Reputation: 14651
I have a table with 4 columns (1 PK) from which I need to select 30 rows. Of these rows, two columns (col. A and B) must exists in another table (8 columns, 1 PK, 2 are A and B).
Second table is large, contains millions of records and it's enough for me to know if even a single row exists containing values of col. A and B of 1st table.
I am using the code below:
query = db.Session.query(db.Table_1).\
filter(
exists().where(db.Table_2.col_a == db.Table_1.col_a).\
where(db.Table_2.col_b == db.Table_2.col_b)
).limit(30).all()
This query gets me the results I desire however I'm afraid it might be a bit slow since it does not imply a limit
condition to exists()
function nor does it do select 1
but a select *
.
exists() does not accept a .limit(1)
How can I put a limit to exists to get it not to look for whole table, hence making this query run faster?
Thank you
Upvotes: 2
Views: 4380
Reputation: 75137
You can do the "select 1" thing using a more explicit form as it mentioned here, that is,
exists([1]).where(...)
However, while I've been a longtime diehard "select 1" kind of guy, I've since learned that the usage of "1" vs. "*" for performance is now a myth (more / more).
exists() is also a wrapper around select(), so you can get a limit() by constructing the select() first:
s = select([1]).where(
table1.c.col_a == table2.c.colb
).where(
table1.c.colb == table2.c.colb
).limit(30)
s = exists(s)
Upvotes: 8
Reputation:
query=select([db.Table_1])
query=query.where(
and_(
db.Table_2.col_a == db.Table_1.col_a,
db.Table_2.col_b == db.Table_2.col_b
)
).limit(30)
result=session.execute(query)
Upvotes: -1