Stuart McLachlan
stuart at lexacorp.com.pg
Tue May 15 21:46:49 CDT 2007
IN() needs a delimited list. It doesn't understand REGEX. I would assume that since the list would be shorter, NOT IN() would be slightly faster in this case - less comparisons to make on each record. On 15 May 2007 at 22:34, jwcolby wrote: > I am trying to process a query where an income field has a set of possible > values, 1-9 and A-T. The client wants values 409 and A-M. Logically that > would be more efficient if it was NOT in(1-3,n-t). Is it in fact more > efficient? And can ranges like that be specified or do I need to use comma > delimted lists 1,2,3,n,o,p...? > > John W. Colby > Colby Consulting > www.ColbyConsulting.com > > _______________________________________________ > dba-SQLServer mailing list > dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver > http://www.databaseadvisors.com >