MSDN文档SQL Server说

Many Transact-SQL statements that include subqueries can be alternatively formulated as joins. Other questions can be posed only with subqueries. In Transact-SQL, there is usually no performance difference between a statement that includes a subquery and a semantically equivalent version that does not. However, in some cases where existence must be checked, a join yields better performance. Otherwise, the nested query must be processed for each result of the outer query to ensure elimination of duplicates. In such cases, a join approach would yield better results.

所以如果你需要

select * from t1 where exists select * from t2 where t2.parent=t1.id

尝试使用join代替。在其他情况下，这没有什么区别。

我说:为子查询创建函数可以消除混乱的问题，并允许您为子查询实现额外的逻辑。因此，我建议尽可能为子查询创建函数。

代码中的混乱是一个大问题，几十年来业界一直在努力避免它。

根据我的观察，就像两种情况，如果一个表的记录少于10万条，那么连接将工作得很快。

但是如果一个表有超过100,000条记录，那么子查询是最好的结果。

我有一个表，其中有500,000条记录，我在查询下面创建了它，它的结果时间是

SELECT * 
FROM crv.workorder_details wd 
inner join  crv.workorder wr on wr.workorder_id = wd.workorder_id;

结果:13.3秒

select * 
from crv.workorder_details 
where workorder_id in (select workorder_id from crv.workorder)

结果:1.65秒

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。

在大多数情况下，join比子查询快，子查询比子查询快的情况非常罕见。

在join中，RDBMS可以为您的查询创建一个更好的执行计划，并可以预测应该加载哪些数据来处理并节省时间，不像子查询，它将运行所有的查询并加载所有的数据来进行处理。

子查询的好处是它们比join更可读:这就是为什么大多数新学习SQL的人更喜欢它们;这是简单的方法;但是当涉及到性能时，join在大多数情况下更好，尽管它们也不难读。

我不是关系数据库专家，所以对此持保留态度。

子查询与连接的一般思想是较大查询的求值路径。

为了执行较大的查询，必须首先执行每个子查询，然后将结果集存储为与较大查询交互的临时表。

这个临时表没有索引，因此，任何比较都需要扫描整个结果集。

相反，当您使用连接时，所有索引都在使用中，因此，比较需要遍历索引树(或哈希表)，这在速度方面成本要低得多。

现在，我不知道最流行的关系引擎的新版本是否在反向执行求值，只是将必要的元素加载到临时表中，作为优化方法。

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。