A general rule is that joins are faster in most cases (99%). The more data tables have, the subqueries are slower. The less data tables have, the subqueries have equivalent speed as joins. The subqueries are simpler, easier to understand, and easier to read. Most of the web and app frameworks and their "ORM"s and "Active record"s generate queries with subqueries, because with subqueries are easier to split responsibility, maintain code, etc. For smaller web sites or apps subqueries are OK, but for larger web sites and apps you will often have to rewrite generated queries to join queries, especial if a query uses many subqueries in the query.

有人说“一些RDBMS可以将子查询重写为连接，或将连接重写为子查询，当它认为其中一个比另一个快时”，但这句话适用于简单的情况，当然不适用于带有子查询的复杂查询，这实际上会导致性能问题。

这取决于几个因素，包括正在运行的特定查询、数据库中的数据量。子查询首先运行内部查询，然后从结果集中再次过滤出实际结果。而在join中运行并产生结果。

最好的策略是同时测试连接解决方案和子查询解决方案，以获得优化的解决方案。

首先，为了比较这两个，首先你应该区分查询和子查询:

一个子查询类，它总是使用连接编写相应的等效查询 不能使用连接重写的子查询类

对于第一类查询，一个好的RDBMS将把联接查询和子查询视为等效的，并将产生相同的查询计划。

现在甚至mysql也这么做了。

尽管如此，有时它并不会，但这并不意味着连接总是会赢-我有在mysql中使用子查询提高性能的情况。(例如，如果有一些东西阻止mysql计划器正确估计成本，如果计划器没有看到连接变量和子查询变量相同，那么子查询可以通过强制某个路径来优于连接)。

结论是，如果您想确定哪一种查询性能更好，就应该同时测试连接和子查询变量。

对于第二个类，比较没有意义，因为这些查询不能使用连接重写，在这种情况下，子查询是完成所需任务的自然方式，您不应该歧视它们。

我认为在引用的答案中没有强调的是重复的问题和可能由特定(使用)案例引起的有问题的结果。

(尽管马塞洛·坎托斯提到过)

我将引用斯坦福大学Lagunita SQL课程的例子。

学生表

+------+--------+------+--------+
| sID  | sName  | GPA  | sizeHS |
+------+--------+------+--------+
|  123 | Amy    |  3.9 |   1000 |
|  234 | Bob    |  3.6 |   1500 |
|  345 | Craig  |  3.5 |    500 |
|  456 | Doris  |  3.9 |   1000 |
|  567 | Edward |  2.9 |   2000 |
|  678 | Fay    |  3.8 |    200 |
|  789 | Gary   |  3.4 |    800 |
|  987 | Helen  |  3.7 |    800 |
|  876 | Irene  |  3.9 |    400 |
|  765 | Jay    |  2.9 |   1500 |
|  654 | Amy    |  3.9 |   1000 |
|  543 | Craig  |  3.4 |   2000 |
+------+--------+------+--------+

应用表

(向特定大学及专业申请)

+------+----------+----------------+----------+
| sID  | cName    | major          | decision |
+------+----------+----------------+----------+
|  123 | Stanford | CS             | Y        |
|  123 | Stanford | EE             | N        |
|  123 | Berkeley | CS             | Y        |
|  123 | Cornell  | EE             | Y        |
|  234 | Berkeley | biology        | N        |
|  345 | MIT      | bioengineering | Y        |
|  345 | Cornell  | bioengineering | N        |
|  345 | Cornell  | CS             | Y        |
|  345 | Cornell  | EE             | N        |
|  678 | Stanford | history        | Y        |
|  987 | Stanford | CS             | Y        |
|  987 | Berkeley | CS             | Y        |
|  876 | Stanford | CS             | N        |
|  876 | MIT      | biology        | Y        |
|  876 | MIT      | marine biology | N        |
|  765 | Stanford | history        | Y        |
|  765 | Cornell  | history        | N        |
|  765 | Cornell  | psychology     | Y        |
|  543 | MIT      | CS             | N        |
+------+----------+----------------+----------+

让我们试着找出申请计算机科学专业的学生的平均绩点(不论大学)

使用子查询:

select GPA from Student where sID in (select sID from Apply where major = 'CS');

+------+
| GPA  |
+------+
|  3.9 |
|  3.5 |
|  3.7 |
|  3.9 |
|  3.4 |
+------+

这个结果集的平均值是:

select avg(GPA) from Student where sID in (select sID from Apply where major = 'CS');

+--------------------+
| avg(GPA)           |
+--------------------+
| 3.6800000000000006 |
+--------------------+

使用连接:

select GPA from Student, Apply where Student.sID = Apply.sID and Apply.major = 'CS';

+------+
| GPA  |
+------+
|  3.9 |
|  3.9 |
|  3.5 |
|  3.7 |
|  3.7 |
|  3.9 |
|  3.4 |
+------+

该结果集的平均值:

select avg(GPA) from Student, Apply where Student.sID = Apply.sID and Apply.major = 'CS';

+-------------------+
| avg(GPA)          |
+-------------------+
| 3.714285714285714 |
+-------------------+

It is obvious that the second attempt yields misleading results in our use case, given that it counts duplicates for the computation of the average value. It is also evident that usage of distinct with the join - based statement will not eliminate the problem, given that it will erroneously keep one out of three occurrences of the 3.9 score. The correct case is to account for TWO (2) occurrences of the 3.9 score given that we actually have TWO (2) students with that score that comply with our query criteria.

在某些情况下，除了性能问题，子查询似乎是最安全的方法。

摘自MySQL手册(13.2.10.11将子查询重写为连接):

LEFT [OUTER] JOIN可以比等效的子查询更快，因为服务器可以更好地优化它——这不是MySQL服务器独有的事实。

所以子查询可能比LEFT [OUTER] JOIN慢，但在我看来，它们的优势是可读性略高。

A general rule is that joins are faster in most cases (99%). The more data tables have, the subqueries are slower. The less data tables have, the subqueries have equivalent speed as joins. The subqueries are simpler, easier to understand, and easier to read. Most of the web and app frameworks and their "ORM"s and "Active record"s generate queries with subqueries, because with subqueries are easier to split responsibility, maintain code, etc. For smaller web sites or apps subqueries are OK, but for larger web sites and apps you will often have to rewrite generated queries to join queries, especial if a query uses many subqueries in the query.

有人说“一些RDBMS可以将子查询重写为连接，或将连接重写为子查询，当它认为其中一个比另一个快时”，但这句话适用于简单的情况，当然不适用于带有子查询的复杂查询，这实际上会导致性能问题。