Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> > I wonder if "[NOT] IN (subselect)" could be improved with a hash table in
> > similar fashion to the hash aggregate solution Tom recently implemented?
>
> It's being worked on ;-)
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-11/msg01055.php
>
> Assuming I get this done, the conventional wisdom that "EXISTS
> outperforms IN" will be stood on its head --- unless we add planner code
> to try to reverse-engineer an IN from an EXISTS, which is something I'm
> not really eager to expend code and cycles on.
I am looking forward to removing _that_ FAQ item. :-)
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073