使用C#和Linq to SQL,我发现我使用多个where
的查询比使用单个where
/ and
慢几个数量级。
这是查询
using (TeradiodeDataContext dc = new TeradiodeDataContext())
{
var filterPartNumberID = 71;
var diodeIDsInBlades = (from bd in dc.BladeDiodes
select bd.DiodeID.Value).Distinct();
var diodesWithTestData = (from t in dc.Tests
join tt in dc.TestTypes on t.TestTypeID equals tt.ID
where tt.DevicePartNumberID == filterPartNumberID
select t.DeviceID.Value).Distinct();
var result = (from d in dc.Diodes
where d.DevicePartNumberID == filterPartNumberID
where diodesWithTestData.Contains(d.ID)
where !diodeIDsInBlades.Contains(d.ID)
orderby d.Name
select d);
var list = result.ToList();
// ~15 seconds
}
但是,当最终查询中的条件为此时
where d.DevicePartNumberID == filterPartNumberID
& diodesWithTestData.Contains(d.ID)
& !diodeIDsInBlades.Contains(d.ID)
// milliseconds
它非常快。
在调用result
之前比较ToList()
中的SQL,这里是查询(手动添加值71代替@params)
-- MULTIPLE WHERE
SELECT [t0].[ID], [t0].[Name], [t0].[M2MID], [t0].[DevicePartNumberID], [t0].[Comments], [t0].[Hold]
FROM [dbo].[Diode] AS [t0]
WHERE (NOT (EXISTS(
SELECT NULL AS [EMPTY]
FROM (
SELECT DISTINCT [t2].[value]
FROM (
SELECT [t1].[DiodeID] AS [value]
FROM [dbo].[BladeDiode] AS [t1]
) AS [t2]
) AS [t3]
WHERE [t3].[value] = [t0].[ID]
))) AND (EXISTS(
SELECT NULL AS [EMPTY]
FROM (
SELECT DISTINCT [t6].[value]
FROM (
SELECT [t4].[DeviceID] AS [value], [t5].[DevicePartNumberID]
FROM [dbo].[Test] AS [t4]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[TestType] AS [t5] ON [t4].[TestTypeID] = ([t5].[ID])
) AS [t6]
WHERE [t6].[DevicePartNumberID] = (71)
) AS [t7]
WHERE [t7].[value] = [t0].[ID]
)) AND ([t0].[DevicePartNumberID] = 71)
ORDER BY [t0].[Name]
和
-- SINGLE WHERE
SELECT [t0].[ID], [t0].[Name], [t0].[M2MID], [t0].[DevicePartNumberID], [t0].[Comments], [t0].[Hold]
FROM [dbo].[Diode] AS [t0]
WHERE ([t0].[DevicePartNumberID] = 71) AND (EXISTS(
SELECT NULL AS [EMPTY]
FROM (
SELECT DISTINCT [t3].[value]
FROM (
SELECT [t1].[DeviceID] AS [value], [t2].[DevicePartNumberID]
FROM [dbo].[Test] AS [t1]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[TestType] AS [t2] ON [t1].[TestTypeID] = ([t2].[ID])
) AS [t3]
WHERE [t3].[DevicePartNumberID] = (71)
) AS [t4]
WHERE [t4].[value] = [t0].[ID]
)) AND (NOT (EXISTS(
SELECT NULL AS [EMPTY]
FROM (
SELECT DISTINCT [t6].[value]
FROM (
SELECT [t5].[DiodeID] AS [value]
FROM [dbo].[BladeDiode] AS [t5]
) AS [t6]
) AS [t7]
WHERE [t7].[value] = [t0].[ID]
)))
ORDER BY [t0].[Name]
这两个SQL查询在SSMS中执行<1秒并产生相同的结果。
所以我想知道为什么第一个在LINQ方面较慢。令我担心的是因为我知道我在其他地方使用了多个where
,却没有意识到这种严重的性能影响。
This question甚至已经回复了多个&和哪里。而this answer甚至建议使用多个where子句。
任何人都可以解释为什么会发生这种情况吗?
因为写这样的
if (someParam1 != 0)
{
myQuery = myQuery.Where(q => q.SomeField1 == someParam1)
}
if (someParam2 != 0)
{
myQuery = myQuery.Where(q => q.SomeField2 == someParam2)
}
与(upd)相同(在someParam1和someParam2!= 0的情况下)
myQuery = from t in Table
where t.SomeField1 == someParam1
&& t.SomeField2 == someParam2
select t;
是(未删除)与...相同
myQuery = from t in Table
where t.SomeField1 == someParam1
where t.SomeField2 == someParam2
select t;
UPD
是的,我错了。第二个查询是相同的,首先是不一样的。
第一和第二个查询不完全相同。让我告诉你我的意思。
将lambda表达式写成的第一个查询
t.Where(r => t.SomeField1 == someParam1 && t.SomeField2 == someParam2)
第二个查询为
t.Where(r => r.SomeField1 == someParam1).Where(r => r.SomeField2 == someParam2)
在这种情况下生成的SQL Predicate with SomeField2首先出现(重要的是,见下文)
在第一种情况下,我们得到这个SQL:
SELECT <all field from Table>
FROM table t
WHERE t.SomeField1 = :someParam1
AND t.SomeField2 = :someParam2
在2种情况下,SQL是:
SELECT <all field from Table>
FROM table t
WHERE t.SomeField2 = :someParam2
AND t.SomeField1 = :someParam1
我们看到有两个'相同'的SQL。正如我们所看到的,OP的SQL也是“相同的”,它们在WHERE
子句中的谓词顺序是不同的(如我的例子中所示)。我猜SQL优化器生成2个不同的执行计划,可能是(!!!)做NOT EXISTS
,然后EXISTS
,然后过滤比第一次过滤花费更多的时间,之后做EXISTS
和NOT EXISTS
UPD2
这是Linq Provider(ORM)的“问题”。我正在使用另一个ORM(linq2db),它在两种情况下都为我生成完全相同的SQL。