Question

What is better in a WHERE clause?

I have a large table, with a FK to a small table. I can search on the FK directly, or I can join to the FK table and set the WHERE restriction on the joined table. What is better / preferable?

So this:

SELECT lt.* FROM LargeTable lt 
WHERE lt.SomeId in(12,55)

Or this:

SELECT lt.* FROM LargeTable lt 
INNER JOIN SmallTable st ON lt.SomeId=st.ItemId
WHERE st.Id in(12,55)

I tested this with Set statistics time on, but I didn’t expect this as a result. Who can explain what happens here?

First test without join:

(946 row(s) affected)
 SQL Server Execution Times:
   CPU time = 1544 ms,  elapsed time = 1580 ms.

Second test with the join

(946 row(s) affected)
 SQL Server Execution Times:
   CPU time = 2636 ms,  elapsed time = 366 ms.

EDIT: When i do SELECT Id instead of SELECT *, then the first query without join has a lower elapsed time, and the query cost in the execution plan is 25% for no join vs 75% for the query with the join.

Answer 1

Based on your execution plans, both queries are essentially scanning every record in the entire large table… the second query is simply finding a small set of records from the small table before scanning the large table, which is why the relative cost is 50% for both.

I’d recommend considering an index on largeTable.SomeId, and then go with the first query:

SELECT lt.* FROM LargeTable lt 
WHERE lt.SomeId in(12,55)

EDIT:

So the big question is why did the query with the join have a shorter duration than the query without the join.

I think Martin Smith gave the answer to this question:

Your second one gets a parallel plan the first one doesn’t

You’ll notice that your first query had a shorter CPU time, but a longer elapsed time. To roughly summarize, your first query took less effort for the server to complete, but your second query used a parallel plan, and enlisted multiple processors to perform the query, so it took less time to complete, but more overall effort.