SQLTeam.com | Weblogs | Forums

Is this strategy robust?


I plan to use a different strategy to achieve the same result but I am worried if there will be any issues, i.e. records returned or missed that shouldn't be.

So, can you advise please if the below are 100% equal?

AND [B]=2
AND [C]=3

AND [B]=2

AND [C]=3


You wont get the same result from any of those queries. Test them locally and you will see

That's mind boggling.

#Mytable includes only IDs where A=1 and B=2. So if we add C=3, why wouldn't it be the same as A=1 and B=2 and C=3?


Use these as your source data:

CREATE TABLE #table(ID int, A int, B int, C int);
INSERT #table VALUES(1,1,2,null),(1,999,888,3),(1,null,null,3);

Then run your queries. You'll see the discrepancy.

Your first query is looking for 3 conditions to be true. In the sample data I provided, there is no such row.

The second query is only testing 2 of those conditions, then limiting itself to a 4th condition (ID value). All of the sample data I provided uses the same value for ID, which effectively eliminates the other 2 conditions.

There is no enforced dependency of any relationship between these 4 conditions. Your original query is the only one that will provide the results you want. Breaking it up into separate queries can fail. Additionally it adds write activity/overhead to an otherwise read-only operation by inserting into the #myTable temp table.

I added NULLs to the source data as an additional complication. Imagine (or test) if ID is NULL.

I expect you'll reply "But ID is unique in that table" and/or "None of the columns are nullable". That wasn't specified in your original question, and even if it is true, you can still add rows that meet the 2nd condition but not the 1st.

1 Like

Thanks, very helpful.

The truth is that I didn't want to do the nested selections. However, I have no other alternative. To properly analyse my data, I will need to do a double join of three large tables and then check the conditions in the resulting table.

This however takes huge processing time to complete. It is not feasible.

To give you an idea, I have two tables:
A relational table:
ID1, ID3
ID2, ID4
And a master reference table:
ID1, A
ID2, B

To be able to specify criteria for both ID1 and ID3 which are contained in the master table, I will need to join the master table twice to the relational table.

Considering that each ID row has many records, the join process becomes unfeasible (need to wait more than 15 minutes).

The work-around with the nested selections is much faster.

Is there any solution to that?