How to put more than 1000 values into an Oracle IN clause [duplicate] - oracle

Question

This question already has answers here:
SQL IN Clause 1000 item limit
(5 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
Is there any way to get around the Oracle 10g limitation of 1000 items in a static IN clause? I have a comma delimited list of many of IDs that I want to use in an IN clause, Sometimes this list can exceed 1000 items, at which point Oracle throws an error. The query is similar to this...
select * from table1 where ID in (1,2,3,4,...,1001,1002,...)

Answer 1

Put the values in a temporary table and then do a select where id in (select id from temptable)

Answer 2

select column_X, ... from my_table
where ('magic', column_X ) in (
('magic', 1),
('magic', 2),
('magic', 3),
('magic', 4),
...
('magic', 99999)
) ...

Answer 3

I am almost sure you can split values across multiple INs using OR:
select * from table1 where ID in (1,2,3,4,...,1000) or
ID in (1001,1002,...,2000)

Answer 4

You may try to use the following form:
select * from table1 where ID in (1,2,3,4,...,1000)
union all
select * from table1 where ID in (1001,1002,...)

Answer 5

Where do you get the list of ids from in the first place? Since they are IDs in your database, did they come from some previous query?
When I have seen this in the past it has been because:-
a reference table is missing and the correct way would be to add the new table, put an attribute on that table and join to it
a list of ids is extracted from the database, and then used in a subsequent SQL statement (perhaps later or on another server or whatever). In this case, the answer is to never extract it from the database. Either store in a temporary table or just write one query.
I think there may be better ways to rework this code that just getting this SQL statement to work. If you provide more details you might get some ideas.

Answer 6

Use ...from table(... :
create or replace type numbertype
as object
(nr number(20,10) )
/
create or replace type number_table
as table of numbertype
/
create or replace procedure tableselect
( p_numbers in number_table
, p_ref_result out sys_refcursor)
is
begin
open p_ref_result for
select *
from employees , (select /*+ cardinality(tab 10) */ tab.nr from table(p_numbers) tab) tbnrs
where id = tbnrs.nr;
end;
/
This is one of the rare cases where you need a hint, else Oracle will not use the index on column id. One of the advantages of this approach is that Oracle doesn't need to hard parse the query again and again. Using a temporary table is most of the times slower.
edit 1 simplified the procedure (thanks to jimmyorr) + example
create or replace procedure tableselect
( p_numbers in number_table
, p_ref_result out sys_refcursor)
is
begin
open p_ref_result for
select /*+ cardinality(tab 10) */ emp.*
from employees emp
, table(p_numbers) tab
where tab.nr = id;
end;
/
Example:
set serveroutput on
create table employees ( id number(10),name varchar2(100));
insert into employees values (3,'Raymond');
insert into employees values (4,'Hans');
commit;
declare
l_number number_table := number_table();
l_sys_refcursor sys_refcursor;
l_employee employees%rowtype;
begin
l_number.extend;
l_number(1) := numbertype(3);
l_number.extend;
l_number(2) := numbertype(4);
tableselect(l_number, l_sys_refcursor);
loop
fetch l_sys_refcursor into l_employee;
exit when l_sys_refcursor%notfound;
dbms_output.put_line(l_employee.name);
end loop;
close l_sys_refcursor;
end;
/
This will output:
Raymond
Hans

Answer 7

I wound up here looking for a solution as well.
Depending on the high-end number of items you need to query against, and assuming your items are unique, you could split your query into batches queries of 1000 items, and combine the results on your end instead (pseudocode here):
//remove dupes
items = items.RemoveDuplicates();
//how to break the items into 1000 item batches
batches = new batch list;
batch = new batch;
for (int i = 0; i < items.Count; i++)
{
if (batch.Count == 1000)
{
batches.Add(batch);
batch.Clear()
}
batch.Add(items[i]);
if (i == items.Count - 1)
{
//add the final batch (it has < 1000 items).
batches.Add(batch);
}
}
// now go query the db for each batch
results = new results;
foreach(batch in batches)
{
results.Add(query(batch));
}
This may be a good trade-off in the scenario where you don't typically have over 1000 items - as having over 1000 items would be your "high end" edge-case scenario. For example, in the event that you have 1500 items, two queries of (1000, 500) wouldn't be so bad. This also assumes that each query isn't particularly expensive in of its own right.
This wouldn't be appropriate if your typical number of expected items got to be much larger - say, in the 100000 range - requiring 100 queries. If so, then you should probably look more seriously into using the global temporary tables solution provided above as the most "correct" solution. Furthermore, if your items are not unique, you would need to resolve duplicate results in your batches as well.

Answer 8

Yes, very weird situation for oracle.
if you specify 2000 ids inside the IN clause, it will fail.
this fails:
select ...
where id in (1,2,....2000)
but if you simply put the 2000 ids in another table (temp table for example), it will works
below query:
select ...
where id in (select userId
from temptable_with_2000_ids )
what you can do, actually could split the records into a lot of 1000 records and execute them group by group.

Answer 9

Here is some Perl code that tries to work around the limit by creating an inline view and then selecting from it. The statement text is compressed by using rows of twelve items each instead of selecting each item from DUAL individually, then uncompressed by unioning together all columns. UNION or UNION ALL in decompression should make no difference here as it all goes inside an IN which will impose uniqueness before joining against it anyway, but in the compression, UNION ALL is used to prevent a lot of unnecessary comparing. As the data I'm filtering on are all whole numbers, quoting is not an issue.
#
# generate the innards of an IN expression with more than a thousand items
#
use English '-no_match_vars';
sub big_IN_list{
#_ < 13 and return join ', ',#_;
my $padding_required = (12 - (#_ % 12)) % 12;
# get first dozen and make length of #_ an even multiple of 12
my ($a,$b,$c,$d,$e,$f,$g,$h,$i,$j,$k,$l) = splice #_,0,12, ( ('NULL') x $padding_required );
my #dozens;
local $LIST_SEPARATOR = ', '; # how to join elements within each dozen
while(#_){
push #dozens, "SELECT #{[ splice #_,0,12 ]} FROM DUAL"
};
$LIST_SEPARATOR = "\n union all\n "; # how to join #dozens
return <<"EXP";
WITH t AS (
select $a A, $b B, $c C, $d D, $e E, $f F, $g G, $h H, $i I, $j J, $k K, $l L FROM DUAL
union all
#dozens
)
select A from t union select B from t union select C from t union
select D from t union select E from t union select F from t union
select G from t union select H from t union select I from t union
select J from t union select K from t union select L from t
EXP
}
One would use that like so:
my $bases_list_expr = big_IN_list(list_your_bases());
$dbh->do(<<"UPDATE");
update bases_table set belong_to = 'us'
where id in ($bases_list_expr)
UPDATE

Answer 10

Instead of using IN clause, can you try using JOIN with the other table, which is fetching the id. that way we don't need to worry about limit. just a thought from my side.

Answer 11

Instead of SELECT * FROM table1 WHERE ID IN (1,2,3,4,...,1000);
Use this :
SELECT * FROM table1 WHERE ID IN (SELECT rownum AS ID FROM dual connect BY level <= 1000);
*Note that you need to be sure the ID does not refer any other foreign IDS if this is a dependency. To ensure only existing ids are available then :
SELECT * FROM table1 WHERE ID IN (SELECT distinct(ID) FROM tablewhereidsareavailable);
Cheers