Over a million developers have joined DZone.
{{announcement.body}}
{{announcement.title}}

Does PostgreSQL Have an ORA-01795-like Limit?

DZone's Guide to

Does PostgreSQL Have an ORA-01795-like Limit?

Comparing the limitations of Oracle to PostgreSQL using a simple test application.

· Database Zone ·
Free Resource

New whitepaper: Database DevOps – 6 Tips for Achieving Continuous Delivery. Discover 6 tips for continuous delivery with Database DevOps in this new whitepaper from Redgate. In 9 pages, it covers version control for databases and configurations, branching and testing, automation, using NuGet packages, and advice for how to start a pioneering Database DevOps project. Also includes further research on the industry-wide state of Database DevOps, how application and database development compare, plus practical steps for bringing DevOps to your database. Read it now free.

The Oracle database requires that no more than 1000 entries be used in a SQL IN portion of a WHERE clause and will throw an ORA-01795 error if that number is exceeded. If a value needs to be compared to more than 1000 valuesapproaches other than use of IN must be applied. I wondered if this limitation applies toPostgreSQL and decided to write a simple application to find out.

For my simple test application, I wanted a very simple table to use with both an Oracle database and a PostgreSQL database.

Oracle: Creating Single Column Table and Inserting Single Row

CREATE TABLE numeral(numeral1 number);
INSERT INTO numeral (numeral1) VALUES (15);

PostgreSQL: Creating Single Column Table and Inserting Single Row

CREATE TABLE numeral(numeral1 numeric);
INSERT INTO numeral (numeral1) VALUES (15);

Building the SQL Query

Java 8 makes it build up a query to test the condition of more than 1000 values in an IN clause. The next code snippet focuses on how this can be accomplished easily.

Java 8 Construction of SQL Query

final String queryPrefix = "SELECT numeral1 FROM numeral WHERE numeral1 IN ";
final String inClauseTarget =
   IntStream.range(1, numberOfInValues+1).boxed().map(String::valueOf).collect(Collectors.joining(",", "(", ")"));
final String select = queryPrefix + inClauseTarget;

The string constructed by the Java 8 code shown in the last code listing looks like this:

SELECT numeral1 FROM numeral WHERE numeral1 IN (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,270,271,272,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282,283,284,285,286,287,288,289,290,291,292,293,294,295,296,297,298,299,300,301,302,303,304,305,306,307,308,309,310,311,312,313,314,315,316,317,318,319,320,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,330,331,332,333,334,335,336,337,338,339,340,341,342,343,344,345,346,347,348,349,350,351,352,353,354,355,356,357,358,359,360,361,362,363,364,365,366,367,368,369,370,371,372,373,374,375,376,377,378,379,380,381,382,383,384,385,386,387,388,389,390,391,392,393,394,395,396,397,398,399,400,401,402,403,404,405,406,407,408,409,410,411,412,413,414,415,416,417,418,419,420,421,422,423,424,425,426,427,428,429,430,431,432,433,434,435,436,437,438,439,440,441,442,443,444,445,446,447,448,449,450,451,452,453,454,455,456,457,458,459,460,461,462,463,464,465,466,467,468,469,470,471,472,473,474,475,476,477,478,479,480,481,482,483,484,485,486,487,488,489,490,491,492,493,494,495,496,497,498,499,500,501,502,503,504,505,506,507,508,509,510,511,512,513,514,515,516,517,518,519,520,521,522,523,524,525,526,527,528,529,530,531,532,533,534,535,536,537,538,539,540,541,542,543,544,545,546,547,548,549,550,551,552,553,554,555,556,557,558,559,560,561,562,563,564,565,566,567,568,569,570,571,572,573,574,575,576,577,578,579,580,581,582,583,584,585,586,587,588,589,590,591,592,593,594,595,596,597,598,599,600,601,602,603,604,605,606,607,608,609,610,611,612,613,614,615,616,617,618,619,620,621,622,623,624,625,626,627,628,629,630,631,632,633,634,635,636,637,638,639,640,641,642,643,644,645,646,647,648,649,650,651,652,653,654,655,656,657,658,659,660,661,662,663,664,665,666,667,668,669,670,671,672,673,674,675,676,677,678,679,680,681,682,683,684,685,686,687,688,689,690,691,692,693,694,695,696,697,698,699,700,701,702,703,704,705,706,707,708,709,710,711,712,713,714,715,716,717,718,719,720,721,722,723,724,725,726,727,728,729,730,731,732,733,734,735,736,737,738,739,740,741,742,743,744,745,746,747,748,749,750,751,752,753,754,755,756,757,758,759,760,761,762,763,764,765,766,767,768,769,770,771,772,773,774,775,776,777,778,779,780,781,782,783,784,785,786,787,788,789,790,791,792,793,794,795,796,797,798,799,800,801,802,803,804,805,806,807,808,809,810,811,812,813,814,815,816,817,818,819,820,821,822,823,824,825,826,827,828,829,830,831,832,833,834,835,836,837,838,839,840,841,842,843,844,845,846,847,848,849,850,851,852,853,854,855,856,857,858,859,860,861,862,863,864,865,866,867,868,869,870,871,872,873,874,875,876,877,878,879,880,881,882,883,884,885,886,887,888,889,890,891,892,893,894,895,896,897,898,899,900,901,902,903,904,905,906,907,908,909,910,911,912,913,914,915,916,917,918,919,920,921,922,923,924,925,926,927,928,929,930,931,932,933,934,935,936,937,938,939,940,941,942,943,944,945,946,947,948,949,950,951,952,953,954,955,956,957,958,959,960,961,962,963,964,965,966,967,968,969,970,971,972,973,974,975,976,977,978,979,980,981,982,983,984,985,986,987,988,989,990,991,992,993,994,995,996,997,998,999,1000,1001)

Running the Query

When the above SQL query statement is executed against an Oracle database, the ORA-01795 error is manifest:

java.sql.SQLSyntaxErrorException: ORA-01795: maximum number of expressions in a list is 1000

The PostgreSQL database does not have this same limitation as shown by its output below:

15

The full Java class I used to demonstrate the above findings is available at https://github.com/dustinmarx/databasedemos/blob/master/dustin/examples/inparameters/Main.java.

Conclusion

There are numerous ways to avoid the ORA-01795 error when using an Oracle database. However, I was curious if the same limitation existed for PostgreSQL and apparently it doesn't (I'm using PostgreSQL 9.4.4 in these examples). In fact, when I tried as many as one million IN values, PostgreSQL was still able to process the query, albeit noticeably slower than with a smaller number of IN values.

New whitepaper: Database DevOps – 6 Tips for Achieving Continuous Delivery. Discover 6 tips for continuous delivery with Database DevOps in this new whitepaper from Redgate. In 9 pages, it covers version control for databases and configurations, branching and testing, automation, using NuGet packages, and advice for how to start a pioneering Database DevOps project. Also includes further research on the industry-wide state of Database DevOps, how application and database development compare, plus practical steps for bringing DevOps to your database. Read it now free.

Topics:
oracle ,postgresql ,database ,performance

Published at DZone with permission of

Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.

{{ parent.title || parent.header.title}}

{{ parent.tldr }}

{{ parent.urlSource.name }}