Return-Path: 
 <derby-user-return-9864-apmail-db-derby-user-archive=db.apache.org@db.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 91351 invoked from network); 5 Oct 2008 20:12:02 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Oct 2008 20:12:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 82088 invoked by uid 500); 5 Oct 2008 20:12:00 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@db.apache.org
Received: (qmail 82056 invoked by uid 500); 5 Oct 2008 20:11:59 -0000
Mailing-List: contact derby-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:derby-user-help@db.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:derby-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:derby-user@db.apache.org>
List-Id: <derby-user.db.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Derby Discussion" <derby-user@db.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list derby-user@db.apache.org
Received: (qmail 82045 invoked by uid 99); 5 Oct 2008 20:11:59 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:11:59 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.1 required=10.0
	tests=DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of peter.ondruska@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.146.176 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.146.176] (HELO wa-out-1112.google.com) (209.85.146.176)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:10:57 +0000
Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j37so1241614waf.23
        for <derby-user@db.apache.org>; Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to
         :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        bh=lso2cyifOHdlgTzZH1x6bcIDclA2wM3rL84rHzSx64M=;
        b=nnE9b3dVqBj4Hlw+oewF43iSewWH64TzjSR/X4e1/46onvKW9QSn7Mw+Is7XKfqKJ5
         ClMepDYpH9j8/DrIIVyuvFpk8Am8i91gfnllHo+n3nRn9YKLwfA4b8FD7yNpTLoYVw4i
         9vJlnuw/mLma9qP1YfGgzoOgBfJRJ9SFVFlgQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:references;
        b=cCGlAv/Y8tV6A1rU+sfcE8D24foxnaYJxkznlvYPS/4DhIzeu0E9WYhIlccNzVOBRe
         y6a/y2D0zCPsONfpWIAiu8isddqCNQpb3EExwEFsJW2HnXCg2oKWCmtWr2TrQs438S3Q
         /npgVNmFn9hGD5WA9S2Kw8youOkgHT8X9rg8Y=
Received: by 10.115.90.1 with SMTP id s1mr4511455wal.51.1223237493092;
        Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.115.106.9 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4d2670740810051311x4a4762che62f7c456cd326c2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:11:33 +0200
From: "=?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Peter_Ondru=9Aka?=" <peter.ondruska@gmail.com>
To: "Derby Discussion" <derby-user@db.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Perfroamnce of IN ( ... list ... ) statements
In-Reply-To: <gcb6se$37r$1@ger.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_26506_22575521.1223237493086"
References: <gcb6se$37r$1@ger.gmane.org>
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

------=_Part_26506_22575521.1223237493086
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

What Derby version is it?How does it perform if you re-create index on
foo_id column?

p.

On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Tim Dudgeon <
tdudgeon@informaticsmatters.com> wrote:

> If I run a statement like this is Derby:
> SELECT COL1, COL2 FROM FOO WHERE FOO_ID IN ( 1, 31, ..... 4567)
> it seems unexpectedly slow. Its actually faster to retrieve each row
> individually using a for loop that it is to use the IN ( ..  list ... )
> clause. This seems strange.
>
> Thanks
>
> Tim
>
>

------=_Part_26506_22575521.1223237493086
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

<div dir="ltr">What Derby version is it?<div>How does it perform if you re-create index on foo_id column?</div><div><br></div><div>p.&nbsp;<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Tim Dudgeon <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:tdudgeon@informaticsmatters.com">tdudgeon@informaticsmatters.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">If I run a statement like this is Derby:<br>
SELECT COL1, COL2 FROM FOO WHERE FOO_ID IN ( 1, 31, ..... 4567)<br>
it seems unexpectedly slow. Its actually faster to retrieve each row individually using a for loop that it is to use the IN ( .. &nbsp;list ... ) clause. This seems strange.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
Tim<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div></div>

------=_Part_26506_22575521.1223237493086--