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
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。
其他回答
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。
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。
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
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。
推荐文章
- 将值从同一表中的一列复制到另一列
- GROUP BY with MAX(DATE)
- 删除id与其他表不匹配的sql行
- 等价的限制和偏移SQL Server?
- MySQL CPU使用率高
- 是什么导致这个ActiveRecord::ReadOnlyRecord错误?
- INT和VARCHAR主键之间有真正的性能差异吗?
- 拒绝访问;您需要(至少一个)SUPER特权来执行此操作
- 为什么我不能在DELETE语句中使用别名?
- 在SQL Server Management Studio中保存带有标题的结果
- 从存储引擎得到错误28
- "where 1=1"语句
- 如何选择一个记录和更新它，与一个单一的查询集在Django?
- 多语句表值函数vs内联表值函数
- 如何从Oracle的表中获取列名?
