Inner Join VS Where

Inner join vs Where

No! The same execution plan, look at these two tables:

CREATE TABLE table1 (
  id INT,
  name VARCHAR(20)
);

CREATE TABLE table2 (
  id INT,
  name VARCHAR(20)
);

The execution plan for the query using the inner join:

-- with inner join

EXPLAIN PLAN FOR
SELECT * FROM table1 t1
INNER JOIN table2 t2 ON t1.id = t2.id;

SELECT *
FROM TABLE (DBMS_XPLAN.DISPLAY);

-- 0 select statement
-- 1 hash join (access("T1"."ID"="T2"."ID"))
-- 2 table access full table1
-- 3 table access full table2

And the execution plan for the query using a WHERE clause.

-- with where clause

EXPLAIN PLAN FOR
SELECT * FROM table1 t1, table2 t2
WHERE t1.id = t2.id;

SELECT *
FROM TABLE (DBMS_XPLAN.DISPLAY);

-- 0 select statement
-- 1 hash join (access("T1"."ID"="T2"."ID"))
-- 2 table access full table1
-- 3 table access full table2

INNER JOIN ON vs WHERE clause

INNER JOIN is ANSI syntax that you should use.

It is generally considered more readable, especially when you join lots of tables.

It can also be easily replaced with an OUTER JOIN whenever a need arises.

The WHERE syntax is more relational model oriented.

A result of two tables JOINed is a cartesian product of the tables to which a filter is applied which selects only those rows with joining columns matching.

It's easier to see this with the WHERE syntax.

As for your example, in MySQL (and in SQL generally) these two queries are synonyms.

Also, note that MySQL also has a STRAIGHT_JOIN clause.

Using this clause, you can control the JOIN order: which table is scanned in the outer loop and which one is in the inner loop.

You cannot control this in MySQL using WHERE syntax.

Difference between JOIN and INNER JOIN

They are functionally equivalent, but INNER JOIN can be a bit clearer to read, especially if the query has other join types (i.e. LEFT or RIGHT or CROSS) included in it.

SQL JOIN - WHERE clause vs. ON clause

They are not the same thing.

Consider these queries:

SELECT *
FROM Orders
LEFT JOIN OrderLines ON OrderLines.OrderID=Orders.ID
WHERE Orders.ID = 12345

and

SELECT *
FROM Orders
LEFT JOIN OrderLines ON OrderLines.OrderID=Orders.ID 
    AND Orders.ID = 12345

The first will return an order and its lines, if any, for order number 12345. The second will return all orders, but only order 12345 will have any lines associated with it.

With an INNER JOIN, the clauses are effectively equivalent. However, just because they are functionally the same, in that they produce the same results, does not mean the two kinds of clauses have the same semantic meaning.

Which performs first WHERE clause or JOIN clause

The conceptual order of query processing is:

1. FROM
2. WHERE
3. GROUP BY
4. HAVING
5. SELECT
6. ORDER BY

But this is just a conceptual order. In fact the engine may decide to rearrange clauses. Here is proof. Let's make 2 tables with 1000000 rows each:

CREATE TABLE test1 (id INT IDENTITY(1, 1), name VARCHAR(10))
CREATE TABLE test2 (id INT IDENTITY(1, 1), name VARCHAR(10))


;WITH cte AS(SELECT -1 + ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY (SELECT NULL)) d FROM
(VALUES(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1)) t1(n) CROSS JOIN
(VALUES(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1)) t2(n) CROSS JOIN
(VALUES(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1)) t3(n) CROSS JOIN
(VALUES(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1)) t4(n) CROSS JOIN
(VALUES(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1)) t5(n) CROSS JOIN
(VALUES(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1)) t6(n))

INSERT INTO test1(name) SELECT 'a' FROM cte

Now run 2 queries:

SELECT * FROM dbo.test1 t1
JOIN dbo.test2 t2 ON t2.id = t1.id AND t2.id = 100
WHERE t1.id > 1


SELECT * FROM dbo.test1 t1
JOIN dbo.test2 t2 ON t2.id = t1.id
WHERE t1.id = 1

Notice that the first query will filter most rows out in the join condition, but the second query filters in the where condition. Look at the produced plans:

1 TableScan - Predicate:[Test].[dbo].[test2].[id] as [t2].[id]=(100)

2 TableScan - Predicate:[Test].[dbo].[test2].[id] as [t2].[id]=(1)

This means that in the first query optimized, the engine decided first to evaluate the join condition to filter out rows. In the second query, it evaluated the where clause first.

MySQL: Inner join vs Where

As pulled from the accepted answer in question 44917:

Performance wise, they are exactly the
same (at least in SQL Server) but be
aware that they are deprecating the
implicit outer join syntax.

In MySql the results are the same.

I would personally stick with joining tables explicitly... that is the "socialy acceptable" way of doing it.

SQL INNER JOIN vs LEFT JOIN with a WHERE

Yes, they will return the same result. The left join without the where clause would read as show me all the records from the header table and the related items from the details table or null for the details where there are no matches.

Adding a where clause relating the ids effectively transforms the left join to an inner join by eliminating the non-matching rows that would have shown up as having null for the detail part.

In some databases, like MS SQL Server, the left join would show up as an inner join in the query execution plan.

Although you stated that you don't want Venn diagrams I can't help referring you to this question and its answers even though they are filled with (in my opinion very helpful) Venn diagrams.

Explain JOIN vs. LEFT JOIN and WHERE condition performance suggestion in more detail

Consider the following example. We have two tables, DEPARTMENTS and EMPLOYEES.

Some departments do not yet have any employees.

This query uses an inner join that finds the department employee 999 works at, if any, otherwise it shows nothing (not even the employee or his or her name):

select a.department_id, a.department_desc, b.employee_id, b.employee_name
  from departments a
  join employees b
    on a.department_id = b.department_id
 where b.employee_id = '999'

This next query uses an outer join (left between departments and employees) and finds the department that employee 999 works for. However it too will not show the employee's ID or his or her name, if they do not work at any departments. That is because of the outer joined table being used in the WHERE clause. If there is no matching department, it will be null (not 999, even though 999 exists in employees).

select a.department_id, a.department_desc, b.employee_id, b.employee_name
  from departments a
  left join employees b
    on a.department_id = b.department_id
 where b.employee_id = '999'

But consider this query:

select a.department_id, a.department_desc, b.employee_id, b.employee_name
  from departments a
  left join employees b
    on a.department_id = b.department_id
   and b.employee_id= '999'

Now the criteria is in the on clause. So even if this employee works at no departments, he will still be returned (his ID and name). The department columns will be null, but we get a result (the employee side).

You might think you would never want to use the outer joined table in the WHERE clause, but that is not necessarily the case. Normally it is, for the reason described above, though.

Suppose you want all departments with no employees. Then you could run the following, which does use an outer join, and the outer joined table is used in the where clause:

select a.department_id, a.department_desc, b.employee_id
  from departments a
  left join employees b
    on a.department_id = b.department_id
 where b.employee_id is null

^^ Shows departments with no employees.

The above is likely the only legitimate reason you would want to use an outer joined table in the WHERE clause rather than the ON clause (which I think is what your question is; the difference between inner and outer joins is an entirely different topic).

A good way to look at is this: You use outer joins to allow nulls. Why would you then use an outer join and say that a field should not be null and should be equal to 'XYZ'? If a value has to be 'XYZ' (not null), then why instruct the database to allow nulls to come back? It's like saying one thing and then overriding it later.

PostgreSQL - INNER JOIN vs WHERE, which one will perform better?

I think what you mean to say is difference between the below queries

select a.col1,b.col2 from table1 a, table2 b where a.id = b.id;

Against

select a.col1,b.col2 from table1 a
join table2 b on a.id = b.id;

To my knowledge, both are doing a INNER JOIN; it's just that the above one is a old style, hard to read, error prone implicit join syntax and the below one is recommended explicit join syntax.

So, I don't see any performance gain/loss here; since either way they are performing the same thing.

---

Related Topics