Tom Lane wrote:
Thorsten =?iso-8859-1?q?K=F6rner?= <t.koerner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
select m_id, m_u_id, m_title, m_rating from tablename where m_id in (26250,
11042, 16279, 42197, 672089);
You could rewrite the query as
select ... from tablename where m_id = 26250
union all
select ... from tablename where m_id = 11042
union all
select ... from tablename where m_id = 16279
union all
select ... from tablename where m_id = 42197
union all
select ... from tablename where m_id = 672089
This isn't guaranteed by the SQL spec to produce the results in any
particular order either; but there's no good reason for PG to rearrange
the order of the UNION arms, whereas there are plenty of good reasons to
try to optimize fetching of individual rows.
Or a variant of this,
SELECT m_id, m_u_id, m_title, m_rating from tablename where m_id in (26250,
11042, 16279, 42197, 672089) ORDER BY m_id=26250, m_id=11042,
m_id=16279, m_id=42197, m_id=672089;
--
Tommy Gildseth
http://www.gildseth.com/
