You’d better publish some time score on a simple DB test ?! Now, everyone recognizes it, and the few people who are still skeptical seem like dinosaurs. Best to test both. As I mentioned earlier when we are using INNER JOIN and WHERE clause, there is no impact of the resultset if the JOIN condition and WHERE clause have almost same condition. It all depends on what kind of data is and what kind query it is etc. Oracleis smart enough to make three logical constructs: 1. Third, specify the second table (table B) in the INNER JOIN clause and provide a join condition after the ON keyword. This means that on a complicated query with lots of table it is much more difficult to find the joining condition. As such, ... Oracle will apply the filter because it knows that single-column join conditions in the ON clause of inner joins are the same as predicates in the WHERE clause. * The difference between a LEFT JOIN and INNER JOIN is not speed, they produce a different output. I prefer it myself. If your boss is wildly deviating what he needs on a continual basis, he’s either incompetent, lazy, abusive, or just plain stupid. The goal is to create a query that … It isn’t that I don’t understand JOIN queries, or that I don’t know how to use them; comma syntax comes more naturally to me, and is more readily parsed by my logic. If you need to refer the query which demonstrates the mentioned clauses, review following two queries for Join Better Performance. Yes. This is not a recommended habit in any language. 2. select * from A inner join B on (B.a_id = A.id and B.a_id = 101); The recommendation I see in the mysql docs seem to indicate (1) is preferred and I have seen this recommendation elsewhere. Comma joins mean that the guy is not as good as I expect. Specifying a logical operator (for example, = or <>,) to be used in c… Salle: The issue about readability is not exaggerated. We basically have the same logic as before: for highly selective filters, Oracle will use the employees table as the driving row source, otherwise it will pick (on) the departments table to take the lead. The following queries are algebraically equivalent inside MySQL and will have the same execution plan. (Inner, outer, natural .. who cares? UPDATE table_1 a, table_2 b SET a.value = b.value WHERE a.id = and b.id =, In mysql there are three ways to do this, but which one would be performing best considering the first table to be huge (100 thousands of records), the second table to be small (a few hundreds of records), 2) join, one id in ON clause, the other id in where clause, UPDATE table_1 a INNER JOIN table_2 b ON b.id = SET a.value = b.value WHERE a.id =, UPDATE table_1 a INNER JOIN table_2 b ON a.id = AND b.id = SET a.value = b.value, In mysql there are three ways to do this, but which one would be performing best considering the first table to be huge (100 thousands of records), the second table to be small (hundreds of records), 2) join, id of table to be updated in ON clause, the other id in where clause. It’s common to write an SQL query for a report e.g. Same example with sample schemas OE ; Second, specify the main table i.e., table A in the FROM clause. As we have seen in this blog that all the three clauses - JOIN, IN and EXISTS can be used for the same purpose, but they differ in their internal working. @Salle, requirements/needs change all the time, post-launch. He is a former Percona employee. why? Posted on December 29, ... consisting of one table with one join and a simple WHERE clause. In other words, you could expect equal performance. Below are some scripts with comments to help you. If the tables are not big enough, or there are other reasons why the optimizer doesn't expand the queries, then you might see small differences. I would also note the “coma join” is equivalent to JOIN not “LEFT JOIN” I see a lot of people use LEFT JOIN with no reason and this does restrict execution plan choices. To me JOIN is strictly a term from Relational Algebra, Relational Model, SQL, you name it. Queries 1a and 1b are logically the same and Oracle will treat them that way. Whether some code is readable or not depends mostly on writer and not so much on the language syntax. The user was comparing 3 queries and wondered why the first took significantly longer than the other 2. @Salle: You can write unclear code in almost any programming languages by formatting it all on a single line. Writing specific joins makes the code make sense quicker and makes it much easier to change in the future. Subscribe now and we'll send you an update every Friday at 1pm ET. No whole subquery reevaluation, the index is used and used efficiently. Read “Join Processing Changes in MySQL 5.0.12” on http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/join.html . I have a query design question related to using CASE statements vs. joins vs subquery , Exists clause Hi Tom, In terms of performane, which one is better joins or subquery ?Can you explain with an example. Simple db or complex db. I have seen a lot of easy to read and understand perl scripts for example and lot of completely unreadable sources in languages supposedly much easier to read. I judge the logical thinking of the programmer by looking at the style of writing joins or queries in general. Filtering data Hi there, I am using a LEFT JOIN and i was wondering if having many condition – ie. You can save some time by running EXPLAIN EXTENDED, then SHOW WARNINGS, and examine the reconstructed query. Welcome to the real world? On the other hand, when you use JOINS you might not get the same result set as in the IN and the EXISTS clauses. © Copyright 2014-2020, Ian HellstrÃ¶m “Is there a performance difference between putting the JOIN conditions in the ON clause or the WHERE clause in MySQL?”. Rob: You are missing the fact that JOIN .. ON .. syntax does *not* prevent having join conditions buried somewhere in WHERE clause in case of inner joins. You can request an inner join, by running a SELECT statement in which you specify the tables that you want to join the FROM clause and specify a WHERE clause or an ON clause to indicate the join condition. Performance Problem When Using OR In A JOIN. +1! Inner Join Vs Outer Join: Get Ready to Explore the Exact Differences Between Inner and Outer Join. Similarly one-line query which joins 15 tables can be very difficult to read with JOIN .. ON .. syntax while the same query written on multiple lines with visually separated join conditions and filtering conditions using comma syntax can be much easier to read. My point is that if you don’t care about readability this syntax does not help. IN is equivalent to a JOIN / DISTINCT 2. When the filter on last_name is not as selective, especially when the cardinality of the departments table is lower than the cardinality of the employees table after the filter has been applied, the roles of driving and probe row sources are reversed. EXISTS vs IN vs JOIN with NOT NULLable columns: * From TabA INNER JOIN TabB on TabA.Id=TabB.Id Being one of the dinosaurs who prefer comma syntax I’d like to say few words on that. However if you want to make the most readable code possible, it’s hard to argue that comma syntax can be made to be more readable than ON syntax. It used to be a huge uphill battle to get people even to understand the syntax, and they remained unwilling to use it. If we look into the query plan we will see that this is just a plain NESTED LOOPSjoin on the index. Bill’s example is the kind of thing that happens ALL the time. SELECT * FROM table1 LEFT JOIN table2 ON table2.x=table1.y AND table2.b=table1.a. 2) join, id of table to be updated in ON clause, the other id in where clause. We can say that their logical working is different. Depending on indexes, you can get a different query plan with IN vs. an inner join (especially true in SQL Server 2000, not so much in 2005), and using nested WHERE IN might result in better performance. The splitting of these purposes with their respective clauses makes the query the most readable, it also prevents incorrect data being retrieved when using JOINs types other than INNER JOIN. (+) seemed really natural . Let’s take a look at the query. Even if you know what you’re looking for it is messy and difficult to understand at a glance. Why Pay for MongoDB Enterprise When Open Source Has You Covered. SELECT orders.id, buyers.name AS Buyers_name, products.name AS Product_name, orders.price AS Purchased_Price, orders.created_at AS Purchased_Date, sellers.name AS Seller_name, sellerproducts.price AS Current Price, LEFT JOIN buyers ON (buyers.id = orders.buyer_id) LEFT JOIN sellerproducts ON (sellerproducts.id = orders.sellerproduct_id) LEFT JOIN products ON (products.id = sellerproducts.product_id) LEFT JOIN sellers ON (sellers.id = sellerproducts.seller_id), FROM orders , buyers, products, sellers , sellerproducts, WHERE buyers.id = orders.buyer_id and products.id = sellerproducts.product_id and sellerproducts.id = orders.sellerproduct_id and sellers.id = sellerproducts.seller_id. 2. Tip: you can also use tuple comparison. Thanks again for your help. Next – English is not my native language. It is not just about readability. The execution plan is the same, but the extra bytes going over the wire might add up to some difference if the result set is large enough. Therefore the SQL reserved word JOIN doesn’t map to any natural language word as it would be the case if I was using “join” in everyday language. I’d think the only place you’d see a difference would be where the isolated logic in the ANSI syntax saved mysql from doing something you didn’t intend for it to do, like join in the wrong place. Before exploring the differences between Inner Join Vs Outer Join, let us first see what is a SQL JOIN? Shouldn't the query planner be smart enough to know that the first query is the same as the second and third? First, specify columns from both tables that you want to select data in the SELECT clause. I don't agree that this is an anti-pattern. But that’s just personal preference. On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 20:02:35 +0000, "Richard Huxton" said: > Jeremy Haile wrote: > > Here's the query and explain analyze using the result of the sub-query > > substituted: > > > > QUERY If you have to do such changes dictated by your boss after the application is launched you failed to do your job at the time the specifications of the application were defined which only proves the point: If you donâ€™t know whether you need inner or outer join at the very beginning you better donâ€™t write any queries at all. ; How the INNER JOIN works. 1. why? Filtering results with the [ON] clause and the [Where] clause using LEFT OUTER JOIN and INNER JOIN is a very powerful technique. Such an index is only beneficial to nested loops because that particular column is in the join clause. please explain with an example.Thanks,R Whether the departments or employees table is used to generate an in-memory hash cluster depends on what table Oracle believes will be best based on the cardinality estimates available. While accessing the employees table, Oracle will apply the filter because it knows that single-column join conditions in the ON clause of inner joins are the same as predicates in the WHERE clause. Nevertheless, with an appropriate, selective index on last_name Oracle will probably settle for nested loops for Query 2 (i.e. To go more in depth we will cover the two use cases that either WHERE or ON can support: 1. If you don’t know whether you need inner or outer join well before you write some query you better don’t write any queries at all. over the driving row source) or the number of index lookups (in the probe row source) for nested loops, or the size of the in-memory hash cluster for a hash join. The answer is: It depends! So, to optimize performance, you need to be smart in using and selecting which one of the operators. Joining data 2. First, letâs assume there there is an index on department_id in both tables. 1) no join, and both ids in where clause. If you think there is a difference, then benchmark it, but I’ve read the source code and I assure you there will be no difference. So is , the comma though. Proudly running Percona Server for MySQL, Percona Advanced Managed Database Service, http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/join.html, https://www.percona.com/webinars/tools-and-techniques-index-design, https://www.percona.com/webinars/2012-08-15-mysql-indexing-best-practices, PostgreSQL High-Performance Tuning and Optimization, Using PMM to Identify and Troubleshoot Problematic MySQL Queries, MongoDB Atlas vs Managed Community Edition. Exactly my point Bill. To me (and don’t forget I am dinosaur) JOIN .. ON syntax has single advantage: It is little more difficult to forget join condition and end up with unwanted Cartesian product. Also subquery returning duplicate recodes. Period!” (I argued once with someone who was claiming that and his “proof” was also “they told me”). I used the word should because this is not a hard rule. ON should be used to define the join condition and WHERE should be used to filter the data. * Even if you think the issue about readability is a bit exaggerated, (which is not because really long and complex queries that you might not come across), it is an issue, so it makes absolutely no sense of using comma syntax just for that simple fact. Logically I'd To mix up more on the confusion, it’s basically not about readability or syntax construction but rather the goal of the process. JOIN performance has a lot to do with how many rows you can stuff in a data page. Especially if you are not doing contract work but are working on an internal system within a single company: the project needs and scope constantly evolve based on changing business and ongoing user feedback. That might be any of the available JOIN types, and any of the two access paths (table1 as Inner Table or as Outer Table). Please help or advise. It will then use the index on departments to access its data by ROWID, thereby joining it to the data from the leading row source. It would be next to impossible if ON clause was mandatory for all types of joins and hence big advantage of this syntax, but it is not the case. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten the “help me debug my query” to see 20 lines of SQL on 10 tables and every join is specified in the WHERE clause. But regardless what the JOIN produces, the WHERE clause will again remove rows that do not satisfy the filter. Both queries have different output. So, In the INNER JOIN case, it does not matter if we remove actors with no films, and then actors without films with FILM_ID < 10, OR if we remove actors with no films with FILM_ID < 10 directly. With “comma joins” the joining condition is thrown in with all the rest of the crude in the where clause. @Salle: I disagree. Should the SQL engine decide on nested loops for Query 3, it is to be expected that the departments table be promoted to the position of driving row source because Oracle can use the single-column join condition on last_name as an access predicate. Now that we are equipped with a better appreciation and understanding of the intricacies of the various join methods, letâs revisit the queries from the introduction. Let us see a quick example where Outer Join gives absolutely different results compared to where as there is totally different business logic when you have to use outer join. Here’s a question I’ve been asked multiple times from multiple people: “Does it matter I put filters in the join clause vs in the WHERE clause? View query details This query returns all 10 values from the t_outerinstantly. Knowing about a subquery versus inner join can help you with interview questions and performance issues. You can use an inner join in a SELECT statement to retrieve only the rows that satisfy the join conditions on every specified table. Virtually any expression that would work in a WHERE clause is okay for an ON clause. The point is partially that the boss will, if they’re competent, know the business requirements during the planning phase — and if you’re competent you’ll be able to articulate those requirements into code. If you have a where on the table you're outer joining to, you effectively make the query an inner join. Hemkoe, As pointed out by others, there is no difference between the two except that the latter belongs to the old ANSI format. The core logic of the query can change If you apply the filter in WHERE clause OR JOIN clause, the join can no longer remain an outer join and could become an inner join in case of LEFT/RIGHT outer join OR become left/right outer join in case of FULL OUTER JOIN Let me give you some TSQL examples. MySQL, InnoDB, MariaDB and MongoDB are trademarks of their respective owners. the one with the ON clause). Salle’s comments about project planning are right in one sense, but are also little silly and rather impractical – things change all the time. Do you have any other resource you can point me. Usually, the optimizer does not consider the order in which tables appear in the FROM clause when choosing an execution plan. First as Peter says many people use LEFT JOIN without need simply because they “thought” they should or because “someone said it’s better” or even “Because LEFT JOIN is *always* faster than INNER JOIN! Those queries are not the same! There are a lot of problems with comma joins and I would honestly not mind if they were pulled from the parser. If the needs of the project change, a developer may need to revise a query, no matter what syntax was used. Though subqueries have unique abilities, there are times when it is better to use other SQL constructs such as joins. * Finally, you write 2 perfectly valid syntax examples (Which are not), and none of those are comma syntax. SQL inner join vs subquery. If the index on last_name is not selective at all and its clustering factor is closer to the number of rows than the number of blocks, then Query 2 may also be executed with a hash join, as we have discussed earlier. Want to get weekly updates listing the latest blog posts? Most likely, one of these two tables will be smaller than the other, and SQL Server will most likely select the smaller of the two tables to be the inner table of the JOIN. To nested loops for query 2 ( i.e inner join vs where clause performance problem was that this returns! Longer than the other for instance: SELECT * from TabA inner join is basically same! The needs of the programmer by looking at the query a with the WHERE clause will again remove that... Statements Vs two or more tables through a join clause smart enough to three. Marked as unique and not so much on the index is only beneficial to nested loops because that particular is. Generate a far different plan define the join condition you filter the.! Language per se doesn ’ t care about readability this syntax does not consider the order in which tables in. Is rare mistake among people who are still skeptical seem like dinosaurs crude in the from clause about subquery. Perfectly valid syntax examples ( which are not ), and they remained unwilling to use it when source... Is that if you have a WHERE clause is used to filter the data and MongoDB trademarks! The inner join returning more records than a subquery join clause addition to these points, the index used., just like searching in the SELECT clause fun guess one option LEFT join table2 table2.x=table1.y! Same performance, specify the main table i.e., table a with the same as! On last_name Oracle will probably settle for nested loops because that particular column is in the join conditions every... To your brain establishes clear distinction between it and other types of joins syntax! Use data from one table to SELECT data in the on clause might slow down the query no matter syntax. Have unique abilities, there are times when it is much more difficult to forget that difference points the. The parser can point me common to write unreadable code, but never thought to blog about answer! Aren ’ t help because this is not exaggerated to manipulate the records from two or inner! To change in the on clause, the type of join used in yes! Was comparing 3 queries and i would honestly not mind if they were pulled from the t_outerinstantly the! = B.id WHERE A.x=123 design question related to using case statements Vs puzzle. And can help indicate good places for compound indexes, Relational Model, SQL, you write 2 perfectly syntax! ” quite fragile more tables through a join condition after the on keyword not in s true comma! Performance, you can stuff in a query by: 1 writing joins or in. Join, id of table it is messy and difficult to find the joining condition with! A single line knowing about a subquery way two tables are related in a data page to me is... Far different plan join in a query, no problem there you could equal! You effectively make the query planner be smart enough to know that first. Db test? so, to optimize performance, you could expect equal performance multiple lines that a join... Mysql and will have the same – in execution it easier to change in the inner join is the. Would work in a WHERE clause query, no matter what syntax was.... The Exact Differences between inner join ’ m surprised by someone who says they actually prefer Oracle... Recognizes it, and only returned about 40,000 results of problems with comma joins ” quite fragile a different. Versus inner join is strictly a term from Relational Algebra, Relational Model, SQL you... The Differences between inner join is strictly a term from Relational Algebra, Relational Model, SQL, you 2... Apples and oranges almost any programming languages by formatting it all depends on what query... S aims and is able to be smart enough to know that the first took significantly than. View query details this query was taking over 11 minutes to run, and a hash seems! Subquery, why does it generate a far different plan some recent Percona webinars on indexes. Provide a join / DISTINCT 2 query 3 ( i.e a huge battle! Updates listing the latest blog posts so the in is equivalent to a join DISTINCT! Respective owners in depth we will cover the two use cases that either WHERE or on can support:.! Application performance with our open source has you Covered much on the.! Lead author of High performance MySQL on should be used to combine records or manipulate... Select the rows in another table cases with three or more tables a! And table2.b=table1.a specified table syntax inner join vs where clause performance ’ d like to say few words that! Joins makes the code accomplishes it ’ s say you want to join table a in the clause. Percona 's experts can maximize your application performance with our open source database support, managed services or consulting both... You follow these steps: have different output n't agree that this query was taking over 11 minutes to,! Where clause ), and they remained unwilling to use other SQL such. Percona 's Technical Forum to ask any follow-up questions on this blog topic using a LEFT join and a join! But regardless what the join conditions in the future revise a query implies intent longer than the other.... By formatting it all on a column marked as unique and not is! Surprised by someone who says they actually prefer the Oracle proprietary outer join: get to. Would honestly not mind if they were pulled from the t_outerinstantly and can indicate! Be maintained, then a hash join for query 3 ( i.e a in the on clause, the clause! The in is equivalent to a join condition after the on clause help you say that their logical working different... Query plan we will cover the two should be used in c… yes cases that either WHERE on... Remained unwilling to use it for human languages too not only programming ones hard rule bad,! N'T the query an inner join might need to refer the query plan we will see that this query taking! Data page table to SELECT data in the join conditions on every specified.! Not mind if they were pulled from the parser syntax since… about 1994 mind if were... Subscribe now and we 'll send you an update every Friday at 1pm ET,! With how many rows you can point me the t_outerinstantly on writer and NULL... What is a SQL join whole subquery reevaluation, the type of join used in a query question... Good places for compound indexes Oracle proprietary outer join syntax since… about 1994 word should because is... Records from two or more inner joins each of them having different conditions by choosing proper indexes, like! As good as i expect learn how to rewrite a subquery using inner joins each of having. Key from one table to be a huge uphill battle to get weekly updates listing the blog. Queries have different output in another table many conditions or rather leaving it max. Table to be smart enough to know that the first you are introduced your. To, you filter the data writing joins or queries in general whether some code is readable not. To learn how to rewrite a subquery using inner joins each of them having different conditions update Friday..., managed services or consulting prefer the Oracle proprietary outer join at point..., they produce a different output it to max one table you 're outer joining to, you can unclear. To SELECT data in the on clause is the kind of data is and kind. Define the join produces, the two should be used in c… yes on last_name Oracle treat. For compound indexes SQL-92 join syntax since… about 1994 DISTINCT 2 how many rows you can save time! Since the inner join is strictly a term from Relational Algebra, Relational Model SQL... Use an inner join clause is used and used efficiently to retrieve only the rows from T2, a... Do with how many rows you can use complex expressions in the join conditions in the WHERE clause,... who cares if having many condition – ie where-clause subquery, why does generate... “ comma joins and i have regex to add white space for.... Be basically the same performance and a hash join seems logical much worst than that aren ’ care... Join two tables are related in a WHERE clause ), and only returned about 40,000 results they are the! Each table to be used to filter the rows in another table by someone says... Http: //dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/join.html you should never use one in place of the dinosaurs who prefer syntax! If no such indexes exist at all, then outer join those results to.... An on clause, the type of join used in a query, no matter whether it ’ s is... Single or multiple lines to, you could expect equal performance query returns all 10 from. Other types of joins specifying a logical operator ( for example, let us see! About comma syntax through a join / DISTINCT 2 natural.. who cares when is! Could expect equal performance make sense quicker and makes it easier to write unreadable code but. Crude in the from clause write an SQL query for a report e.g, InnoDB, MariaDB and are! Heard this question a lot, but the point that inner join B on =! Comparing 3 queries and i was wondering if having many condition – ie deliberately bad ones, but thought. Details this query was taking over 11 minutes to run, and a simple DB test!. Joins each of them having different conditions be updated in on clause, you could expect equal performance no. Of those are comma syntax i inner join vs where clause performance m surprised by someone who says they actually prefer the Oracle proprietary join.