SQL Joins Vs SQL Subqueries (Performance)?

Question

I wish to know if I have a join query something like this -

Select E.Id,E.Name from Employee E join Dept D on E.DeptId=D.Id

and a subquery something like this -

Select E.Id,E.Name from Employee Where DeptId in (Select Id from Dept)

When I consider performance which of the two queries would be faster and why ?

Also is there a time when I should prefer one over the other?

Sorry if this is too trivial and asked before but I am confused about it. Also, it would be great if you guys can suggest me tools i should use to measure performance of two queries. Thanks a lot!

Answer 1

Well, I believe it's an "Old but Gold" question. The answer is: "It depends!". The performances are such a delicate subject that it would be too much silly to say: "Never use subqueries, always join". In the following links, you'll find some basic best practices that I have found to be very helpful:

• Optimizing Subqueries
• Optimizing Subqueries with Semijoin Transformations
• Rewriting Subqueries as Joins

I have a table with 50000 elements, the result i was looking for was 739 elements.

My query at first was this:

SELECT  p.id,
    p.fixedId,
    p.azienda_id,
    p.categoria_id,
    p.linea,
    p.tipo,
    p.nome
FROM prodotto p
WHERE p.azienda_id = 2699 AND p.anno = (
    SELECT MAX(p2.anno) 
    FROM prodotto p2 
    WHERE p2.fixedId = p.fixedId 
)

and it took 7.9s to execute.

My query at last is this:

SELECT  p.id,
    p.fixedId,
    p.azienda_id,
    p.categoria_id,
    p.linea,
    p.tipo,
    p.nome
FROM prodotto p
WHERE p.azienda_id = 2699 AND (p.fixedId, p.anno) IN
(
    SELECT p2.fixedId, MAX(p2.anno)
    FROM prodotto p2
    WHERE p.azienda_id = p2.azienda_id
    GROUP BY p2.fixedId
)

and it took 0.0256s

Good SQL, good.

Answer 2

I would EXPECT the first query to be quicker, mainly because you have an equivalence and an explicit JOIN. In my experience IN is a very slow operator, since SQL normally evaluates it as a series of WHERE clauses separated by "OR" (WHERE x=Y OR x=Z OR...).

As with ALL THINGS SQL though, your mileage may vary. The speed will depend a lot on indexes (do you have indexes on both ID columns? That will help a lot...) among other things.

The only REAL way to tell with 100% certainty which is faster is to turn on performance tracking (IO Statistics is especially useful) and run them both. Make sure to clear your cache between runs!

Answer 3

Performance is based on the amount of data you are executing on...

If it is less data around 20k. JOIN works better.

If the data is more like 100k+ then IN works better.

If you do not need the data from the other table, IN is good, But it is alwys better to go for EXISTS.

All these criterias I tested and the tables have proper indexes.

Answer 4

Start to look at the execution plans to see the differences in how the SQl Server will interpret them. You can also use Profiler to actually run the queries multiple times and get the differnce.

I would not expect these to be so horribly different, where you can get get real, large performance gains in using joins instead of subqueries is when you use correlated subqueries.

EXISTS is often better than either of these two and when you are talking left joins where you want to all records not in the left join table, then NOT EXISTS is often a much better choice.

Answer 5

The performance should be the same; it's much more important to have the correct indexes and clustering applied on your tables (there exist some good resources on that topic).

(Edited to reflect the updated question)

Answer 6

I know this is an old post, but I think this is a very important topic, especially nowadays where we have 10M+ records and talk about terabytes of data.

I will also weight in with the following observations. I have about 45M records in my table ([data]), and about 300 records in my [cats] table. I have extensive indexing for all of the queries I am about to talk about.

Consider Example 1:

UPDATE d set category = c.categoryname
FROM [data] d
JOIN [cats] c on c.id = d.catid

versus Example 2:

UPDATE d set category = (SELECT TOP(1) c.categoryname FROM [cats] c where c.id = d.catid)
FROM [data] d

Example 1 took about 23 mins to run. Example 2 took around 5 mins.

So I would conclude that sub-query in this case is much faster. Of course keep in mind that I am using M.2 SSD drives capable of i/o @ 1GB/sec (thats bytes not bits), so my indexes are really fast too. So this may affect the speeds too in your circumstance

If its a one-off data cleansing, probably best to just leave it run and finish. I use TOP(10000) and see how long it takes and multiply by number of records before I hit the big query.

If you are optimizing production databases, I would strongly suggest pre-processing data, i.e. use triggers or job-broker to async update records, so that real-time access retrieves static data.

Answer 7

The two queries may not be semantically equivalent. If a employee works for more than one department (possible in the enterprise I work for; admittedly, this would imply your table is not fully normalized) then the first query would return duplicate rows whereas the second query would not. To make the queries equivalent in this case, the DISTINCT keyword would have to be added to the SELECT clause, which may have an impact on performance.

Note there is a design rule of thumb that states a table should model an entity/class or a relationship between entities/classes but not both. Therefore, I suggest you create a third table, say OrgChart, to model the relationship between employees and departments.

Answer 8

You can use an Explain Plan to get an objective answer.

For your problem, an Exists filter would probably perform the fastest.