我是一个老派的MySQL用户,总是更喜欢JOIN而不是子查询。但是现在每个人都用子查询,我讨厌它;我不知道为什么。
我缺乏理论知识来判断是否有任何不同。子查询是否与JOIN一样好,因此没有什么可担心的?
我是一个老派的MySQL用户,总是更喜欢JOIN而不是子查询。但是现在每个人都用子查询,我讨厌它;我不知道为什么。
我缺乏理论知识来判断是否有任何不同。子查询是否与JOIN一样好,因此没有什么可担心的?
当前回答
子查询通常用于将单行作为原子值返回,不过它们也可以用于用IN关键字比较多行之间的值。在SQL语句中几乎任何有意义的地方都允许使用它们,包括目标列表、WHERE子句等等。一个简单的子查询可以用作搜索条件。例如,在一对表之间:
SELECT title
FROM books
WHERE author_id = (
SELECT id
FROM authors
WHERE last_name = 'Bar' AND first_name = 'Foo'
);
注意,在子查询的结果上使用普通值操作符要求只返回一个字段。如果你想检查一个值是否存在于一组其他值中,请使用in:
SELECT title
FROM books
WHERE author_id IN (
SELECT id FROM authors WHERE last_name ~ '^[A-E]'
);
这显然不同于LEFT-JOIN,你只是想连接表a和表B的东西,即使连接条件在表B中没有找到任何匹配的记录,等等。
如果你只是担心速度,你必须检查你的数据库,写一个好的查询,看看是否有显著的性能差异。
其他回答
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。
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
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。
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。
只有当第二个连接表的数据明显多于主表时,才会出现这种差异。我有过这样的经历……
我们有一个用户表,有10万个条目,他们的会员数据(友谊)大约有30万个条目。这是一个join语句,目的是获取好友及其数据,但有很大的延迟。但是当成员表中只有少量数据时,它工作得很好。一旦我们将其更改为使用子查询,它就可以正常工作。
但与此同时,连接查询正在处理比主表拥有更少条目的其他表。
所以我认为连接和子查询语句工作得很好,这取决于数据和情况。