Excuse the question but not yet I understand EXISTS syntax.

As the following SQL would remain?

select aftent.aft, aftent.desaft as descripcion, aftent.valorusd, aftent.valormn, aftent.aft || aftent.desaft as search from aftent where (((aftent.entidad)='unidad1') and aftent.aft not in (select afttmp.aft from afttmp where (((afttmp.entidad)='unidad1')))) order by aftent.aft



Regards
=========
¦¦ ISMAEL ¦¦
=========
"Oír o leer sin reflexionar es una ocupación inútil".
Confucio (551-479 a. C.); filósofo chino.

----- Mensaje original -----
De: Helen Borrie
Para: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Enviado: miércoles, 16 de septiembre de 2009 06:46
Asunto: Re: [firebird-support] About EXISTS predicate

>> Just one simple doubt, Is there any limitation for EXISTS predicate too, as
>> we have for IN predicate for 1500 values ?
>

At 09:22 PM 16/09/2009, Thomas Steinmaurer wrote:

>No, because EXISTS is a different construct than IN, which does not
>expect a list of input values.

There is more to it, as well. ;-)

The 1499 limit applies to an IN() predicate of the form

IN (const1, const2, ....)

The limit doesn't apply when the argument is a subquery.

Note, too:

The engine actually resolves the subquery form to EXISTS(), because it is logically equivalent and is a far more economical search than IN(). However, this does *NOT* apply to a NOT IN() predicate. While NOT IN(sq) AND NOT EXISTS() are equivalent in many situations, there are some situations where they return different results. (I can't think of an example; I just know that it is proven somewhere that this can be so.)

./heLen





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]