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

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。

使用EXPLAIN查看数据库如何对数据执行查询。这个答案中有一个很大的“视情况而定”……

PostgreSQL可以将子查询重写为连接，或将连接重写为子查询，如果它认为其中一个比另一个快。这完全取决于数据、索引、相关性、数据量、查询等。

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。

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。