(Neither IN
nor ANY
is an "operator". A "construct" or "syntax element".)
Logically, quoting the manual:
IN
is equivalent to = ANY
.
But there are two syntax variants of IN
and two variants of ANY
. Details:
IN
taking a set is equivalent to = ANY
taking a set, as demonstrated here:
But the second variant of each is not equivalent to the other. The second variant of the ANY
construct takes an array (must be an actual array type), while the second variant of IN
takes a comma-separated list of values. This leads to different restrictions in passing values and can also lead to different query plans in special cases:
ANY
is more versatile
The ANY
construct is far more versatile, as it can be combined with various operators, not just =
. Example:
SELECT 'foo' LIKE ANY('{FOO,bar,%oo%}');
For a big number of values, providing a set scales better for each:
Related:
Inversion / opposite / exclusion
"Find rows where id
is in the given array":
SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE id = ANY (ARRAY[1, 2]);
Inversion: "Find rows where id
is not in the array":
SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE id <> ALL (ARRAY[1, 2]);
SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE id <> ALL ('{1, 2}'); -- equivalent array literal
SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE NOT (id = ANY ('{1, 2}'));
All three equivalent. The first with array constructor, the other two with array literal. The data type can be derived from context unambiguously. Else, an explicit cast may be required, like '{1,2}'::int[]
.
Rows with id IS NULL
do not pass either of these expressions. To include NULL
values additionally:
SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE (id = ANY ('{1, 2}')) IS NOT TRUE;