Sorry guys, I had no idea how to phrase this one, but I have the following in a where clause:
person_id not in (
SELECT distinct person_id
FROM protocol_application_log_devl pal
WHERE pal.set_id = @set_id
)
When the subquery returns no results, my whole select fails to return anything. To work around this, I replaced person_id
in the subquery with isnull(person_id, '00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000')
.
It seems to work, but is there a better way to solve this?
It is better to use NOT EXISTS
anyway:
WHERE NOT EXISTS(
SELECT 1 FROM protocol_application_log_devl pal
WHERE pal.person_id = person_id
AND pal.set_id = @set_id
)
Should I use NOT IN, OUTER APPLY, LEFT OUTER JOIN, EXCEPT, or NOT EXISTS?
A pattern I see quite a bit, and wish that I didn't, is NOT IN. When I see this pattern, I cringe. But not for performance reasons – after all, it creates a decent enough plan in this case:
The main problem is that the results can be surprising if the target column is NULLable (SQL Server processes this as a left anti semi join, but can't reliably tell you if a NULL on the right side is equal to – or not equal to – the reference on the left side). Also, optimization can behave differently if the column is NULLable, even if it doesn't actually contain any NULL values
Instead of NOT IN, use a correlated NOT EXISTS for this query pattern. Always. Other methods may rival it in terms of performance, when all other variables are the same, but all of the other methods introduce either performance problems or other challenges.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With