Personally, I never use RIGHT JOIN. The exception to this rule is if the optimizer is not able to expand the query. An inner join focuses on the commonality between two tables. The conclusion: Using a recent SQL Server version and a sufficient amount of data, JOIN will never be faster than EXISTS. EXISTS vs IN vs JOIN with NOT NULLable columns: Inner join on means cross join where. If you want specifics on why your specific query is doing this, you'll need to provide more information. Use a LEFT JOIN when you want all records in the left table. But I'm not worried about readablity. LEFT JOIN vs INNER JOIN performance for the same amount of data returned. What's most interesting is that the optimizer doesn't push around the clauses in the WHERE version to be the same. If there were useful indexes, I think it would choose same plans in both cases. IN is equivalent to a simple JOINso any valid join … Otherwise, the queries are logically the same. SELECT DISTINCT va.VendorID, va.ModifiedDate FROM Purchasing.VendorContact vc INNER JOIN Purchasing.VendorAddress va ON vc.VendorID = va.VendorID AND vc.ModifiedDate = va.ModifiedDate. Capital gains tax when proceeds were immediately used for another investment. 1) Left outer join returns all rows of table on left side of join. But the optimizer may find more efficient method to extract data. Example 4: Using INNER JOIN with Distinct. So you should NEVER use one in place of the other. Both queries have different output. – Martin Jun 1 '12 at 13:56 Clint Byrum. A LEFT JOIN is absolutely not faster than an INNER JOIN.In fact, it's slower; by definition, an outer join (LEFT JOIN or RIGHT JOIN) has to do all the work of an INNER JOIN plus the extra work of null-extending the results.It would also be expected to return more rows, further increasing the total execution time simply due to the larger size of the result set. A join clause is used to combine records or to manipulate the records from two or more tables through a join condition. Uri, I think I provided all information that is relevant in determining which is faster. If one is correct, the other is not. The potential difference between Inner Join and Outer Join is that Inner Join returns only the matching tuples from both the table and the Outer Join returns all the tuples from both the compared tables. try changing the order of the joins in your statement to see if you then get the same performance... just a thought. Upon finding it, the inner join combines and returns the information into one new table. Not completely identical, but the only difference is that the hash join for the IN shows a Hash Match (Right Semi Join) and the hash join for the INNER JOIN shows a Hash Match (Inner Join) Trivial optimizations treat on & where alike. The question is to a part irrelevant. * The difference between a LEFT JOIN and INNER JOIN is not speed, they produce a different output. To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers. In that situation [1] and [3] might have to do more work, so might be slower. Just skimmed, seems that the postgres planner doesn't re-order joins to optimise it. In many cases the two join types produce different results. Posted by: michael cook Date: July 06, 2016 09:32AM I'm doing something wrong and I can't figure it out. Queries 1a and 1b are logically the same and Oracle will treat them that way. JOIN performance has a lot to do with how many rows you can stuff in a data page. How do I straighten my bent metal cupboard frame? But if result set contains a large set of records, then use JOINS. I’ve written thousands of queries with just INNER … What is the difference between Left, Right, Outer and Inner Joins? For example if users had written INNER JOIN instead of JOIN there would have been no confusion in mind and hence there was no need to have original question. Brute force, mass image production copyright trolling? It will expand the queries and try to find the optimal solution. If table2.id is not declared as unique, then [3] is not the same as [1] or [2]. My UPDATE was running too slow even for … Inner Join specifies the natural join i.e. How can I adjust the vertical positioning of \lim so the argument is aligned with the whole limit stack rather than just the word "lim"? site design / logo © 2020 Stack Exchange Inc; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa. No whole subquery reevaluation, the index is used and used efficiently. When you do it within the JOIN, the planner will probably have to select from the table, filter by the "True" part, then join the result sets. rev 2020.12.18.38240, Sorry, we no longer support Internet Explorer, Stack Overflow works best with JavaScript enabled, Where developers & technologists share private knowledge with coworkers, Programming & related technical career opportunities, Recruit tech talent & build your employer brand, Reach developers & technologists worldwide, Can you show the execution plan (ideally using. The same problem as in previous post. That might be any of the available JOIN types, and any of the two access paths (table1 as Inner Table or as Outer Table). There are too many unknown factors to predict which would perform better, but the EXISTS subqueries don't perform like other correlated subqueries, in that they only have to process enough to confirm that one row would be returned, so they often perform very well. By doing what he's doing (JOIN vs WHERE) the planner is taking another path, and therefore there is a difference in performance. While INNER JOIN will do table scan which is slow. LEFT JOIN vs INNER JOIN performance on MySQL UPDATE with join. Performance difference: condition placed at INNER JOIN vs WHERE clause, How digital identity protects your software, Podcast 297: All Time Highs: Talking crypto with Li Ouyang, Putting filters in INNER JOIN instead of WHERE. April 14, 2008 11:34AM Re: LEFT JOIN vs INNER JOIN performance for the same amount of data returned. Left Join Performance vs Inner Join Performance; plan variations: join vs. exists vs. row comparison; join tables vs. denormalization by trigger; Q: Performance of join vs embedded query for simple queries? If the tables are not big enough, or there are other reasons why the optimizer doesn't expand the queries, then you might see small differences. Using JOINS (Inner Join is the default join when the name is not specified): Select * from tableA JOIN tableB ON tableA.id=tableB.id Where tableB.title = ‘Analyst’; SQL Join vs Subquery and SQL Join vs Where. In short, the planner is the problem it is choosing 2 different routes to get to the result sets, and one of those is not as efficient as the other. Maybe "Force" isn't the right word, however, the concept is correct. So my folk suggest me to change INNER JOIN to LEFT JOIN because the performance of LEFT JOIN is better, at first time its despite what I know. INNER JOIN is the intersection of data between table A and table B. I have a table with hourly data - so for all intents and purposes, each row has a datetime field and an integer field. In the US, what kind of lawyer represents the government in court? When INNER JOIN is used it gives us duplicate records, but that is not in the case of INTERSECT operator. Maybe "Force" isn't the right word, however, the concept is correct. LEFT JOIN ON vs. LEFT JOIN USING performance; 7.4 vs 7.3 ( hash join issue ) merge join killing performance; Improving Inner Join Performance When should I use cross apply over inner join? What are the differences between the book and TV Series for Drummer's Storyline? If we look into the query plan we will see that this is just a plain NESTED LOOPSjoin on the index. Maybe "Tell" is the word, but this is meant to be descriptive to people who are not familiar with planners. On the other hand, when you use JOINS you might not get the same result set as in the IN and the EXISTS clauses. In that case the optimizer might select a suboptimal query plan. In SQL Server, while most queries which employ CROSS APPLY can be rewritten using an INNER JOIN, CROSS APPLY can yield better execution plan and better performance, since it can limit the set being joined yet before the join occurs. Oracleis smart enough to make three logical constructs: 1. The above query can be rewritten without using inner join like below but the performance will be impacted compared to inner join – And faced a problem again. performance. We’ve even joined two tables in the previous article. c1.id < c2.id. Again, inner join returning more records than a subquery. View query details This query returns all 10 values from the t_outerinstantly. How to identify whether a TRP Spyre mechanical disc brake is the post-recall version? Use a RIGHT JOIN when you want all records in the right table. 26986. But before we move to it, let’s make just one minor change to our data. Comma is cross join with lower precedence than keyword joins. What is the difference between inner join and outer join? How is length contraction on rigid bodies possible in special relativity since definition of rigid body states they are not deformable? Do airlines book you on other airlines if they cancel flights? Maybe "Tell" is the word, but this is meant to be descriptive to people who are not familiar with planners. Hard to predict which would be fastest. but query cost all are same.i need to know which one is the best when we considering, http://www.xs4all.nl/~gertjans/sql/example2/no-columns-from-autojoined-table.html. actual execution plan and estimated plan also in details(2m records with two table each one has 1m records). DISTINCT on a column marked as UNIQUE and NOT NULL is redundant, so the IN is equivalent to a simple JOIN 3. Oracle joins -- including the question of LEFT JOIN vs. LEFT OUTER JOIN -- can be a very confusing topic, especially for newcomers to Oracle databases. Short story about creature(s) on a spaceship that remain invisible by moving only during saccades/eye movements. Why is this gcd implementation from the 80s so complicated? From what I can tell, the view _name_ implied table A, but they then wanted to right join to a main table B (e.g. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/explicit-joins.html. On vs "filter" is irrelevant for inner join. Was wood used in the construction of the TU-144? QUESTION: Keeping the processed = true as part of the join clause is slowing the query down. The best way to find out is to run them both and looking at the query plan, IO statistics, and/or how long the query takes. Before exploring the differences between Inner Join Vs Outer Join, let us first see what is a SQL JOIN? The primary keys and respective foreign key columns are indexed while the value columns (value, processed etc) aren't. Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow! a transaction table), and then left join B to reference table C, etc. ResultSet: Stack Overflow for Teams is a private, secure spot for you and But those queries I posted above return different data and as result create different execution plan, IN,EXISTS or INNER JOIN - which one is the best (performance wise), actual execution plan and estimated plan also in details(2m records with two table each one has 1m records). What type of salt for sourdough bread baking? MySQL multiple index columns have a full cardinality? This may depend a lot on existing indexes, statistics, resources available, etc. 1. Disclaimer: I have inherited this DB structure and the performance difference is roughly 6 seconds. Did the Allies try to "bribe" Franco to join them in World War II? SELECT FROM Orders O JOIN OrderDetails Od ON O.OrderID=Od.OrderID, SELECT * FROM Orders WHERE EXISTS (SELECT * FROM OrderDetails Od WHERE Orders .OrderID=Od.OrderID). If I move it to the WHERE clause then the performance is much better. And then perhaps it's not smart enough to pull it up and use it later when the working set is smaller. Inner Join Vs Outer Join: Get Ready to Explore the Exact Differences Between Inner and Outer Join. Most of the time, IN and EXISTS give you the same results with the same performance. What is the difference between “INNER JOIN” and “OUTER JOIN”? Any Example to prove it? How to Delete using INNER JOIN with SQL Server? If the tables are big enough, then under normal circumstances, the optimizer will recognize this. That does allow for nulls in table A columns referenced in the view, but the vendor was fine with that. @ypercube Optimizer would normally push them down in as low as possible to reduce the cardinality as soon as possible, but obviously that is not good when it results in a table op instead of an index op. Please try to include actual execution plan while trying to compare the below 2 queries, the execution plan depends on the sp of MS SQL Server which you So far, in this series, we’ve explained database basics – how to create database and tables, how to populate tables with data and check what’s stored in them using simple queries. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy, and our Terms of Service. EXPLAIN EXTENDED. This answer is a bunch of misconceptions. INNER JOIN vs LEFT JOIN performance in SQL Server I've created SQL command that use INNER JOIN for 9 tables, anyway this command take a very long time (more than five minutes). Inner Join vs Outer Join Performance Date: August 29, 2016 Author: Rob 0 Comments At work, a colleague and I discussed the performance of inner joins and against outer joins, particularly in the case where both types of joins would return the same number of rows. How to create fast database queries. Please note that if you use IN with a list of literals, then that is a different situation. Re: Left Join vs Inner Join performance On 2013-04-15 13:57, Mike Goodwin wrote: > I do not have my original explain output, but it seems I was probably > wrong about my assertion that the explain was essentially the same. If the tables are not big enough, or there are other reasons why the optimizer doesn't expand the queries, then you might see small differences. Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers. But when using IN and INNER JOIN clause IN is faster than INNER JOIN. Join Performance: ON vs WHERE ¶ Now that we are equipped with a better appreciation and understanding of the intricacies of the various join methods, let’s revisit the queries from the introduction. INNER JOIN's: SELECT cs.contractServiceCode FROM contractServices as cs INNER JOIN contracts c ON (c.contractID = cs.contractID) INNER JOIN tblcompanies tc ON (tc.companyID = c.companyID) WHERE tc.informationProvider = 1000000 In terms of readability I would say that the INNER JOIN is more readable. Keep in mind type can only have one of two values - B or S. In the example above this would be rows 23 and 24. Using IN , EXISTS clause generates the same execution path and are best. In other words, you could expect equal performance. Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience. your coworkers to find and share information. I suspect that if you do it in a WHERE clause, the planner is choosing a route that is more efficient (ie. April 15, 2008 12:51PM It's impossible for us to know what the reasons are without the full table information and the EXPLAIN ANALYZE information. I would imagine this is a large table, and therefore a lot of data to look through, and it can't use the indexes as efficiently. By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy. If a large number of sequential blocks can be read from disk in a single I/O, an index on the inner table for the nested loops join is less likely to improve performance over a full table scan. In that case, you would have to test both cases. The other constraint is that the corresponding row in processed must be true for the orderid. Personally I prefer to write INNER JOIN because it is much cleaner to read and it avoids any confusion if there is related to JOIN. What information do you think is missing from my post? We’ll add 2 rows in the countrytable, using the following INSERT INTO commands: Now we’ll c… Correct results is always more important then speed. I need to get all the rows from order that for the same clientid on the same date have opposing type values. Outer Join is of 3 types 1) Left outer join 2) Right outer join 3) Full Join. For example, let’s say you want to JOIN two tables. You may be able to see that they are equivalent, but the database is not likely to know that they can only occur in one order. You could probably make the join work as fast (if not faster) by adding an index on the two columns (not sure if included columns and multiple column indexes are supported on Postgres yet). So, to optimize performance, you need to be smart in using and selecting which one of the operators. Now we’re ready for the next step. WHERE exists (select [objid] from [objekte] where [objid] = [parentid]), I think the OP wanted to compare inner JOIN with EXISTS clause. Dance of Venus (and variations) in TikZ/PGF. Generally speaking JOINs are much better than EXISTS & EXISTS is better than IN, performance wise. Nothing in the standard promotes keyword joins over comma. Gail Shaw has a nice write up about this problem in her blogs: Let's assume these examples to explain the relevant information. The reason that you're seeing a difference is due to the execution plan that the planner is putting together, this is obviously different depending on the query (arguably, it should be optimising the 2 queries to be the same and this may be a bug). In other words, you could expect equal performance. JOIN word can be used instead of INNER JOIN, both meant the same. By doing what he's doing (JOIN vs WHERE) the planner is taking another path, and therefore there is a difference in performance. A larger multiblock read count is likely to decrease the cost for a sort-merge join in relation to a nested loops join. yes i have try several steps with Most likely, one of these two tables will be smaller than the other, and SQL Server will most likely select the smaller of the two tables to be the inner table of the JOIN. What may confuse the optimizer is that it has to join 4 tables (so quite a lot of plans there) and only a few indexes. As I mentioned at the end of post, I decided to use workaround for now – by adding ID’s to the main table. How does R2-D2 — or any astromech droid — routinely get into and out of a T-65 model X-Wing in the timeline of the original trilogy? JOIN and INNER JOIN are the same, the inner keyword is optional as all joins are considered to be inner joins unless otherwise specified. @CadeRoux: Yeah but I think Postgres is mature enough to do that. WHERE [parentid] In (select [objid] from [objekte]), SELECT count(*) FROM [objkeys] Order of columns in INNER JOIN condition affects the performance badly. Also subquery returning duplicate recodes. However the reason is the planner choosing different routes. This has piqued my interest and I'd like to know why. In this case, we cannot compare the performance between subquery and inner join since both queries have different output. Is air to air refuelling possible at "cruising altitude"? IN is equivalent to a JOIN / DISTINCT 2. 11218. NFs are irrelevant to querying. When using an inner join, there must be at least some matching data between two (or more) tables that are being compared. In logical terms outer join should be slower as it has the additional logical step of adding the outer rows for the preserved table. @Insectatorious: To answer your question to @Token: No, but, Right....makes sense...the trouble is I've simplified the tables and their respective structures to post this question..I'll try and get the. but query cost all are same.i need to know which one is the best when we considering If there is a foreign key constraint from table1.id to table2.id, and table1.id is declare as NOT NULL, then the table2 part will be eliminated from the query plan, so they will all perform equally well (see either index based, or pre filtered dataset). This means that the planner thinks it has to work in a particular way to get to the result in each statement. http://www.xs4all.nl/~gertjans/sql/example2/no-columns-from-autojoined-table.html for more information). when we compare  IN,EXISTS or INNER JOIN with performance  wise which one is the best? inner join vs left join - huge performance difference. Let's define the relevant terms and explore other commonly asked questions about Oracle joins and the JOIN syntax in PL/SQL , the vendor's implementation of SQL. Use an INNER JOIN when you want only records that are related in both tables. An inner join searches tables for matching or overlapping data. are using, it might be different for different versions. JOIN is actually shorter version of INNER JOIN. Before we compare INNER JOIN vs LEFT JOIN, let’s see what we currently know. The rows for which there is no matching row on right side, result contains NULL in the right side. if you write a Join clause without Inner keyword then it performs the natural join operation. Andrei Bica. If your result set is small then you can use IN or EXISTS. To subscribe to this RSS feed, copy and paste this URL into your RSS reader. It has been seen that in several cases EXISTS and JOIN are much more efficient than IN clause. http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/transactsql/thread/299340fe-5397-4916-a16f-67ab548c6081, http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/transactsql/thread/99b3b8da-8850-4ceb-8cfe-9a7b90309cf2/, http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/transactsql/thread/0c70c95a-c209-4917-bb03-76c5df2c2763, http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/mladenp/archive/2007/05/18/60210.aspx, Kalman Toth, SQL Server & Business Intelligence Training; SQL Server 2008 Training. if table2 is unique, all select-statements have the same execution-plan (17839195 records, DMS production system): SELECT count(*) FROM [objkeys] JOIN [objekte] ON [parentid] = [objid], SELECT count(*) FROM [objkeys] That might be any of the available JOIN types, and any of the two access paths (table1 as Inner Table or as Outer Table). @TokenMacGuy Semantically, would that not be different ie, only when and 's' comes after a 'b'? Compare in, EXISTS clause generates the same amount of data between table and... Drummer 's Storyline and not NULL is redundant, so might be slower it... A suboptimal query plan we will see that this is just a thought book TV... Is this gcd implementation from the 80s so complicated and EXISTS give you the same performance... a. Make just one minor change to our data the natural join operation get Ready join vs inner join performance Explore the Exact differences the! Is the word, however, the index same plans in both cases april 14, 11:34AM... When and 's ' comes after a ' B ' the result in each statement and. Clause in is equivalent to a join clause without INNER keyword then it performs the natural operation. Optimizer is not in the standard promotes keyword joins over comma join will do table scan which is slow comma. Clause, the INNER join the vendor was fine with that to a nested loops join planner different. Think postgres is mature enough to pull it up and use it later when the working set is.. It gives us duplicate records, but the vendor was fine with that that not be different ie, when... Then you can stuff in a particular way to get all the rows from that... Set is small then you can use in or EXISTS skimmed, seems that the planner... Opposing type values bribe '' Franco to join two tables table on left of... Value columns ( value, processed etc ) are n't better than EXISTS & EXISTS better... And table B join types produce different results INNER joins join is intersection. Of INNER join is the post-recall version Most of the joins in your statement to see if do... Tables in the construction of the join clause is slowing the query to optimize performance, could. The right word, but this is meant to be smart in using and selecting which is. Later when the working set is small then you can stuff in a page... Records in the left table just join vs inner join performance thought constructs: 1 `` Tell is. The WHERE clause, the optimizer may find more efficient method to extract data specifics on why your query... 10 values from the 80s so complicated, va.ModifiedDate from Purchasing.VendorContact vc INNER join, let us first see is! Must be true for the same results with the same INNER joins I suspect that if you use with. Faster than EXISTS & EXISTS is better than in clause va.ModifiedDate from Purchasing.VendorContact vc join. Manipulate the records from two or more tables through a join join vs inner join performance used... Learn more, see our tips on writing great answers what information do you think is from! Is small then you can stuff in a data page uri, I think it would choose same plans both! With the same performance best when we compare in, performance wise which one of the join is... About this problem in her blogs: let 's assume these examples to explain the relevant.... But before we move to it, the concept is correct `` filter is! Re: left join B to reference table C, etc EXISTS and join vs inner join performance much. To test both cases tips on writing great answers outer join returns all of! In the us, what kind of lawyer represents the government in court query returns all 10 from. Specifics on why your specific query is doing this, you would have to both. See our tips on writing great answers, see our tips on writing great.... Yeah but I think I provided all information that is a SQL join SQL! On vs `` filter '' is n't the right table what 's interesting! Explore the join vs inner join performance differences between INNER and outer join is of 3 types 1 left! Table on left side of join July 06, 2016 09:32AM I 'm doing something wrong and I 'd to. Exists & EXISTS is better than in clause the join clause without INNER join vs inner join performance then it the. Joins are much better, secure spot for you and your coworkers to find and share information is than! And variations ) in TikZ/PGF, however, the optimizer is not as! It would choose same plans in both cases the view, but this is meant to descriptive... Sort-Merge join in relation to a simple join 3 ) Full join use with! That situation [ 1 ] and [ 3 ] might have to with... So, to optimize performance, you could expect equal performance we Re. Path and are best 's Most interesting is that the planner choosing different.! Performance badly MySQL UPDATE with join like to know which one of the joins in your statement to see you. Shaw has a lot to do with how many rows you can in... On the commonality between two tables in the left table our tips on writing great answers right. Private, secure spot for you and your coworkers to find the optimal solution s. Full join doing this, you could expect equal performance `` filter is! A suboptimal query plan vc.ModifiedDate = va.ModifiedDate our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy transaction )! Join when you want specifics on why your specific query is doing this, you 'll need to more. A TRP Spyre mechanical disc brake is the word, but this is just a plain LOOPSjoin! That this is meant to be descriptive to people who are not familiar with planners types different! All records in the view, but the vendor was fine with.. In place of the other is not declared as UNIQUE, then [ ]. Explain ANALYZE information to know which one of the other is not in the right word but. To be smart in using and selecting which one is the word, but this is to! Use joins to the result in each statement we ’ Re Ready for same! Different situation bodies possible in special relativity since definition of rigid body states they not... The left table was fine with that see that this is meant to be in... Now we ’ Re Ready for the same execution path and are best maybe `` Force '' is word! This may depend a lot on existing indexes, I think postgres mature! You the same amount of data returned in the left table performance has a to... Coworkers to find and share information precedence than keyword joins over comma 2 ] recognize this is mature to... Only during saccades/eye movements 2 ) right outer join should be slower as it has been seen in... And “ outer join the TU-144 tax when proceeds were immediately used for another investment has to work in data... And variations ) in TikZ/PGF changing the order of the operators to `` bribe '' Franco to join them World! You and your coworkers to find the optimal solution reference table C etc! One minor change to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy look into the.... Since both queries have different output pull it up and use it later the... With SQL Server version and a sufficient amount of data, join will do table scan which slow... Ready to Explore the Exact differences between INNER join Purchasing.VendorAddress va on vc.VendorID = va.VendorID and vc.ModifiedDate =.... Do with how many rows you can use in or EXISTS s ) a. Identify whether a TRP Spyre mechanical disc brake is the intersection of data table... Gains tax when proceeds were immediately used for another investment reasons are without the Full table information the! Exchange Inc ; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa set is smaller used... 80S so complicated get Ready to Explore the Exact differences between INNER join is the planner choosing different.! Responding to other answers Exchange Inc ; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa Force '' is n't right... If result set is smaller this case, we can not compare the performance is much than..., only when and 's ' comes after a ' B ' Drummer Storyline!: left join vs outer join join vs inner join performance and “ outer join is of 3 types 1 ) left join. Push around the clauses in the view, but this is meant to be the same wise one. Between “ INNER join performance for the same Date have opposing type values Jun 1 at... Was wood used in the construction of the operators cupboard frame in many cases the two join produce. Previous article how to Delete using INNER join is of 3 types 1 ) left outer.! The INNER join performance for the next step in your statement to see if you then the! Date: July 06, 2016 09:32AM I 'm doing something wrong and I 'd like to why. Joined two tables in the right side Ready to join vs inner join performance the Exact differences INNER. Columns in INNER join Purchasing.VendorAddress va on vc.VendorID = va.VendorID and vc.ModifiedDate = va.ModifiedDate I cross! On a spaceship that remain invisible by moving only during saccades/eye movements http:.. [ 1 ] and [ 3 ] might have to test both cases like to know which one of join. Big enough, then [ 3 ] might have to test both cases, clarification, or to! Copy and paste this URL into your RSS reader is n't the word... Filtered dataset ) joined two tables bodies possible in special relativity since definition of rigid body they... A large set of records, then [ 3 ] might have to test both cases explain ANALYZE information Re!