See the usage of the function named field. On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Mr. Shawn H. Corey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 07:32 -0400, Gary Josack wrote: > > Andrew Martin wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > Is it permissible to order a clause such that the search term is the > > > first item (in the clause)? > > > > > > standard: > > > field1 IN (123, 654, 789) > > > > > > in question: > > > 123 IN (field1, field2, field3) > > > > > > I am interested to know if the optimizer treats this any differently > > > if anybody can shed any light on it (except for the obvious difference > > > in the above queries!) > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > Both are valid syntax where 1 is returned if the expression is equal to > > any of the values in the list. I can't see the optimizer treating these > > any differently. > > > > Thanks, > > Gary M. Josack > > > > > > > > Any difference will come up in an EXPLAIN. To run one, put the word > EXPLAIN in front of the SQL statement: > > EXPLAIN sql_statement; > > > -- > Just my 0.00000002 million dollars worth, > Shawn > > "Where there's duct tape, there's hope." > > "Perl is the duct tape of the Internet." > Hassan Schroeder, Sun's first webmaster > > > -- > MySQL General Mailing List > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > To unsubscribe: > http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- I'm a MySQL DBA in china. More about me just visit here: http://yueliangdao0608.cublog.cn
