INNER JOIN vs. CROSS APPLY
refer from : http://explainextended.com/2009/07/16/inner-join-vs-cross-apply/
INNER JOIN
is the most used construct in SQL: it joins two tables together, selecting only those row combinations for which a JOIN
condition is true.
This query:
reads:
For each row from
table1
, select all rows fromtable2
where the value of fieldb
is equal to that of fielda
Note that this condition can be rewritten as this:
, in which case it reads as following:
Make a set of all possible combinations of rows from
table1
andtable2
and of this set select only those rows where the value of fieldb
is equal to that of fielda
These conditions are worded differently, but they yield the same result and database systems are aware of that. Usually both these queries are optimized to use the same execution plan.
The former syntax is called ANSI syntax, and it is generally considered more readable and is recommended to use.
However, it didn‘t get into Oracle until recently, that‘s why there are many hardcore Oracle developers that are just used to the latter syntax.
Actually, it‘s a matter of taste.
To use JOIN
s (with whatever syntax), both sets you are joining must be self-sufficient, i. e. the sets should not depend on each other. You can query both sets without ever knowing the contents on another set.
But for some tasks the sets are not self-sufficient. For instance, let‘s consider the following query:
We table
table1
andtable2
.table1
has acolumn
calledrowcount
.For each row from
table1
we need to select firstrowcount
rows fromtable2
, ordered bytable2.id
We cannot formulate a join condition here. The join condition, should it exists, would involve the row number, which is not present in table2
, and there is no way to calculate a row number only from the values of columns of any given row in table2
.
That‘s where the CROSS APPLY
can be used.
CROSS APPLY
is a Microsoft‘s extension to SQL, which was originally intended to be used with table-valued functions (TVF‘s).
The query above would look like this:
For each from
table1
, select firsttable1.rowcount
rows fromtable2
ordered byid
The sets here are not self-sufficient: the query uses values from table1
to define the second set, not to JOIN
with it.
The exact contents of t2
are not known until the corresponding row from table1
is selected.
I previously said that there is no way to join these two sets, which is true as long as we consider the sets as is. However, we can change the second set a little so that we get an additional computed field we can later join on.
The first option to do that is just count all preceding rows in a subquery:
The second option is to use a window function, also available in SQL Server since version 2005:
This functions returns the ordinal number a row would have be the ORDER BY
condition used in the function applied to the whole query.
This is essentially the same result as the subquery used in the previous query.
Now, let‘s create the sample tables and check all these solutions for efficiency:
SET NOCOUNT ON GO DROP TABLE [20090716_cross].table1 DROP TABLE [20090716_cross].table2 DROP SCHEMA [20090716_cross] GO CREATE SCHEMA [20090716_cross] CREATE TABLE table1 ( id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, row_count INT NOT NULL ) CREATE TABLE table2 ( id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, value VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL ) GO BEGIN TRANSACTION DECLARE @cnt INT SET @cnt = 1 WHILE @cnt <= 100000 BEGIN INSERT INTO [20090716_cross].table2 (id, value) VALUES (@cnt, ‘Value ‘ + CAST(@cnt AS VARCHAR)) SET @cnt = @cnt + 1 END INSERT INTO [20090716_cross].table1 (id, row_count) SELECT TOP 5 id, id % 2 + 1 FROM [20090716_cross].table2 ORDER BY id COMMIT GO
table2
contains 100,000 rows with sequential id
s.
table1
contains the following:
id | row_count |
---|---|
1 | 2 |
2 | 1 |
3 | 2 |
4 | 1 |
5 | 2 |
Now let‘s run the first query (with COUNT
):
id | row_count | id | value | rn | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 1 | Value 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 2 | 2 | Value 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1 | 1 | Value 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 2 | 1 | Value 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 2 | 2 | Value 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1 | 1 | Value 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | 2 | 1 | Value 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | 2 | 2 | Value 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 rows fetched in 0.0000s (498.4063s) |
Table ‘table1‘. Scan count 2, logical reads 200002, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0. Table ‘Worktable‘. Scan count 100000, logical reads 8389920, 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 ‘table2‘. Scan count 4, logical reads 1077, 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 = 947655 ms, elapsed time = 498385 ms.
This query, as was expected, is very unoptimal. It runs for more than 500 seconds.
Here‘s the query plan:
SELECT Sort Compute Scalar Parallelism (Gather Streams) Inner Join (Nested Loops) Inner Join (Nested Loops) Clustered Index Scan ([20090716_cross].[table2]) Compute Scalar Stream Aggregate Eager Spool Clustered Index Scan ([20090716_cross].[table2]) Clustered Index Scan ([20090716_cross].[table1])
For each row selected from table2
, it counts all previous rows again an again, never recording the intermediate result. The complexity of such an algorithm is O(n^2)
, that‘s why it takes so long.
Let‘s run he second query, which uses ROW_NUMBER()
:
id | row_count | id | value | rn | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 1 | Value 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 2 | 2 | Value 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1 | 1 | Value 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 2 | 1 | Value 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 2 | 2 | Value 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1 | 1 | Value 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | 2 | 1 | Value 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | 2 | 2 | Value 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 rows fetched in 0.0006s (0.5781s) |
Table ‘Worktable‘. Scan count 1, logical reads 214093, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0. Table ‘table2‘. Scan count 1, logical reads 522, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0. Table ‘table1‘. Scan count 1, logical reads 2, 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 = 578 ms, elapsed time = 579 ms.
This is much faster, only 0.5 ms.
Let‘s look into the query plan:
SELECT Inner Join (Nested Loops) Clustered Index Scan ([20090716_cross].[table1]) Lazy Spool Sequence Project (Compute Scalar) Compute Scalar Segment Clustered Index Scan ([20090716_cross].[table2])
This is much better, since this query plan keeps the intermediate results while calculating the ROW_NUMBER
.
However, it still calculates ROW_NUMBER
s for all 100,000
of rows in table2
, then puts them into a temporary index over rn
created by Lazy Spool
, and uses this index in a nested loop to range the rn
s for each row fromtable1
.
Calculating and indexing all ROW_NUMBER
s is quite expensive, that‘s why we see 214,093 logical reads in the query statistics.
Finally, let‘s try a CROSS APPLY
:
id | row_count | id | value | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 1 | Value 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 2 | 2 | Value 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1 | 1 | Value 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 2 | 1 | Value 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 2 | 2 | Value 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 1 | 1 | Value 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | 2 | 1 | Value 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | 2 | 2 | Value 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 rows fetched in 0.0004s (0.0008s) |
Table ‘table2‘. Scan count 5, logical reads 10, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0. Table ‘table1‘. Scan count 1, logical reads 2, 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 = 0 ms, elapsed time = 1 ms.
This query is instant, as it should be.
The plan is quite simple:
SELECT Inner Join (Nested Loops) Clustered Index Scan ([20090716_cross].[table1]) Top Clustered Index Scan ([20090716_cross].[table2])
For each row from table1
, it just takes first row_count
rows from table2
. So simple and so fast.
Summary:
While most queries which employ CROSS APPLY
can be rewritten using an INNER JOIN
, CROSS APPLY
can yield better execution plan and better performance, since it can limit the set being joined yet before the join occurs.
郑重声明:本站内容如果来自互联网及其他传播媒体,其版权均属原媒体及文章作者所有。转载目的在于传递更多信息及用于网络分享,并不代表本站赞同其观点和对其真实性负责,也不构成任何其他建议。