如果你想用join加速你的查询:

对于“inner join/join”， 不要使用where条件，而是使用“ON”条件。 例如:

     select id,name from table1 a  
   join table2 b on a.name=b.name
   where id='123'

 Try,

    select id,name from table1 a  
   join table2 b on a.name=b.name and a.id='123'

对于“左/右连接”， 不要在“ON”条件下使用，因为如果你使用左/右连接，它将获得任何一个表的所有行。所以，在"开"里也没用。所以，尝试使用“Where”条件

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。

在2010年，我会加入这个问题的作者，并强烈地投票给JOIN，但有了更多的经验(特别是在MySQL)，我可以声明:是的，子查询可以更好。我在这里看到了很多答案;一些声明的子查询速度更快，但它缺乏一个很好的解释。我希望我能提供一个(非常)晚的答案:

首先，让我说一下最重要的一点:子查询有不同的形式

第二个重要的陈述:规模很重要

如果使用子查询，应该了解DB-Server如何执行子查询。特别是当子查询只计算一次或每一行时! 另一方面，现代DB-Server能够进行大量优化。在某些情况下，子查询有助于优化查询，但DB-Server的新版本可能会使优化过时。

选择字段中的子查询

SELECT moo, (SELECT roger FROM wilco WHERE moo = me) AS bar FROM foo

注意，对于foo生成的每一行都会执行子查询。 尽可能避免这种情况;它可能会大大降低你在大型数据集上的查询速度。但是，如果子查询没有对foo的引用，则可以由DB-server将其作为静态内容进行优化，并且只能求值一次。

where语句中的子查询

SELECT moo FROM foo WHERE bar = (SELECT roger FROM wilco WHERE moo = me)

如果幸运的话，DB会在内部将其优化为一个JOIN。如果不这样做，你的查询在庞大的数据集上会变得非常非常慢，因为它会对foo中的每一行执行子查询，而不是像在select类型中那样只执行结果。

join语句中的子查询

SELECT moo, bar 
  FROM foo 
    LEFT JOIN (
      SELECT MIN(bar), me FROM wilco GROUP BY me
    ) ON moo = me

This is interesting. We combine JOIN with a sub-query. And here we get the real strength of sub-queries. Imagine a dataset with millions of rows in wilco but only a few distinct me. Instead of joining against a huge table, we have now a smaller temporary table to join against. This can result in much faster queries depending on database size. You can have the same effect with CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE ... and INSERT INTO ... SELECT ..., which might provide better readability on very complex queries (but can lock datasets in a repeatable read isolation level).

嵌套的子查询

SELECT VARIANCE(moo)
  FROM (
    SELECT moo, CONCAT(roger, wilco) AS bar
      FROM foo
      HAVING bar LIKE 'SpaceQ%'
  ) AS temp_foo
  GROUP BY moo

您可以在多个级别中嵌套子查询。如果你必须对结果进行分组或更改，这可以帮助处理庞大的数据集。通常，DB-Server为此创建一个临时表，但有时不需要对整个表进行某些操作，只需要对结果集进行操作。这可能会提供更好的性能，具体取决于表的大小。

结论

子查询不能代替JOIN，您不应该这样使用它们(尽管有可能)。在我看来，子查询的正确用法是作为CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE ....的快速替换一个好的子查询以一种在JOIN的ON语句中无法完成的方式减少数据集。如果子查询具有GROUP BY或DISTINCT关键字之一，并且最好不在选择字段或where语句中，那么它可能会大大提高性能。

MySQL版本:5.5.28-0ubuntu0.12.04.2-log

在我的印象中，JOIN总是比MySQL中的子查询更好，但EXPLAIN是更好的判断方式。下面是一个子查询比join更好的例子。

这是我的查询与3个子查询:

EXPLAIN SELECT vrl.list_id,vrl.ontology_id,vrl.position,l.name AS list_name, vrlih.position AS previous_position, vrl.moved_date 
FROM `vote-ranked-listory` vrl 
INNER JOIN lists l ON l.list_id = vrl.list_id 
INNER JOIN `vote-ranked-list-item-history` vrlih ON vrl.list_id = vrlih.list_id AND vrl.ontology_id=vrlih.ontology_id AND vrlih.type='PREVIOUS_POSITION' 
INNER JOIN list_burial_state lbs ON lbs.list_id = vrl.list_id AND lbs.burial_score < 0.5 
WHERE vrl.position <= 15 AND l.status='ACTIVE' AND l.is_public=1 AND vrl.ontology_id < 1000000000 
 AND (SELECT list_id FROM list_tag WHERE list_id=l.list_id AND tag_id=43) IS NULL 
 AND (SELECT list_id FROM list_tag WHERE list_id=l.list_id AND tag_id=55) IS NULL 
 AND (SELECT list_id FROM list_tag WHERE list_id=l.list_id AND tag_id=246403) IS NOT NULL 
ORDER BY vrl.moved_date DESC LIMIT 200;

解释说明:

+----+--------------------+----------+--------+-----------------------------------------------------+--------------+---------+-------------------------------------------------+------+--------------------------+
| id | select_type        | table    | type   | possible_keys                                       | key          | key_len | ref                                             | rows | Extra                    |
+----+--------------------+----------+--------+-----------------------------------------------------+--------------+---------+-------------------------------------------------+------+--------------------------+
|  1 | PRIMARY            | vrl      | index  | PRIMARY                                             | moved_date   | 8       | NULL                                            |  200 | Using where              |
|  1 | PRIMARY            | l        | eq_ref | PRIMARY,status,ispublic,idx_lookup,is_public_status | PRIMARY      | 4       | ranker.vrl.list_id                              |    1 | Using where              |
|  1 | PRIMARY            | vrlih    | eq_ref | PRIMARY                                             | PRIMARY      | 9       | ranker.vrl.list_id,ranker.vrl.ontology_id,const |    1 | Using where              |
|  1 | PRIMARY            | lbs      | eq_ref | PRIMARY,idx_list_burial_state,burial_score          | PRIMARY      | 4       | ranker.vrl.list_id                              |    1 | Using where              |
|  4 | DEPENDENT SUBQUERY | list_tag | ref    | list_tag_key,list_id,tag_id                         | list_tag_key | 9       | ranker.l.list_id,const                          |    1 | Using where; Using index |
|  3 | DEPENDENT SUBQUERY | list_tag | ref    | list_tag_key,list_id,tag_id                         | list_tag_key | 9       | ranker.l.list_id,const                          |    1 | Using where; Using index |
|  2 | DEPENDENT SUBQUERY | list_tag | ref    | list_tag_key,list_id,tag_id                         | list_tag_key | 9       | ranker.l.list_id,const                          |    1 | Using where; Using index |
+----+--------------------+----------+--------+-----------------------------------------------------+--------------+---------+-------------------------------------------------+------+--------------------------+

使用join的相同查询是:

EXPLAIN SELECT vrl.list_id,vrl.ontology_id,vrl.position,l.name AS list_name, vrlih.position AS previous_position, vrl.moved_date 
FROM `vote-ranked-listory` vrl 
INNER JOIN lists l ON l.list_id = vrl.list_id 
INNER JOIN `vote-ranked-list-item-history` vrlih ON vrl.list_id = vrlih.list_id AND vrl.ontology_id=vrlih.ontology_id AND vrlih.type='PREVIOUS_POSITION' 
INNER JOIN list_burial_state lbs ON lbs.list_id = vrl.list_id AND lbs.burial_score < 0.5 
LEFT JOIN list_tag lt1 ON lt1.list_id = vrl.list_id AND lt1.tag_id = 43 
LEFT JOIN list_tag lt2 ON lt2.list_id = vrl.list_id AND lt2.tag_id = 55 
INNER JOIN list_tag lt3 ON lt3.list_id = vrl.list_id AND lt3.tag_id = 246403 
WHERE vrl.position <= 15 AND l.status='ACTIVE' AND l.is_public=1 AND vrl.ontology_id < 1000000000 
AND lt1.list_id IS NULL AND lt2.tag_id IS NULL 
ORDER BY vrl.moved_date DESC LIMIT 200;

输出为:

+----+-------------+-------+--------+-----------------------------------------------------+--------------+---------+---------------------------------------------+------+----------------------------------------------+
| id | select_type | table | type   | possible_keys                                       | key          | key_len | ref                                         | rows | Extra                                        |
+----+-------------+-------+--------+-----------------------------------------------------+--------------+---------+---------------------------------------------+------+----------------------------------------------+
|  1 | SIMPLE      | lt3   | ref    | list_tag_key,list_id,tag_id                         | tag_id       | 5       | const                                       | 2386 | Using where; Using temporary; Using filesort |
|  1 | SIMPLE      | l     | eq_ref | PRIMARY,status,ispublic,idx_lookup,is_public_status | PRIMARY      | 4       | ranker.lt3.list_id                          |    1 | Using where                                  |
|  1 | SIMPLE      | vrlih | ref    | PRIMARY                                             | PRIMARY      | 4       | ranker.lt3.list_id                          |  103 | Using where                                  |
|  1 | SIMPLE      | vrl   | ref    | PRIMARY                                             | PRIMARY      | 8       | ranker.lt3.list_id,ranker.vrlih.ontology_id |   65 | Using where                                  |
|  1 | SIMPLE      | lt1   | ref    | list_tag_key,list_id,tag_id                         | list_tag_key | 9       | ranker.lt3.list_id,const                    |    1 | Using where; Using index; Not exists         |
|  1 | SIMPLE      | lbs   | eq_ref | PRIMARY,idx_list_burial_state,burial_score          | PRIMARY      | 4       | ranker.vrl.list_id                          |    1 | Using where                                  |
|  1 | SIMPLE      | lt2   | ref    | list_tag_key,list_id,tag_id                         | list_tag_key | 9       | ranker.lt3.list_id,const                    |    1 | Using where; Using index                     |
+----+-------------+-------+--------+-----------------------------------------------------+--------------+---------+---------------------------------------------+------+----------------------------------------------+

rows列的比较表明了差异，使用join的查询使用的是using temporary;使用filesort。

当然，当我运行这两个查询时，第一个查询在0.02秒内完成，第二个查询甚至在1分钟后都没有完成，所以EXPLAIN正确地解释了这些查询。

如果我在list_tag表上没有INNER JOIN，即如果我删除

AND (SELECT list_id FROM list_tag WHERE list_id=l.list_id AND tag_id=246403) IS NOT NULL  

从第一个查询和相应的:

INNER JOIN list_tag lt3 ON lt3.list_id = vrl.list_id AND lt3.tag_id = 246403

从第二个查询开始，那么EXPLAIN为两个查询返回相同的行数，并且这两个查询的运行速度相同。

在旧Mambo CMS的一个非常大的数据库上运行:

SELECT id, alias
FROM
  mos_categories
WHERE
  id IN (
    SELECT
      DISTINCT catid
    FROM mos_content
  );

0秒

SELECT
  DISTINCT mos_content.catid,
  mos_categories.alias
FROM
  mos_content, mos_categories
WHERE
  mos_content.catid = mos_categories.id;

~ 3秒

EXPLAIN说明它们检查的行数完全相同，但其中一个需要3秒，另一个几乎是即时的。这个故事的寓意?如果性能很重要(什么时候不重要?)，尝试多种方法，看看哪一种最快。

和…

SELECT
  DISTINCT mos_categories.id,
  mos_categories.alias
FROM
  mos_content, mos_categories
WHERE
  mos_content.catid = mos_categories.id;

0秒

同样，结果相同，检查的行数相同。我猜是DISTINCT mos_content。catid比DISTINCT mos_categories需要更长的时间来计算。id。