MySQL OR和IN的性能比较

213

我想知道以下两种方式在性能上是否有差异:

SELECT ... FROM ... WHERE someFIELD IN(1,2,3,4)

SELECT ... FROM ... WHERE someFIELD between 0 AND 5

SELECT ... FROM ... WHERE someFIELD = 1 OR someFIELD = 2 OR someFIELD = 3 ... 

MySQL会像编译器优化代码一样优化SQL吗?


编辑

根据评论中的原因,将AND更改为OR


我也在研究这个问题,但是与一些说法相反,IN 可以被转换为 UNION,而不是 OR 的行,这是优化查询时推荐使用的替代方法。 - Jānis Gruzis
1
这个领域已经进行了一些优化更改,因此以下一些答案可能已经“过时”。 - Rick James
特别是,项目的数量可能很重要。数字的“聚集程度”可能很重要(BETWEEN 1 AND 4 完全匹配,可能更快)。MySQL/MariaDB 的版本可能很重要。 - Rick James
14个回答

278
我需要确切的答案,所以我对两种方法进行了基准测试。我一致发现IN比使用OR要快得多。
不要相信那些提出“观点”的人,科学就是关于测试和证据的。
我运行了1000次等效查询的循环(为了保持一致性,我使用了sql_no_cache): IN: 2.34969592094秒 OR: 5.83781504631秒
更新:
(由于测试是6年前进行的,我没有原始测试的源代码,但它返回的结果与此测试的范围相同)
请求一些示例代码来测试此问题,在这里是最简单的用例。为了语法简便,使用Eloquent,原始SQL等效执行相同。
$t = microtime(true); 
for($i=0; $i<10000; $i++):
$q = DB::table('users')->where('id',1)
    ->orWhere('id',2)
    ->orWhere('id',3)
    ->orWhere('id',4)
    ->orWhere('id',5)
    ->orWhere('id',6)
    ->orWhere('id',7)
    ->orWhere('id',8)
    ->orWhere('id',9)
    ->orWhere('id',10)
    ->orWhere('id',11)
    ->orWhere('id',12)
    ->orWhere('id',13)
    ->orWhere('id',14)
    ->orWhere('id',15)
    ->orWhere('id',16)
    ->orWhere('id',17)
    ->orWhere('id',18)
    ->orWhere('id',19)
    ->orWhere('id',20)->get();
endfor;
$t2 = microtime(true); 
echo $t."\n".$t2."\n".($t2-$t)."\n";

1482080514.3635
1482080517.3713
3.0078368186951

$t = microtime(true); 
for($i=0; $i<10000; $i++): 
$q = DB::table('users')->whereIn('id',[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20])->get(); 
endfor; 
$t2 = microtime(true); 
echo $t."\n".$t2."\n".($t2-$t)."\n";

1482080534.0185
1482080536.178
2.1595389842987


22
这些测试使用了哪些指标? - eggyal
5
我也在优化查询时发现IN语句比OR快大约30%。 - Timo002
17
不要相信那些发表“个人看法”的人。你是完全正确的,Stack Overflow上不幸充满了这样的人。 - elipoultorak
10
性能原因(引用MariaDB(MySQL的新免费分支)文档):“如果expr等于IN列表中的任何一个值,则返回1,否则返回0。如果所有值都是常量,则根据expr的类型进行计算并排序。然后使用二进制搜索来查找该项。这意味着** 如果IN值列表完全由常量组成,则IN非常快**。否则,按照类型转换规则执行类型转换,但应用于所有参数。” => 如果您的列是整数,请将整数传递给IN... - jave.web
15
"不相信那些发表他们的“观点”的人"的必然结果是:如果在提供性能数据时不包括用于获取这些数据的脚本、表格和索引,那么这些数据就无法验证。因此,这些数据就像一种“观点”一样。 - Disillusioned
显示剩余5条评论

73

我还为未来的Googler做了一个测试。返回的结果总数是10000中的7264个。

SELECT * FROM item WHERE id = 1 OR id = 2 ... id = 10000

这个查询用了0.1239

SELECT * FROM item WHERE id IN (1,2,3,...10000)

这个查询花费了0.0433

INOR快3倍


18
请问使用的是哪个 MySQL 引擎?在两次查询之间是否清空了 MySQL 缓存和操作系统文件缓存? - dabest1
3
你的测试是一个狭窄的用例。查询返回了72%的数据,并且不太可能从索引中受益。 - Disillusioned
我敢打赌,大部分时间都花在了消耗查询、解析和查询规划上。这当然是一个需要考虑的问题:如果你要有10k个OR语句,那么只用OR表达它会有很多冗余文本,最好使用最紧凑的表达方式。 - bishop

71

原回答未解释原因。

以下内容引自《高性能MySQL第三版》。

在许多数据库服务器中,IN()只是多个OR子句的同义词,因为它们在逻辑上是等价的。但在MySQL中不是这样的,MySQL会对IN()列表中的值进行排序,并使用快速二分搜索来查看一个值是否在列表中。这是O(Log n)级别的复杂度,而等效的OR子句系列的复杂度在列表大小为n时为O(n)(也就是说,在处理大型列表时速度要慢得多)。


2
具体数据库原因的参考非常棒。不错! - Joshua Pinter
MySQL/MariaDB的一些最近版本在执行IN操作时有两种方式,具体取决于列表的长度。Jacob正在描述其中一种选项。 - Rick James

15

我认为使用 BETWEEN 会更快,因为它会被转换为:

Field >= 0 AND Field <= 5

据我所知,IN语句最终会转换成一系列OR语句。IN语句的价值在于其易用性。(省去了多次输入每个列名的麻烦,并且与现有逻辑结合使用更加容易 - 您不必担心AND/OR优先级,因为IN语句只是一个条件语句。而对于一堆OR语句,您必须确保用括号将它们包围起来以确保它们作为一个条件被评估。)

对于你的问题唯一真正的答案是分析你的查询语句。然后你就会知道什么在你特定的情况下工作得最好。


从统计学上讲,Between有触发范围索引的机会。IN()没有这个特权。但是,是的,beach是对的:你需要对你的请求进行分析,以了解是否使用了索引以及使用了哪个索引。很难预测MySQL优化器会选择什么。 - Savageman
据我了解,IN 将被转换为一堆 OR 语句。你在哪里读到的?我希望将其放入哈希表中以进行 O(1) 查找。 - Ztyx
IN被转换为OR是SQLServer的处理方式(至少曾经是这样 - 现在可能已经改变了,多年没有使用过)。我无法找到任何证据表明MySQL会这样做。 - RichardAtHome
4
这个答案是正确的,"between"被转换成了"1 <= film_id <= 5"。另外两个解决方案没有折叠成单个范围条件。我有一篇博客文章,在这里使用OPTIMIZER TRACE演示了这一点:http://www.tocker.ca/2015/05/25/optimizer-trace-and-explain-formatjson-in-5-7.html - Morgan Tocker

14

这取决于你在做什么;范围有多大,数据类型是什么(我知道你的例子使用了数字数据类型,但是你的问题也适用于许多不同的数据类型)。

这是一个实例,你需要以两种方式编写查询语句;先让它能运行,然后使用EXPLAIN来查找执行差异。

我确定有一个具体的答案,但就我个人而言,这就是如何找出我的给定问题的答案的实际方法。

这可能会有所帮助:http://forge.mysql.com/wiki/Top10SQLPerformanceTips

敬礼,
弗兰克


2
这应该是被选定的答案。 - Jon z
3
链接已经过期 - 我认为这可能是相应的链接?https://wikis.oracle.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=27263381 (感谢甲骨文 ;-P) - ilasno
1
在相应的页面上,它说:“在选择索引字段时避免使用IN(...),它会降低SELECT查询的性能。”- 你知道为什么吗? - jorisw
该URL已过期。 - Steve Jiang

7

我认为对sunseeker的观察有一个解释,那就是如果IN语句中的所有值都是静态的,并且使用二分查找,MySQL实际上会对这些值进行排序,这比普通的OR语句更有效率。我记不清在哪里读到过这个,但sunseeker的结果似乎证明了这一点。


我也听说过这个列表已经排序了。 - Rick James

7

就在你以为一切安全的时候...

eq_range_index_dive_limit 的值是多少?特别是,在 IN 子句中,您是否有更多或更少的项?

这将不包括基准测试,但会深入了解一些内部工作。让我们使用一个工具来查看正在发生的事情——优化器跟踪。

查询:SELECT * FROM canada WHERE id ...

用 3 个值的 OR,跟踪的一部分如下:

       "condition_processing": {
          "condition": "WHERE",
          "original_condition": "((`canada`.`id` = 296172) or (`canada`.`id` = 295093) or (`canada`.`id` = 293626))",
          "steps": [
            {
              "transformation": "equality_propagation",
              "resulting_condition": "(multiple equal(296172, `canada`.`id`) or multiple equal(295093, `canada`.`id`) or multiple equal(293626, `canada`.`id`))"
            },

...

              "analyzing_range_alternatives": {
                "range_scan_alternatives": [
                  {
                    "index": "id",
                    "ranges": [
                      "293626 <= id <= 293626",
                      "295093 <= id <= 295093",
                      "296172 <= id <= 296172"
                    ],
                    "index_dives_for_eq_ranges": true,
                    "chosen": true

...

        "refine_plan": [
          {
            "table": "`canada`",
            "pushed_index_condition": "((`canada`.`id` = 296172) or (`canada`.`id` = 295093) or (`canada`.`id` = 293626))",
            "table_condition_attached": null,
            "access_type": "range"
          }
        ]

请注意,ICP被赋予了 "ORs"。这意味着"OR"没有变成"IN",InnoDB将通过ICP执行一堆"="测试。(我不觉得考虑MyISAM值得)。(这是Percona的5.6.22-71.0-log;id是一个次要索引。)
现在来看带有几个值的IN()。
eq_range_index_dive_limit = 10;共有8个值。
        "condition_processing": {
          "condition": "WHERE",
          "original_condition": "(`canada`.`id` in (296172,295093,293626,295573,297148,296127,295588,295810))",
          "steps": [
            {
              "transformation": "equality_propagation",
              "resulting_condition": "(`canada`.`id` in (296172,295093,293626,295573,297148,296127,295588,295810))"
            },

...

              "analyzing_range_alternatives": {
                "range_scan_alternatives": [
                  {
                    "index": "id",
                    "ranges": [
                      "293626 <= id <= 293626",
                      "295093 <= id <= 295093",
                      "295573 <= id <= 295573",
                      "295588 <= id <= 295588",
                      "295810 <= id <= 295810",
                      "296127 <= id <= 296127",
                      "296172 <= id <= 296172",
                      "297148 <= id <= 297148"
                    ],
                    "index_dives_for_eq_ranges": true,
                    "chosen": true

...

        "refine_plan": [
          {
            "table": "`canada`",
            "pushed_index_condition": "(`canada`.`id` in (296172,295093,293626,295573,297148,296127,295588,295810))",
            "table_condition_attached": null,
            "access_type": "range"
          }
        ]

请注意,IN似乎没有转换为OR
顺便提一下,注意常量值已排序。这样做有两个好处:
  • 少跳来跳去,可能会有更好的缓存,更少的I/O来获取所有的值。
  • 如果来自不同连接的两个类似的查询都在事务中,并且它们重叠了列表,那么更有可能出现延迟而不是死锁。
  • 最后,当IN()带有大量值时
          {
            "condition_processing": {
              "condition": "WHERE",
              "original_condition": "(`canada`.`id` in (293831,292259,292881,293440,292558,295792,292293,292593,294337,295430,295034,297060,293811,295587,294651,295559,293213,295742,292605,296018,294529,296711,293919,294732,294689,295540,293000,296916,294433,297112,293815,292522,296816,293320,293232,295369,291894,293700,291839,293049,292738,294895,294473,294023,294173,293019,291976,294923,294797,296958,294075,293450,296952,297185,295351,295736,296312,294330,292717,294638,294713,297176,295896,295137,296573,292236,294966,296642,296073,295903,293057,294628,292639,293803,294470,295353,297196,291752,296118,296964,296185,295338,295956,296064,295039,297201,297136,295206,295986,292172,294803,294480,294706,296975,296604,294493,293181,292526,293354,292374,292344,293744,294165,295082,296203,291918,295211,294289,294877,293120,295387))",
              "steps": [
                {
                  "transformation": "equality_propagation",
                  "resulting_condition": "(`canada`.`id` in (293831,292259,292881,293440,292558,295792,292293,292593,294337,295430,295034,297060,293811,295587,294651,295559,293213,295742,292605,296018,294529,296711,293919,294732,294689,295540,293000,296916,294433,297112,293815,292522,296816,293320,293232,295369,291894,293700,291839,293049,292738,294895,294473,294023,294173,293019,291976,294923,294797,296958,294075,293450,296952,297185,295351,295736,296312,294330,292717,294638,294713,297176,295896,295137,296573,292236,294966,296642,296073,295903,293057,294628,292639,293803,294470,295353,297196,291752,296118,296964,296185,295338,295956,296064,295039,297201,297136,295206,295986,292172,294803,294480,294706,296975,296604,294493,293181,292526,293354,292374,292344,293744,294165,295082,296203,291918,295211,294289,294877,293120,295387))"
                },
    

    ...

                  "analyzing_range_alternatives": {
                    "range_scan_alternatives": [
                      {
                        "index": "id",
                        "ranges": [
                          "291752 <= id <= 291752",
                          "291839 <= id <= 291839",
                          ...
                          "297196 <= id <= 297196",
                          "297201 <= id <= 297201"
                        ],
                        "index_dives_for_eq_ranges": false,
                        "rows": 111,
                        "chosen": true
    

    ...

            "refine_plan": [
              {
                "table": "`canada`",
                "pushed_index_condition": "(`canada`.`id` in (293831,292259,292881,293440,292558,295792,292293,292593,294337,295430,295034,297060,293811,295587,294651,295559,293213,295742,292605,296018,294529,296711,293919,294732,294689,295540,293000,296916,294433,297112,293815,292522,296816,293320,293232,295369,291894,293700,291839,293049,292738,294895,294473,294023,294173,293019,291976,294923,294797,296958,294075,293450,296952,297185,295351,295736,296312,294330,292717,294638,294713,297176,295896,295137,296573,292236,294966,296642,296073,295903,293057,294628,292639,293803,294470,295353,297196,291752,296118,296964,296185,295338,295956,296064,295039,297201,297136,295206,295986,292172,294803,294480,294706,296975,296604,294493,293181,292526,293354,292374,292344,293744,294165,295082,296203,291918,295211,294289,294877,293120,295387))",
                "table_condition_attached": null,
                "access_type": "range"
              }
            ]
    

    顺便提一下:由于追踪信息过于庞大,我需要这个功能:

    @@global.optimizer_trace_max_mem_size = 32222;
    

    3
    以下是使用MySQL 5.6 @SQLFiddle进行的6个查询的详细信息。
    总的来说,这6个查询涵盖了独立索引列,每个数据类型使用了2个查询。无论使用IN()或ORs,所有查询都使用了索引。
            |   ORs      |   IN()
    integer | uses index | uses index
    date    | uses index | uses index
    varchar | uses index | uses index
    

    我只是想驳斥一个观点,即OR意味着无法使用索引。这是不正确的。如下面6个查询所显示的那样,可以在使用OR的查询中使用索引。

    另外,我认为许多人忽略了IN()是一组OR的语法快捷方式的事实。在小规模性能差异方面,使用IN()-v-OR的差距极其微小。

    虽然在较大规模上,IN()肯定更方便,但从逻辑上看它仍等同于一组OR条件。由于每个查询的情况都会发生变化,因此在自己的表格上测试查询最好。

    6个解释计划的摘要,全部都是“使用索引条件”(向右滚动)。

      Query               select_type    table    type    possible_keys      key      key_len   ref   rows   filtered           Extra          
                          ------------- --------- ------- --------------- ----------- --------- ----- ------ ---------- ----------------------- 
      Integers using OR   SIMPLE        mytable   range   aNum_idx        aNum_idx    4               10     100.00     Using index condition  
      Integers using IN   SIMPLE        mytable   range   aNum_idx        aNum_idx    4               10     100.00     Using index condition  
      Dates using OR      SIMPLE        mytable   range   aDate_idx       aDate_idx   6               7      100.00     Using index condition  
      Dates using IN      SIMPLE        mytable   range   aDate_idx       aDate_idx   6               7      100.00     Using index condition  
      Varchar using OR    SIMPLE        mytable   range   aName_idx       aName_idx   768             10     100.00     Using index condition  
      Varchar using IN    SIMPLE        mytable   range   aName_idx       aName_idx   768             10     100.00     Using index condition  
    

    SQL Fiddle

    MySQL 5.6架构设置:

    CREATE TABLE `myTable` (
      `id` mediumint(8) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
      `aName` varchar(255) default NULL,
      `aDate` datetime,
      `aNum`  mediumint(8),
      PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
    ) AUTO_INCREMENT=1;
    
    ALTER TABLE `myTable` ADD INDEX `aName_idx` (`aName`);
    ALTER TABLE `myTable` ADD INDEX `aDate_idx` (`aDate`);
    ALTER TABLE `myTable` ADD INDEX `aNum_idx` (`aNum`);
    
    INSERT INTO `myTable` (`aName`,`aDate`)
     VALUES 
     ("Daniel","2017-09-19 01:22:31")
    ,("Quentin","2017-06-03 01:06:45")
    ,("Chester","2017-06-14 17:49:36")
    ,("Lev","2017-08-30 06:27:59")
    ,("Garrett","2018-10-04 02:40:37")
    ,("Lane","2017-01-22 17:11:21")
    ,("Chaim","2017-09-20 11:13:46")
    ,("Kieran","2018-03-10 18:37:26")
    ,("Cedric","2017-05-20 16:25:10")
    ,("Conan","2018-07-10 06:29:39")
    ,("Rudyard","2017-07-14 00:04:00")
    ,("Chadwick","2018-08-18 08:54:08")
    ,("Darius","2018-10-02 06:55:56")
    ,("Joseph","2017-06-19 13:20:33")
    ,("Wayne","2017-04-02 23:20:25")
    ,("Hall","2017-10-13 00:17:24")
    ,("Craig","2016-12-04 08:15:22")
    ,("Keane","2018-03-12 04:21:46")
    ,("Russell","2017-07-14 17:21:58")
    ,("Seth","2018-07-25 05:51:30")
    ,("Cole","2018-06-09 15:32:53")
    ,("Donovan","2017-08-12 05:21:35")
    ,("Damon","2017-06-27 03:44:19")
    ,("Brian","2017-02-01 23:35:20")
    ,("Harper","2017-08-25 04:29:27")
    ,("Chandler","2017-09-30 23:54:06")
    ,("Edward","2018-07-30 12:18:07")
    ,("Curran","2018-05-23 09:31:53")
    ,("Uriel","2017-05-08 03:31:43")
    ,("Honorato","2018-04-07 14:57:53")
    ,("Griffin","2017-01-07 23:35:31")
    ,("Hasad","2017-05-15 05:32:41")
    ,("Burke","2017-07-04 01:11:19")
    ,("Hyatt","2017-03-14 17:12:28")
    ,("Brenden","2017-10-17 05:16:14")
    ,("Ryan","2018-10-10 08:07:55")
    ,("Giacomo","2018-10-06 14:21:21")
    ,("James","2018-02-06 02:45:59")
    ,("Colt","2017-10-10 08:11:26")
    ,("Kermit","2017-09-18 16:57:16")
    ,("Drake","2018-05-20 22:08:36")
    ,("Berk","2017-04-16 17:39:32")
    ,("Alan","2018-09-01 05:33:05")
    ,("Deacon","2017-04-20 07:03:05")
    ,("Omar","2018-03-02 15:04:32")
    ,("Thaddeus","2017-09-19 04:07:54")
    ,("Troy","2016-12-13 04:24:08")
    ,("Rogan","2017-11-02 00:03:25")
    ,("Grant","2017-08-21 01:45:16")
    ,("Walker","2016-11-26 15:54:52")
    ,("Clarke","2017-07-20 02:26:56")
    ,("Clayton","2018-08-16 05:09:29")
    ,("Denton","2018-08-11 05:26:05")
    ,("Nicholas","2018-07-19 09:29:55")
    ,("Hashim","2018-08-10 20:38:06")
    ,("Todd","2016-10-25 01:01:36")
    ,("Xenos","2017-05-11 22:50:35")
    ,("Bert","2017-06-17 18:08:21")
    ,("Oleg","2018-01-03 13:10:32")
    ,("Hall","2018-06-04 01:53:45")
    ,("Evan","2017-01-16 01:04:25")
    ,("Mohammad","2016-11-18 05:42:52")
    ,("Armand","2016-12-18 06:57:57")
    ,("Kaseem","2018-06-12 23:09:57")
    ,("Colin","2017-06-29 05:25:52")
    ,("Arthur","2016-12-29 04:38:13")
    ,("Xander","2016-11-14 19:35:32")
    ,("Dante","2016-12-01 09:01:04")
    ,("Zahir","2018-02-17 14:44:53")
    ,("Raymond","2017-03-09 05:33:06")
    ,("Giacomo","2017-04-17 06:12:52")
    ,("Fulton","2017-06-04 00:41:57")
    ,("Chase","2018-01-14 03:03:57")
    ,("William","2017-05-08 09:44:59")
    ,("Fuller","2017-03-31 20:35:20")
    ,("Jarrod","2017-02-15 02:45:29")
    ,("Nissim","2018-03-11 14:19:25")
    ,("Chester","2017-11-05 00:14:27")
    ,("Perry","2017-12-24 11:58:04")
    ,("Theodore","2017-06-26 12:34:12")
    ,("Mason","2017-10-02 03:53:49")
    ,("Brenden","2018-10-08 10:09:47")
    ,("Jerome","2017-11-05 20:34:25")
    ,("Keaton","2018-08-18 00:55:56")
    ,("Tiger","2017-05-21 16:59:07")
    ,("Benjamin","2018-04-10 14:46:36")
    ,("John","2018-09-05 18:53:03")
    ,("Jakeem","2018-10-11 00:17:38")
    ,("Kenyon","2017-12-18 22:19:29")
    ,("Ferris","2017-03-29 06:59:13")
    ,("Hoyt","2017-01-03 03:48:56")
    ,("Fitzgerald","2017-07-27 11:27:52")
    ,("Forrest","2017-10-05 23:14:21")
    ,("Jordan","2017-01-11 03:48:09")
    ,("Lev","2017-05-25 08:03:39")
    ,("Chase","2017-06-18 19:09:23")
    ,("Ryder","2016-12-13 12:50:50")
    ,("Malik","2017-11-19 15:15:55")
    ,("Zeph","2018-04-04 11:22:12")
    ,("Amala","2017-01-29 07:52:17")
    ;
    

    .

    update MyTable
    set aNum = id
    ;
    

    查询1:

    select 'aNum by OR' q, mytable.*
    from mytable
    where aNum = 12
    OR aNum = 22
    OR aNum = 27
    OR aNum = 32
    OR aNum = 42
    OR aNum = 52
    OR aNum = 62
    OR aNum = 65
    OR aNum = 72
    OR aNum = 82
    

    结果:

    |          q | id |    aName |                aDate | aNum |
    |------------|----|----------|----------------------|------|
    | aNum by OR | 12 | Chadwick | 2018-08-18T08:54:08Z |   12 |
    | aNum by OR | 22 |  Donovan | 2017-08-12T05:21:35Z |   22 |
    | aNum by OR | 27 |   Edward | 2018-07-30T12:18:07Z |   27 |
    | aNum by OR | 32 |    Hasad | 2017-05-15T05:32:41Z |   32 |
    | aNum by OR | 42 |     Berk | 2017-04-16T17:39:32Z |   42 |
    | aNum by OR | 52 |  Clayton | 2018-08-16T05:09:29Z |   52 |
    | aNum by OR | 62 | Mohammad | 2016-11-18T05:42:52Z |   62 |
    | aNum by OR | 65 |    Colin | 2017-06-29T05:25:52Z |   65 |
    | aNum by OR | 72 |   Fulton | 2017-06-04T00:41:57Z |   72 |
    | aNum by OR | 82 |  Brenden | 2018-10-08T10:09:47Z |   82 |
    

    查询 2:

    select 'aNum by IN' q, mytable.*
    from mytable
    where aNum IN (
                12
              , 22
              , 27
              , 32
              , 42
              , 52
              , 62
              , 65
              , 72
              , 82
              )
    

    结果:

    |          q | id |    aName |                aDate | aNum |
    |------------|----|----------|----------------------|------|
    | aNum by IN | 12 | Chadwick | 2018-08-18T08:54:08Z |   12 |
    | aNum by IN | 22 |  Donovan | 2017-08-12T05:21:35Z |   22 |
    | aNum by IN | 27 |   Edward | 2018-07-30T12:18:07Z |   27 |
    | aNum by IN | 32 |    Hasad | 2017-05-15T05:32:41Z |   32 |
    | aNum by IN | 42 |     Berk | 2017-04-16T17:39:32Z |   42 |
    | aNum by IN | 52 |  Clayton | 2018-08-16T05:09:29Z |   52 |
    | aNum by IN | 62 | Mohammad | 2016-11-18T05:42:52Z |   62 |
    | aNum by IN | 65 |    Colin | 2017-06-29T05:25:52Z |   65 |
    | aNum by IN | 72 |   Fulton | 2017-06-04T00:41:57Z |   72 |
    | aNum by IN | 82 |  Brenden | 2018-10-08T10:09:47Z |   82 |
    

    查询 3:

    select 'adate by OR' q, mytable.*
    from mytable
    where aDate= str_to_date("2017-02-15 02:45:29",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
    OR aDate = str_to_date("2018-03-10 18:37:26",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
    OR aDate = str_to_date("2017-05-20 16:25:10",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
    OR aDate = str_to_date("2018-07-10 06:29:39",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
    OR aDate = str_to_date("2017-07-14 00:04:00",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
    OR aDate = str_to_date("2018-08-18 08:54:08",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
    OR aDate = str_to_date("2018-10-02 06:55:56",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
    OR aDate = str_to_date("2017-04-20 07:03:05",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
    OR aDate = str_to_date("2018-03-02 15:04:32",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
    OR aDate = str_to_date("2017-09-19 04:07:54",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
    OR aDate = str_to_date("2016-12-13 04:24:08",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
    

    结果:

    (此链接为结果页面)
    |           q | id |    aName |                aDate | aNum |
    |-------------|----|----------|----------------------|------|
    | adate by OR | 47 |     Troy | 2016-12-13T04:24:08Z |   47 |
    | adate by OR | 76 |   Jarrod | 2017-02-15T02:45:29Z |   76 |
    | adate by OR | 44 |   Deacon | 2017-04-20T07:03:05Z |   44 |
    | adate by OR | 46 | Thaddeus | 2017-09-19T04:07:54Z |   46 |
    | adate by OR | 10 |    Conan | 2018-07-10T06:29:39Z |   10 |
    | adate by OR | 12 | Chadwick | 2018-08-18T08:54:08Z |   12 |
    | adate by OR | 13 |   Darius | 2018-10-02T06:55:56Z |   13 |
    

    查询 4:

    select 'adate by IN' q, mytable.*
    from mytable
    where aDate IN (
              str_to_date("2017-02-15 02:45:29",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
            , str_to_date("2018-03-10 18:37:26",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
            , str_to_date("2017-05-20 16:25:10",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
            , str_to_date("2018-07-10 06:29:39",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
            , str_to_date("2017-07-14 00:04:00",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
            , str_to_date("2018-08-18 08:54:08",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
            , str_to_date("2018-10-02 06:55:56",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
            , str_to_date("2017-04-20 07:03:05",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
            , str_to_date("2018-03-02 15:04:32",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
            , str_to_date("2017-09-19 04:07:54",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
            , str_to_date("2016-12-13 04:24:08",'%Y-%m-%d %h:%i:%s')
            )
    

    Results:

    |           q | id |    aName |                aDate | aNum |
    |-------------|----|----------|----------------------|------|
    | adate by IN | 47 |     Troy | 2016-12-13T04:24:08Z |   47 |
    | adate by IN | 76 |   Jarrod | 2017-02-15T02:45:29Z |   76 |
    | adate by IN | 44 |   Deacon | 2017-04-20T07:03:05Z |   44 |
    | adate by IN | 46 | Thaddeus | 2017-09-19T04:07:54Z |   46 |
    | adate by IN | 10 |    Conan | 2018-07-10T06:29:39Z |   10 |
    | adate by IN | 12 | Chadwick | 2018-08-18T08:54:08Z |   12 |
    | adate by IN | 13 |   Darius | 2018-10-02T06:55:56Z |   13 |
    

    查询5:

    select 'name by  OR' q, mytable.*
    from mytable
    where aname = 'Alan'
    OR aname = 'Brian'
    OR aname = 'Chandler'
    OR aname = 'Darius'
    OR aname = 'Evan'
    OR aname = 'Ferris'
    OR aname = 'Giacomo'
    OR aname = 'Hall'
    OR aname = 'James'
    OR aname = 'Jarrod'
    

    结果:

    |           q | id |    aName |                aDate | aNum |
    |-------------|----|----------|----------------------|------|
    | name by  OR | 43 |     Alan | 2018-09-01T05:33:05Z |   43 |
    | name by  OR | 24 |    Brian | 2017-02-01T23:35:20Z |   24 |
    | name by  OR | 26 | Chandler | 2017-09-30T23:54:06Z |   26 |
    | name by  OR | 13 |   Darius | 2018-10-02T06:55:56Z |   13 |
    | name by  OR | 61 |     Evan | 2017-01-16T01:04:25Z |   61 |
    | name by  OR | 90 |   Ferris | 2017-03-29T06:59:13Z |   90 |
    | name by  OR | 37 |  Giacomo | 2018-10-06T14:21:21Z |   37 |
    | name by  OR | 71 |  Giacomo | 2017-04-17T06:12:52Z |   71 |
    | name by  OR | 16 |     Hall | 2017-10-13T00:17:24Z |   16 |
    | name by  OR | 60 |     Hall | 2018-06-04T01:53:45Z |   60 |
    | name by  OR | 38 |    James | 2018-02-06T02:45:59Z |   38 |
    | name by  OR | 76 |   Jarrod | 2017-02-15T02:45:29Z |   76 |
    

    Query 6:

    select 'name by IN' q, mytable.*
    from mytable
    where aname IN (
          'Alan'
         ,'Brian'
         ,'Chandler'
         , 'Darius'
         , 'Evan'
         , 'Ferris'
         , 'Giacomo'
         , 'Hall'
         , 'James'
         , 'Jarrod'
         )
    

    结果:

    |          q | id |    aName |                aDate | aNum |
    |------------|----|----------|----------------------|------|
    | name by IN | 43 |     Alan | 2018-09-01T05:33:05Z |   43 |
    | name by IN | 24 |    Brian | 2017-02-01T23:35:20Z |   24 |
    | name by IN | 26 | Chandler | 2017-09-30T23:54:06Z |   26 |
    | name by IN | 13 |   Darius | 2018-10-02T06:55:56Z |   13 |
    | name by IN | 61 |     Evan | 2017-01-16T01:04:25Z |   61 |
    | name by IN | 90 |   Ferris | 2017-03-29T06:59:13Z |   90 |
    | name by IN | 37 |  Giacomo | 2018-10-06T14:21:21Z |   37 |
    | name by IN | 71 |  Giacomo | 2017-04-17T06:12:52Z |   71 |
    | name by IN | 16 |     Hall | 2017-10-13T00:17:24Z |   16 |
    | name by IN | 60 |     Hall | 2018-06-04T01:53:45Z |   60 |
    | name by IN | 38 |    James | 2018-02-06T02:45:59Z |   38 |
    | name by IN | 76 |   Jarrod | 2017-02-15T02:45:29Z |   76 |
    

    3

    OR 运算符会比较慢。IN 和 BETWEEN 哪个更快,取决于您的数据,但通常情况下我预计 BETWEEN 会更快,因为它可以从索引中简单地取出一个范围(假设 someField 已被索引)。


    3

    2018: IN (...)比较快。但是>= && <=甚至比IN还要快。

    这里是我的基准测试结果


    网页内容由stack overflow 提供, 点击上面的
    可以查看英文原文,
    原文链接