure of the first table. Add a column named something
like id and set the attributes of the id column to autonumber.
Browse the table to make sure that theid column has been assigned
numbers in the correct order.
Do the same for the second table.
After you’ve done a thorough check to ensure that the rows are
numbered correctly, run a query to merge the tables:
SELECT TABLE1.id, TABLE1.BIGNUMBER, TABLE2.SMALLNUMBER INTO TABLE3
FROM TABLE1 INNER JOIN TABLE2 ON TABLE1.id = TABLE2.id
I want to check my database for records that I already have recorded before making a web service call.
Here is what I imagine the query to look like, I just can't seem to figure out the syntax.
SELECT *
FROM (1,2,3,4) as temp_table
WHERE temp_table.id
LEFT JOIN table ON id IS NULL
Is there a way to do this? What is a query like this called?
I want to pass in a list of id's to mysql and i want it to spit out the id's that are not already in the database?
Use:
SELECT x.id
FROM (SELECT #param_1 AS id
FROM DUAL
UNION ALL
SELECT #param_2
FROM DUAL
UNION ALL
SELECT #param_3
FROM DUAL
UNION ALL
SELECT #param_4
FROM DUAL) x
LEFT JOIN TABLE t ON t.id = x.id
WHERE x.id IS NULL
If you need to support a varying number of parameters, you can either use:
a temporary table to populate & join to
MySQL's Prepared Statements to dynamically construct the UNION ALL statement
To confirm I've understood correctly, you want to pass in a list of numbers and see which of those numbers isn't present in the existing table? In effect:
SELECT Item
FROM IDList I
LEFT JOIN TABLE T ON I.Item=T.ID
WHERE T.ID IS NULL
You look like you're OK with building this query on the fly, in which case you can do this with a numbers / tally table by changing the above into
SELECT Number
FROM (SELECT Number FROM Numbers WHERE Number IN (1,2,3,4)) I
LEFT JOIN TABLE T ON I.Number=T.ID
WHERE T.ID IS NULL
This is relatively prone to SQL Injection attacks though because of the way the query is being built. It'd be better if you could pass in '1,2,3,4' as a string and split it into sections to generate your numbers list to join against in a safer way - for an example of how to do that, see http://www.sqlteam.com/article/parsing-csv-values-into-multiple-rows
All of this presumes you've got a numbers / tally table in your database, but they're sufficiently useful in general that I'd strongly recommend you do.
SELECT * FROM table where id NOT IN (1,2,3,4)
I would probably just do:
SELECT id
FROM table
WHERE id IN (1,2,3,4);
And then process the list of results, removing any returned by the query from your list of "records to submit".
How about a nested query? This may work. If not, it may get you in the right direction.
SELECT * FROM table WHERE id NOT IN (
SELECT id FROM table WHERE 1
);