?
Solved

Question on JOIN to query all items NOT in "INNER JOIN" ?

Posted on 2007-04-06
5
Medium Priority
?
220 Views
Last Modified: 2010-03-19
I need to work on a query to get records that are not found in another table. For example, table CompleteList saves all the list items. Table UsedItems saves items being used. I need to create a query to get all the available items:   CompleteList minus UsedItems. I think I could use subquery to do it, but it low efficient. How do we use join to achieve this?
0
Comment
Question by:chuang4630
  • 2
  • 2
5 Comments
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:dready
ID: 18864261
select id from CompleteList where id not in (select distinct ItemID from UsedItems)

should do the job. Don't think a join will make it more efficient.
0
 
LVL 29

Expert Comment

by:Nightman
ID: 18864913
Select
  *
FROM
  CompleteList c
WHERE
  NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM UsedItems u WHERE u.ItemID=c.ItemID)

Usually, NOT EXISTS is more efficient - the distinct statement will result in a hash merge / hash join internally, as SQL actually has to sort the data to eliminate duplicates.
0
 
LVL 143

Accepted Solution

by:
Guy Hengel [angelIII / a3] earned 2000 total points
ID: 18864937
or, use a LEFT JOIN technique:

Select  c.*
FROM  CompleteList c
LEFT JOIN UsedItems u
  ON u.ItemID=c.ItemID
WHERE u.ItemID IS NULL
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:dready
ID: 18866178
Nightman: This is interesting, hope you can elaborate a bit.
If i would leave out the distinct, so use this statement:

select id from CompleteList where id not in (select  ItemID from UsedItems)

Is NOT EXISTS still more efficient, and what about angellls technique??  I always thought that the query optimiser would be smart enough to end up with the same execution paths...
(just curiuos, might learn something (-:)

dready
0
 
LVL 29

Expert Comment

by:Nightman
ID: 18866350
angelIII's techinque is also efficient. The reality is that you would need to test each one to see which is more efficient - this could vary depending on your indexing strategy, and I have sometimes seen NOT EXISTS perform worse than the left join.

NOT EXISTS should still be faster than an IN clause.

The query optimisers job is *not* to find the best plan. It's job is to find a good plan, fast. If you soley rely on it, your queries will always underperform. You need to look at the execution plan and query cost yourself, and compare them.
0

Featured Post

Get your problem seen by more experts

Be seen. Boost your question’s priority for more expert views and faster solutions

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

by Mark Wills Attending one of Rob Farley's seminars the other day, I heard the phrase "The Accidental DBA" and fell in love with it. It got me thinking about the plight of the newcomer to SQL Server...  So if you are the accidental DBA, or, simp…
I am showing a way to read/import the excel data in table using SQL server 2005... Suppose there is an Excel file "Book1" at location "C:\temp" with column "First Name" and "Last Name". Now to import this Excel data into the table, we will use…
With just a little bit of  SQL and VBA, many doors open to cool things like synchronize a list box to display data relevant to other information on a form.  If you have never written code or looked at an SQL statement before, no problem! ...  give i…
How can you see what you are working on when you want to see it while you to save a copy? Add a "Save As" icon to the Quick Access Toolbar, or QAT. That way, when you save a copy of a query, form, report, or other object you are modifying, you…

571 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question