[TurkTurkleton]

Indeed, I would be surprised if there exists any RDBMS where the content of the select list in an EXISTS subquery matters. Postgres's SQL dialect even lets you use an empty select list (`... WHERE EXISTS (SELECT FROM related_table WHERE related_id = id_from_outer_query)`). In T-SQL, however, a non-empty select list is required, and in my experience, developers writing T-SQL tend to prefer a constant value like `1` or `NULL` over `*` -- I suspect there's some superstition there related to both the common wisdom that `SELECT *` queries are to be avoided (which is true -- you really should only ever select the columns of interest) and a lack of truly understanding that EXISTS only reads enough of the table to ascertain whether rows exist that satisfy the subquery's predicate, and returns a boolean value, not a result set.

[gpm]

As a non-sql-expert (I've used an exists query approximately once in my life) I prefer `select 1` over `select column_name` or `select *` because it doesn't look like it might be meaningful.

Postgres's dialect seems like it made the right choice here.

[jrumbut]

Selecting NULL to signify something exists breaks my brain a little bit. I really prefer 1 stylistically, even if there is no technical difference.

[justsomehnguy]

It works fine for me.. when I'm thinking in sqlese. The bigger travesty here is using SELECT for the tasks which are not selecting (returning data) anything.

[mjan22640]

Turn the brain 90° from columns to rows and it will be fine.

[chaps]

Yeah. 1 breaks my brain for the same reason probably.

[marcosdumay]

Both Oracle and SQL Server have the advice to use a constant value on their documentation. Postgres used to advise the use of `*`, but looks like they improved their optimizer so it doesn't matter anymore.

It's not superstition. It's people that know deeply how a complex system works picking the option with the best set of side-effects.