要解决最初关于性能的问题，可以归结为索引利用率。当进行简单的表扫描时，“LIKE”和“=”是相同的。当涉及到索引时，这取决于LIKE子句是如何形成的。更具体地说，通配符的位置是什么?

考虑以下几点:

CREATE TABLE test(
    txt_col  varchar(10) NOT NULL
)
go

insert test (txt_col)
select CONVERT(varchar(10), row_number() over (order by (select 1))) r
  from master..spt_values a, master..spt_values b
go

CREATE INDEX IX_test_data 
    ON test (txt_col);
go 

--Turn on Show Execution Plan
set statistics io on

--A LIKE Clause with a wildcard at the beginning
DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS
SELECT txt_Col from test where txt_col like '%10000'
--Results in
--Table 'test'. Scan count 3, logical reads 15404, physical reads 2, read-ahead reads 15416, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
--Index SCAN is 85% of Query Cost

--A LIKE Clause with a wildcard in the middle
DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS
SELECT txt_Col from test where txt_col like '1%99'
--Results in
--Table 'test'. Scan count 1, logical reads 3023, physical reads 3, read-ahead reads 3018, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
--Index Seek is 100% of Query Cost for test data, but it may result in a Table Scan depending on table size/structure

--A LIKE Clause with no wildcards
DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS
SELECT txt_Col from test where txt_col like '10000'
--Results in
--Table 'test'. Scan count 1, logical reads 3, physical reads 2, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
--Index Seek is 100% of Query Cost
GO

--an "=" clause = does Index Seek same as above
DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS
SELECT txt_Col from test where txt_col = '10000'
--Results in
--Table 'test'. Scan count 1, logical reads 3, physical reads 2, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
--Index Seek is 100% of Query Cost
GO


DROP TABLE test

当使用"="和"LIKE"时，在查询计划的创建中也可能存在可以忽略不计的差异。

这是我对SQL 'like' vs '='性能问题的另一个答案的复制/粘贴:

一个使用mysql 5.5的个人例子:我在2个表之间有一个内部连接，一个是300万行，一个是1万行。

在索引上使用like时(没有通配符)，大约需要30秒:

where login like '12345678'

使用'explain'我得到:

当对同一个查询使用'='时，大约需要0.1秒:

where login ='12345678'

使用“explain”我得到:

如您所见，类似的操作完全取消了索引seek，因此查询花费了300多倍的时间。

取决于数据库系统。

通常没有特殊字符，是的，=和LIKE是一样的。

但是，某些数据库系统可能会对不同的操作符使用不同的排序设置。

例如，在MySQL中，字符串上的=默认情况下总是不区分大小写的，所以没有特殊字符的LIKE是一样的。在其他一些RDBMS上，LIKE是不区分大小写的，而=则不是。

要解决最初关于性能的问题，可以归结为索引利用率。当进行简单的表扫描时，“LIKE”和“=”是相同的。当涉及到索引时，这取决于LIKE子句是如何形成的。更具体地说，通配符的位置是什么?

考虑以下几点:

CREATE TABLE test(
    txt_col  varchar(10) NOT NULL
)
go

insert test (txt_col)
select CONVERT(varchar(10), row_number() over (order by (select 1))) r
  from master..spt_values a, master..spt_values b
go

CREATE INDEX IX_test_data 
    ON test (txt_col);
go 

--Turn on Show Execution Plan
set statistics io on

--A LIKE Clause with a wildcard at the beginning
DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS
SELECT txt_Col from test where txt_col like '%10000'
--Results in
--Table 'test'. Scan count 3, logical reads 15404, physical reads 2, read-ahead reads 15416, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
--Index SCAN is 85% of Query Cost

--A LIKE Clause with a wildcard in the middle
DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS
SELECT txt_Col from test where txt_col like '1%99'
--Results in
--Table 'test'. Scan count 1, logical reads 3023, physical reads 3, read-ahead reads 3018, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
--Index Seek is 100% of Query Cost for test data, but it may result in a Table Scan depending on table size/structure

--A LIKE Clause with no wildcards
DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS
SELECT txt_Col from test where txt_col like '10000'
--Results in
--Table 'test'. Scan count 1, logical reads 3, physical reads 2, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
--Index Seek is 100% of Query Cost
GO

--an "=" clause = does Index Seek same as above
DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS
SELECT txt_Col from test where txt_col = '10000'
--Results in
--Table 'test'. Scan count 1, logical reads 3, physical reads 2, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
--Index Seek is 100% of Query Cost
GO


DROP TABLE test

当使用"="和"LIKE"时，在查询计划的创建中也可能存在可以忽略不计的差异。

实际上，这取决于您希望查询做什么。如果你的意思是精确匹配，那么使用=。如果你的意思是一个模糊匹配，那么使用LIKE。对代码来说，表达自己的意思通常是一个很好的策略。

LIKE和=是不同的。LIKE是在搜索查询中使用的。它还允许像_(简单字符通配符)和%(多字符通配符)这样的通配符。

如果你想要精确匹配，应该使用=，它会更快。

这个网站解释了LIKE