SELECT ID 存在于第二个表中的行的最有效方法

我希望从一个表中选择 ID 存在于第二个表中的所有记录。

以下两个查询返回正确的结果：

Query 1:

SELECT *
FROM Table1 t1
WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM Table2 t2 WHERE t1.ID = t2.ID)

Query 2:

SELECT *
FROM Table1 t1
WHERE t1.ID IN (SELECT t2.ID FROM Table2 t2)

这些查询之一是否比另一个更有效？我应该使用其中一种而不是另一种吗？还有第三种我没有想到的更有效的方法吗？

Summary:

IN 和 EXISTS 在所有场景中执行类似。以下是用于验证的参数。

执行成本、时间：
两者相同，优化器产生相同的计划。
内存授予：
两个查询相同
Cpu 时间，逻辑读取：
尽管读取相同，但 Exists 在 CPU 时间方面似乎比 IN 略胜一筹。

我使用下面的测试数据集运行每个查询 10 次。

1. 非常大的子查询结果集（100000 行）
2. 重复行
3. 空行

对于上述所有场景，IN and EXISTS以相同的方式执行。

一些关于性能V3数据库 http://tsql.solidq.com/resources/用于测试。 20000 个客户有 1000000 个订单，因此每个客户在订单表中随机重复（范围为 10 到 100）。

执行成本、时间：
下面是两个查询运行的屏幕截图。观察每个查询的相对成本。

内存成本：
两个查询的内存授予也是相同的..我强制 MDOP 1 以免将它们溢出到 TEMPDB..

CPU 时间，读取：

对于存在：

Table 'Workfile'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Customers'. Scan count 1, logical reads 109, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Orders'. Scan count 1, logical reads 3855, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

(1 row(s) affected)

 SQL Server Execution Times:
   CPU time = 469 ms,  elapsed time = 595 ms.
SQL Server parse and compile time: 
   CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

For IN:

(20000 row(s) affected)
Table 'Workfile'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Customers'. Scan count 1, logical reads 109, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Orders'. Scan count 1, logical reads 3855, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

(1 row(s) affected)

 SQL Server Execution Times:
   CPU time = 547 ms,  elapsed time = 669 ms.
SQL Server parse and compile time: 
   CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

在每种情况下，优化器都足够聪明，可以重新排列查询。

我倾向于使用EXISTS只是（我的意见）。一种使用案例EXISTS当您不想返回第二个表结果集时。

根据马丁·史密斯的询问更新：

我运行了以下查询，以找到从第一个表中获取第二个表中存在引用的行的最有效方法。

SELECT DISTINCT c.*
FROM Customers c
JOIN Orders o ON o.custid = c.custid   

SELECT c.*
FROM Customers c
INNER JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT custid FROM Orders) AS o ON o.custid = c.custid

SELECT *
FROM Customers C
WHERE EXISTS(SELECT 1 FROM Orders o WHERE o.custid = c.custid)

SELECT *
FROM Customers c
WHERE custid IN (SELECT custid FROM Orders)

除第二个查询外，上述所有查询都具有相同的成本INNER JOIN，其余计划相同。

内存授予：
这个查询

SELECT DISTINCT c.*
FROM Customers c
JOIN Orders o ON o.custid = c.custid 

所需的内存授予

这个查询

SELECT c.*
FROM Customers c
INNER JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT custid FROM Orders) AS o ON o.custid = c.custid 

所需的内存授予..

CPU 时间，读取：
对于查询：

SELECT DISTINCT c.*
FROM Customers c
JOIN Orders o ON o.custid = c.custid   

(20000 row(s) affected)
Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Workfile'. Scan count 48, logical reads 1344, physical reads 96, read-ahead reads 1248, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Orders'. Scan count 5, logical reads 3929, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Customers'. Scan count 5, logical reads 322, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

 SQL Server Execution Times:
   CPU time = 1453 ms,  elapsed time = 781 ms.

对于查询：

SELECT c.*
FROM Customers c
INNER JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT custid FROM Orders) AS o ON o.custid = c.custid

(20000 row(s) affected)
Table 'Customers'. Scan count 5, logical reads 322, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Workfile'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Orders'. Scan count 5, logical reads 3929, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

 SQL Server Execution Times:
   CPU time = 1499 ms,  elapsed time = 403 ms.