Which SQL query is faster? Filter on Join criteria or Where clause?

Solution 1:

Performance-wise, they are the same (and produce the same plans)

Logically, you should make the operation that still has sense if you replace INNER JOIN with a LEFT JOIN.

In your very case this will look like this:

SELECT  *
FROM    TableA a
LEFT JOIN
        TableXRef x
ON      x.TableAID = a.ID
        AND a.ID = 1
LEFT JOIN
        TableB b
ON      x.TableBID = b.ID

or this:

SELECT  *
FROM    TableA a
LEFT JOIN
        TableXRef x
ON      x.TableAID = a.ID
LEFT JOIN
        TableB b
ON      b.id = x.TableBID
WHERE   a.id = 1

The former query will not return any actual matches for a.id other than 1, so the latter syntax (with WHERE) is logically more consistent.

Solution 2:

For inner joins it doesn't matter where you put your criteria. The SQL compiler will transform both into an execution plan in which the filtering occurs below the join (ie. as if the filter expressions appears is in the join condition).

Outer joins are a different matter, since the place of the filter changes the semantics of the query.

Solution 3:

As far as the two methods go.

JOIN/ON is for joining tables
WHERE is for filtering results

Whilst you can use them differently it always seems like a smell to me.

Deal with performance when it is a problem. Then you can look into such "optimisations".

Solution 4:

With any query optimizer worh a cent.... they are identical.

Solution 5:

In postgresql they are the same. We know this because if you do explain analyze on each of the queries, the plan comes out to be the same. Take this example:

# explain analyze select e.* from event e join result r on e.id = r.event_id and r.team_2_score=24;

                                                  QUERY PLAN                                                   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Hash Join  (cost=27.09..38.22 rows=7 width=899) (actual time=0.045..0.047 rows=1 loops=1)
   Hash Cond: (e.id = r.event_id)
   ->  Seq Scan on event e  (cost=0.00..10.80 rows=80 width=899) (actual time=0.009..0.010 rows=2 loops=1)
   ->  Hash  (cost=27.00..27.00 rows=7 width=8) (actual time=0.017..0.017 rows=1 loops=1)
         Buckets: 1024  Batches: 1  Memory Usage: 9kB
         ->  Seq Scan on result r  (cost=0.00..27.00 rows=7 width=8) (actual time=0.006..0.008 rows=1 loops=1)
               Filter: (team_2_score = 24)
               Rows Removed by Filter: 1
 Planning time: 0.182 ms
 Execution time: 0.101 ms
(10 rows)

# explain analyze select e.* from event e join result r on e.id = r.event_id where r.team_2_score=24;
                                                  QUERY PLAN                                                   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Hash Join  (cost=27.09..38.22 rows=7 width=899) (actual time=0.027..0.029 rows=1 loops=1)
   Hash Cond: (e.id = r.event_id)
   ->  Seq Scan on event e  (cost=0.00..10.80 rows=80 width=899) (actual time=0.010..0.011 rows=2 loops=1)
   ->  Hash  (cost=27.00..27.00 rows=7 width=8) (actual time=0.010..0.010 rows=1 loops=1)
         Buckets: 1024  Batches: 1  Memory Usage: 9kB
         ->  Seq Scan on result r  (cost=0.00..27.00 rows=7 width=8) (actual time=0.006..0.007 rows=1 loops=1)
               Filter: (team_2_score = 24)
               Rows Removed by Filter: 1
 Planning time: 0.140 ms
 Execution time: 0.058 ms
(10 rows)

They both have the same min and max cost as well as the same query plan. Also, notice that even in the top query the team_score_2 gets applied as a 'Filter'.