在你想避免使用row_count()的场景中，你也可以使用左连接:

select ds.DocumentID, ds.Status, ds.DateCreated 
from DocumentStatusLogs ds
left join DocumentStatusLogs filter 
    ON ds.DocumentID = filter.DocumentID
    -- Match any row that has another row that was created after it.
    AND ds.DateCreated < filter.DateCreated
-- then filter out any rows that matched 
where filter.DocumentID is null 

对于示例模式，你也可以使用"not in subquery"，它通常编译到与左连接相同的输出:

select ds.DocumentID, ds.Status, ds.DateCreated 
from DocumentStatusLogs ds
WHERE ds.ID NOT IN (
    SELECT filter.ID 
    FROM DocumentStatusLogs filter
    WHERE ds.DocumentID = filter.DocumentID
        AND ds.DateCreated < filter.DateCreated)

注意，如果表没有至少一个单列唯一键/约束/索引(在本例中是主键“Id”)，那么子查询模式将无法工作。

这两个查询往往比row_count()查询(由query Analyzer衡量)更“昂贵”。但是，您可能会遇到它们更快地返回结果或启用其他优化的情况。

我刚学会如何使用交叉应用。下面是如何在这种情况下使用它:

 select d.DocumentID, ds.Status, ds.DateCreated 
 from Documents as d 
 cross apply 
     (select top 1 Status, DateCreated
      from DocumentStatusLogs 
      where DocumentID = d.DocumentId
      order by DateCreated desc) as ds

这是一个相当老的话题，但我想我要发表我的意见，就像公认的答案对我来说并不是特别有效一样。我在一个大型数据集上尝试了gbn的解决方案，发现它非常慢(在SQL Server 2012中500多万条记录上>45秒)。看一下执行计划，很明显问题在于它需要一个SORT操作，这会大大降低速度。

下面是我从实体框架中提取的一个替代方案，它不需要SORT操作，只进行非聚集索引搜索。这将在前面提到的记录集中将执行时间减少到< 2秒。

SELECT 
[Limit1].[DocumentID] AS [DocumentID], 
[Limit1].[Status] AS [Status], 
[Limit1].[DateCreated] AS [DateCreated]
FROM   (SELECT DISTINCT [Extent1].[DocumentID] AS [DocumentID] FROM [dbo].[DocumentStatusLogs] AS [Extent1]) AS [Distinct1]
OUTER APPLY  (SELECT TOP (1) [Project2].[ID] AS [ID], [Project2].[DocumentID] AS [DocumentID], [Project2].[Status] AS [Status], [Project2].[DateCreated] AS [DateCreated]
    FROM (SELECT 
        [Extent2].[ID] AS [ID], 
        [Extent2].[DocumentID] AS [DocumentID], 
        [Extent2].[Status] AS [Status], 
        [Extent2].[DateCreated] AS [DateCreated]
        FROM [dbo].[DocumentStatusLogs] AS [Extent2]
        WHERE ([Distinct1].[DocumentID] = [Extent2].[DocumentID])
    )  AS [Project2]
    ORDER BY [Project2].[ID] DESC) AS [Limit1]

Now I'm assuming something that isn't entirely specified in the original question, but if your table design is such that your ID column is an auto-increment ID, and the DateCreated is set to the current date with each insert, then even without running with my query above you could actually get a sizable performance boost to gbn's solution (about half the execution time) just from ordering on ID instead of ordering on DateCreated as this will provide an identical sort order and it's a faster sort.

一些数据库引擎*开始支持允许过滤窗口函数结果的qualifier子句(接受的答案使用该子句)。

所以公认的答案可以变成

SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY DocumentID ORDER BY DateCreated DESC) AS rn
FROM DocumentStatusLogs
QUALIFY rn = 1

查看这篇文章以获得更深入的解释:https://jrandrews.net/the-joy-of-qualify

您可以使用此工具查看哪个数据库支持此子句:https://www.jooq.org/translate/ 当目标方言不支持qualifier子句时，可以选择转换它。

*Teradata, BigQuery, H2, Snowflake…

我相信这是可以做到的。这可能需要一些调整，但你可以从组中选择最大值。

这些答案太夸张了。

SELECT
  d.DocumentID,
  MAX(d.Status),
  MAX(d1.DateCreated)
FROM DocumentStatusLogs d, DocumentStatusLogs d1
USING DocumentID
GROUP BY 1
ORDER BY 3 DESC

我的代码从每组中选择top 1

select a.* from #DocumentStatusLogs a where 
 datecreated in( select top 1 datecreated from #DocumentStatusLogs b
where 
a.documentid = b.documentid
order by datecreated desc
)