Questioning SQL efficiency, JOINs vs IN

Can anyone tell me which of these would be more efficient in processing?  I'm running MS SQL Server 2008.

Case 1
SELECT EF.ExtractableEmailVendorFeedName vendor
       ,COUNT(DISTINCT A.KeyID) companyCount
       ,COUNT(DISTINCT EF.DistinctID) emailCount
FROM PSExtract.dbo.vwCompany AS A
INNER JOIN PSExtract.dbo.vwExecutiveAndExecutiveFunction AS EF
ON A.KeyID = EF.KeyID AND EF.ExtractableEmailVendorFeedID IS NOT NULL AND
EF.OSFunctionID IN (30, 330, 333) AND
EF.OSLevelID IN (20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 85) AND
A.IndustryGroupID IN (220501, 220502, 220503, 220504, 220505, 220506, 220507, 220508, 220509, 220510, 220511, 220512,
220513, 220514, 220515, 220516, 220517, 220518, 220579, 220519, 220520, 220521, 220522, 220523, 220524, 220525,
220529, 220528, 220527, 220530, 220531, 220532, 220533, 220534, 220535, 220605, 220536, 220537, 220538, 220539,
220540, 220541, 220542, 220543, 220544, 220545, 220546, 220547, 220548, 220549, 220550, 220551, 220553, 220554,
220555, 220556, 220557, 220558, 220559, 220561, 220562, 220563, 220603, 220564, 220565, 220567, 220568, 220569,
220570, 220571, 220572, 220573, 220574, 220575, 220576, 220577, 220578, 220580, 220581, 220582, 220583, 220584,
220585, 220586, 220587, 220588, 220589, 220590, 220592, 220593, 220594, 220595, 220596, 220597, 220598, 220599,
220600, 220601, 220602) AND
A.NationalRegionID IN (10110, 10130, 10140) AND
A.Employees BETWEEN 50 AND 250
GROUP BY EF.ExtractableEmailVendorFeedName
ORDER BY EF.ExtractableEmailVendorFeedName ASC


Case 2
SELECT EF.ExtractableEmailVendorFeedName vendor
       ,COUNT(DISTINCT A.KeyID) companyCount
       ,COUNT(DISTINCT EF.DistinctID) emailCount
FROM PSExtract.dbo.vwCompany AS A
INNER JOIN PSExtract.dbo.vwExecutiveAndExecutiveFunction AS EF
ON A.KeyID = EF.KeyID AND EF.ExtractableEmailVendorFeedID IS NOT NULL AND
EF.OSFunctionID IN (30, 330, 333) AND
EF.OSLevelID IN (20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 85) AND
A.NationalRegionID IN (10110, 10130, 10140) AND
A.Employees BETWEEN 50 AND 250
INNER JOIN PSExtract.temp.RJZ_EssentialNet_IndustryGroupIDs AS IG
ON A.IndustryGroupID = IG.IndustryGroupID
GROUP BY EF.ExtractableEmailVendorFeedName
ORDER BY EF.ExtractableEmailVendorFeedName ASC

PSExtract.temp.RJZ_EssentialNet_IndustryGroupIDs  is loaded with the IndustryGroupIDs you see in case 1, they are loaded as ints, they are not indexed in any way.

Rich
LVL 1
RichNHAsked:
Who is Participating?

[Product update] Infrastructure Analysis Tool is now available with Business Accounts.Learn More

x
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

wdosanjosCommented:
I suggest that you view the execution plan of each query on SSME to evaluate which one is less expensive.
0
Anthony PerkinsCommented:
PSExtract.temp.RJZ_EssentialNet_IndustryGroupIDs  is loaded with the IndustryGroupIDs you see in case 1, they are loaded as ints, they are not indexed in any way.
Why not index it?  If you do it should be a no brainer.
I would however re-write it as follows:
SELECT	EF.ExtractableEmailVendorFeedName vendor,
	COUNT(DISTINCT A.KeyID) companyCount,
	COUNT(DISTINCT EF.DistinctID) emailCount
FROM	PSExtract.dbo.vwCompany AS A
	INNER JOIN PSExtract.dbo.vwExecutiveAndExecutiveFunction AS EF ON A.KeyID = EF.KeyID
	INNER JOIN PSExtract.temp.RJZ_EssentialNet_IndustryGroupIDs AS IG ON A.IndustryGroupID = IG.IndustryGroupID
WHERE	EF.ExtractableEmailVendorFeedID IS NOT NULL
	AND EF.OSFunctionID IN (30, 330, 333)
	AND EF.OSLevelID IN (20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 85)
	AND A.NationalRegionID IN (10110, 10130, 10140)
	AND A.Employees BETWEEN 50 AND 250
GROUP BY
	EF.ExtractableEmailVendorFeedName
ORDER BY
	EF.ExtractableEmailVendorFeedName ASC

Open in new window

0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
HainKurtSr. System AnalystCommented:
run both and check the execution time...
I don't see much difference but second one is more easy to maintain...
0
Anthony PerkinsCommented:
Absolutely!
0
RichNHAuthor Commented:
Thanks for the replies folks, to answer questions in turn:

I don't have the privs to run an execution plan right now.

This was a one shot solution as all the solutions I generate pretty much are, the question was more to figure out if there was a more efficient way.  I did try running both samples and they came in neck and neck.   For the data I pulled you couldn't really tell who won.  My understanding is that sometimes the amount of data we pull and the operations we do will run hours.  This query lasted between 4 & 5 minutes.

My understanding from one of the books I was reading was that if you can put a constraint into the JOIN, it's more efficient in execution.  I read this in Beginning Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Programming by Robert Vieira.  Although I do agree that from a maintenance point of view the suggested query in ACPerkins note is much better.
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Microsoft SQL Server

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.