l...@tom.com writes:
> I think the id columns of table a and b are not null, so the query of "not
> in" and "not exists" are equal,they should use similar plans.
NOT IN and NOT EXISTS are *not* equivalent. Per SQL standard, NOT IN
has different (and usually not very desirable) behavior with NUL
I downloaded the latest version,and the cost of "not in" is much higher than
that of "not exist". please see attachment for detail.
As the time of query is very long,I didn't get the explain analyze result.
I think the id columns of table a and b are not null, so the query of "not in"
and "not
My Server has 4GB mem and OS is Windows 2008 R2.
I downloaded the latest version,and the cost of "not in" is much higher than
that of "not exist".Please see attachment for detail.
As the time of query is very long,I didn't get the explain analyze result.
I think the id columns of table a and b are
