I've heard that SELECT * is generally bad practice to use when writing SQL commands because it is more efficient to SELECT columns you specifically need.
If I need to SELECT every column in a table, should I use
SELECT * FROM TABLE
or
SELECT column1, colum2, column3, etc. FROM TABLE
Does the efficiency really matter in this case? I'd think SELECT * would be more optimal internally if you really need all of the data, but I'm saying this with no real understanding of database.
I'm curious to know what the best practice is in this case.
UPDATE: I probably should specify that the only situation where I would really want to do a SELECT * is when I'm selecting data from one table where I know all columns will always need to be retrieved, even when new columns are added.
Given the responses I've seen however, this still seems like a bad idea and SELECT * should never be used for a lot more technical reasons that I ever though about.
One reason that selecting specific columns is better is that it raises the probability that SQL Server can access the data from indexes rather than querying the table data.
Here's a post I wrote about it: The real reason select queries are bad index coverage
It's also less fragile to change, since any code that consumes the data will be getting the same data structure regardless of changes you make to the table schema in the future.
Given your specification that you are selecting all columns, there is little difference at this time. Realize, however, that database schemas do change. If you use SELECT * you are going to get any new columns added to the table, even though in all likelihood, your code is not prepared to use or present that new data. This means that you are exposing your system to unexpected performance and functionality changes.
You may be willing to dismiss this as a minor cost, but realize that columns that you don't need still must be:
Read from database
Sent across the network
Marshalled into your process
(for ADO-type technologies) Saved in a data-table in-memory
Ignored and discarded / garbage-collected
Item #1 has many hidden costs including eliminating some potential covering index, causing data-page loads (and server cache thrashing), incurring row / page / table locks that might be otherwise avoided.
Balance this against the potential savings of specifying the columns versus an * and the only potential savings are:
Programmer doesn't need to revisit the SQL to add columns
The network-transport of the SQL is smaller / faster
SQL Server query parse / validation time
SQL Server query plan cache
For item 1, the reality is that you're going to add / change code to use any new column you might add anyway, so it is a wash.
For item 2, the difference is rarely enough to push you into a different packet-size or number of network packets. If you get to the point where SQL statement transmission time is the predominant issue, you probably need to reduce the rate of statements first.
For item 3, there is NO savings as the expansion of the * has to happen anyway, which means consulting the table(s) schema anyway. Realistically, listing the columns will incur the same cost because they have to be validated against the schema. In other words this is a complete wash.
For item 4, when you specify specific columns, your query plan cache could get larger but only if you are dealing with different sets of columns (which is not what you've specified). In this case, you do want different cache entries because you want different plans as needed.
So, this all comes down, because of the way you specified the question, to the issue resiliency in the face of eventual schema modifications. If you're burning this schema into ROM (it happens), then an * is perfectly acceptable.
However, my general guideline is that you should only select the columns you need, which means that sometimes it will look like you are asking for all of them, but DBAs and schema evolution mean that some new columns might appear that could greatly affect the query.
My advice is that you should ALWAYS SELECT specific columns. Remember that you get good at what you do over and over, so just get in the habit of doing it right.
If you are wondering why a schema might change without code changing, think in terms of audit logging, effective/expiration dates and other similar things that get added by DBAs for systemically for compliance issues. Another source of underhanded changes is denormalizations for performance elsewhere in the system or user-defined fields.
You should only select the columns that you need. Even if you need all columns it's still better to list column names so that the sql server does not have to query system table for columns.
Also, your application might break if someone adds columns to the table. Your program will get columns it didn't expect too and it might not know how to process them.
Apart from this if the table has a binary column then the query will be much more slower and use more network resources.
There are four big reasons that select * is a bad thing:
The most significant practical reason is that it forces the user to magically know the order in which columns will be returned. It's better to be explicit, which also protects you against the table changing, which segues nicely into...
If a column name you're using changes, it's better to catch it early (at the point of the SQL call) rather than when you're trying to use the column that no longer exists (or has had its name changed, etc.)
Listing the column names makes your code far more self-documented, and so probably more readable.
If you're transferring over a network (or even if you aren't), columns you don't need are just waste.
Specifying the column list is usually the best option because your application won't be affected if someone adds/inserts a column to the table.
Specifying column names is definitely faster - for the server. But if
performance is not a big issue (for example, this is a website content database with hundreds, maybe thousands - but not millions - of rows in each table); AND
your job is to create many small, similar applications (e.g. public-facing content-managed websites) using a common framework, rather than creating a complex one-off application; AND
flexibility is important (lots of customization of the db schema for each site);
then you're better off sticking with SELECT *. In our framework, heavy use of SELECT * allows us to introduce a new website managed content field to a table, giving it all of the benefits of the CMS (versioning, workflow/approvals, etc.), while only touching the code at a couple of points, instead of a couple dozen points.
I know the DB gurus are going to hate me for this - go ahead, vote me down - but in my world, developer time is scarce and CPU cycles are abundant, so I adjust accordingly what I conserve and what I waste.
SELECT * is a bad practice even if the query is not sent over a network.
Selecting more data than you need makes the query less efficient - the server has to read and transfer extra data, so it takes time and creates unnecessary load on the system (not only the network, as others mentioned, but also disk, CPU etc.). Additionally, the server is unable to optimize the query as well as it might (for example, use covering index for the query).
After some time your table structure might change, so SELECT * will return a different set of columns. So, your application might get a dataset of unexpected structure and break somewhere downstream. Explicitly stating the columns guarantees that you either get a dataset of known structure, or get a clear error on the database level (like 'column not found').
Of course, all this doesn't matter much for a small and simple system.
Lots of good reasons answered here so far, here's another one that hasn't been mentioned.
Explicitly naming the columns will help you with maintenance down the road. At some point you're going to be making changes or troubleshooting, and find yourself asking "where the heck is that column used".
If you've got the names listed explicitly, then finding every reference to that column -- through all your stored procedures, views, etc -- is simple. Just dump a CREATE script for your DB schema, and text search through it.
Performance wise, SELECT with specific columns can be faster (no need to read in all the data). If your query really does use ALL the columns, SELECT with explicit parameters is still preferred. Any speed difference will be basically unnoticeable and near constant-time. One day your schema will change, and this is good insurance to prevent problems due to this.
definitely defining the columns, because SQL Server will not have to do a lookup on the columns to pull them. If you define the columns, then SQL can skip that step.
It's always better to specify the columns you need, if you think about it one time, SQL doesn't have to think "wtf is *" every time you query. On top of that, someone later may add columns to the table that you actually do not need in your query and you'll be better off in that case by specifying all of your columns.
The problem with "select *" is the possibility of bringing data you don't really need. During the actual database query, the selected columns don't really add to the computation. What's really "heavy" is the data transport back to your client, and any column that you don't really need is just wasting network bandwidth and adding to the time you're waiting for you query to return.
Even if you do use all the columns brought from a "select *...", that's just for now. If in the future you change the table/view layout and add more columns, you'll start bring those in your selects even if you don't need them.
Another point in which a "select *" statement is bad is on view creation. If you create a view using "select *" and later add columns to your table, the view definition and the data returned won't match, and you'll need to recompile your views in order for them to work again.
I know that writing a "select *" is tempting, 'cause I really don't like to manually specify all the fields on my queries, but when your system start to evolve, you'll see that it's worth to spend this extra time/effort in specifying the fields rather than spending much more time and effort removing bugs on your views or optimizing your app.
While explicitly listing columns is good for performance, don't get crazy.
So if you use all the data, try SELECT * for simplicity (imagine having many columns and doing a JOIN... query may get awful). Then - measure. Compare with query with column names listed explicitly.
Don't speculate about performance, measure it!
Explicit listing helps most when you have some column containing big data (like body of a post or article), and don't need it in given query. Then by not returning it in your answer DB server can save time, bandwidth, and disk throughput. Your query result will also be smaller, which is good for any query cache.
You should really be selecting only the fields you need, and only the required number, i.e.
SELECT Field1, Field2 FROM SomeTable WHERE --(constraints)
Outside of the database, dynamic queries run the risk of injection attacks and malformed data. Typically you get round this using stored procedures or parameterised queries. Also (although not really that much of a problem) the server has to generate an execution plan each time a dynamic query is executed.
It is NOT faster to use explicit field names versus *, if and only if, you need to get the data for all fields.
Your client software shouldn't depend on the order of the fields returned, so that's a nonsense too.
And it's possible (though unlikely) that you need to get all fields using * because you don't yet know what fields exist (think very dynamic database structure).
Another disadvantage of using explicit field names is that if there are many of them and they're long then it makes reading the code and/or the query log more difficult.
So the rule should be: if you need all the fields, use *, if you need only a subset, name them explicitly.
The result is too huge. It is slow to generate and send the result from the SQL engine to the client.
The client side, being a generic programming environment, is not and should not be designed to filter and process the results (e.g. the WHERE clause, ORDER clause), as the number of rows can be huge (e.g. tens of millions of rows).
Naming each column you expect to get in your application also ensures your application won't break if someone alters the table, as long as your columns are still present (in any order).
Performance wise I have seen comments that both are equal. but usability aspect there are some +'s and -'s
When you use a (select *) in a query and if some one alter the table and add new fields which do not need for the previous query it is an unnecessary overhead. And what if the newly added field is a blob or an image field??? your query response time is going to be really slow then.
In other hand if you use a (select col1,col2,..) and if the table get altered and added new fields and if those fields are needed in the result set, you always need to edit your select query after table alteration.
But I suggest always to use select col1,col2,... in your queries and alter the query if the table get altered later...
This is an old post, but still valid. For reference, I have a very complicated query consisting of:
12 tables
6 Left joins
9 inner joins
108 total columns on all 12 tables
I only need 54 columns
A 4 column Order By clause
When I execute the query using Select *, it takes an average of 2869ms.
When I execute the query using Select , it takes an average of 1513ms.
Total rows returned is 13,949.
There is no doubt selecting column names means faster performance over Select *
Select is equally efficient (in terms of velocity) if you use * or columns.
The difference is about memory, not velocity. When you select several columns SQL Server must allocate memory space to serve you the query, including all data for all the columns that you've requested, even if you're only using one of them.
What does matter in terms of performance is the excecution plan which in turn depends heavily on your WHERE clause and the number of JOIN, OUTER JOIN, etc ...
For your question just use SELECT *. If you need all the columns there's no performance difference.
It depends on the version of your DB server, but modern versions of SQL can cache the plan either way. I'd say go with whatever is most maintainable with your data access code.
One reason it's better practice to spell out exactly which columns you want is because of possible future changes in the table structure.
If you are reading in data manually using an index based approach to populate a data structure with the results of your query, then in the future when you add/remove a column you will have headaches trying to figure out what went wrong.
As to what is faster, I'll defer to others for their expertise.
As with most problems, it depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to create a db grid that will allow all columns in any table, then "Select *" is the answer. However, if you will only need certain columns and adding or deleting columns from the query is done infrequently, then specify them individually.
It also depends on the amount of data you want to transfer from the server. If one of the columns is a defined as memo, graphic, blob, etc. and you don't need that column, you'd better not use "Select *" or you'll get a whole bunch of data you don't want and your performance could suffer.
To add on to what everyone else has said, if all of your columns that you are selecting are included in an index, your result set will be pulled from the index instead of looking up additional data from SQL.
SELECT * is necessary if one wants to obtain metadata such as the number of columns.
Gonna get slammed for this, but I do a select * because almost all my data is retrived from SQL Server Views that precombine needed values from multiple tables into a single easy to access View.
I do then want all the columns from the view which won't change when new fields are added to underlying tables. This has the added benefit of allowing me to change where data comes from. FieldA in the View may at one time be calculated and then I may change it to be static. Either way the View supplies FieldA to me.
The beauty of this is that it allows my data layer to get datasets. It then passes them to my BL which can then create objects from them. My main app only knows and interacts with the objects. I even allow my objects to self-create when passed a datarow.
Of course, I'm the only developer, so that helps too :)
What everyone above said, plus:
If you're striving for readable maintainable code, doing something like:
SELECT foo, bar FROM widgets;
is instantly readable and shows intent. If you make that call you know what you're getting back. If widgets only has foo and bar columns, then selecting * means you still have to think about what you're getting back, confirm the order is mapped correctly, etc. However, if widgets has more columns but you're only interested in foo and bar, then your code gets messy when you query for a wildcard and then only use some of what's returned.
And remember if you have an inner join by definition you do not need all the columns as the data in the join columns is repeated.
It's not like listing columns in SQl server is hard or even time-consuming. You just drag them over from the object browser (you can get all in one go by dragging from the word columns). To put a permanent performance hit on your system (becasue this can reduce the use of indexes and becasue sending unneeded data over the network is costly) and make it more likely that you will have unexpected problems as the database changes (sometimes columns get added that you do not want the user to see for instance) just to save less than a minute of development time is short-sighted and unprofessional.
Absolutely define the columns you want to SELECT every time. There is no reason not to and the performance improvement is well worth it.
They should never have given the option to "SELECT *"
If you need every column then just use SELECT * but remember that the order could potentially change so when you are consuming the results access them by name and not by index.
I would ignore comments about how * needs to go get the list - chances are parsing and validating named columns is equal to the processing time if not more. Don't prematurely optimize ;-)
In a site I maintain I have a need to query the same table (articles) twice, once for each category of article. AFAIT there are basically two ways of doing this (maybe someone can suggest a better, third way?):
Perform the db query twice, meaning the db server has to sort through the entire table twice. After each query, I iterate over the cursor to generate html for a list entry on the page.
Perform the query just once and pull out all the records, then sort them into two separate arrays. After this, I have to iterate over each array separately in order to generate the HTML.
So it's this:
$newsQuery = $mysqli->query("SELECT * FROM articles WHERE type='news' ");
while($newRow = $newsQuery->fetch_assoc()){
// generate article summary in html
}
// repeat for informational articles
vs this:
$query = $mysqli->query("SELECT * FROM articles ");
$news = Array();
$info = Array();
while($row = $query->fetch_assoc()){
if($row['type'] == "news"){
$news[] = $row;
}else{
$info[] = $row;
}
}
// iterate over each array separate to generate article summaries
The recordset is not very large, current <200 and will probably grow to 1000-2000. Is there a significant different in the times between the two approaches, and if so, which one is faster?
(I know this whole thing seems awfully inefficient, but it's a poorly coded site I inherited and have to take care of without a budget for refactoring the whole thing...)
I'm writing in PHP, no framework :( , on a MySql db.
Edit
I just realized I left out one major detail. On a given page in the site, we will display (and thus retrieve from the db) no more than 30 records at once - but here's the catch: 15 info articles, and 15 news articles. On each page we pull the next 15 of each kind.
You know you can sort in the DB right?
SELECT * FROM articles ORDER BY type
EDIT
Due to the change made to the question, I'm updating my answer to address the newly revealed requirement: 15 rows for 'news' and 15 rows for not-'news'.
The gist of the question is the same "which is faster... one query to two separate queries". The gist of the answer remains the same: each database roundtrip incurs overhead (extra time, especially over a network connection to a separate database server), so with all else being equal, reducing the number database roundtrips can improve performance.
The new requirement really doesn't impact that. What the newly revealed requirement really impacts is the actual query to return the specified resultset.
For example:
( SELECT n.*
FROM articles n
WHERE n.type='news'
LIMIT 15
)
UNION ALL
( SELECT o.*
FROM articles o
WHERE NOT (o.type<=>'news')
LIMIT 15
)
Running that statement as a single query is going to require fewer database resources, and be faster than running two separate statements, and retrieving two disparate resultsets.
We weren't provided any indication of what the other values for type can be, so the statement offered here simply addresses two general categories of rows: rows that have type='news', and all other rows that have some other value for type.
That query assumes that type allows for NULL values, and we want to return rows that have a NULL for type. If that's not the case, we can adjust the predicate to be just
WHERE o.type <> 'news'
Or, if there are specific values for type we're interested in, we can specify that in the predicate instead
WHERE o.type IN ('alert','info','weather')
If "paging" is a requirement... "next 15", the typical pattern we see applied, LIMIT 30,15 can be inefficient. But this question isn't asking about improving efficiency of "paging" queries, it's asking whether running a single statement or running two separate statements is faster.
And the answer to that question is still the same.
ORIGINAL ANSWER below
There's overhead for every database roundtrip. In terms of database performance, for small sets (like you describe) you're better off with a single database query.
The downside is that you're fetching all of those rows and materializing an array. (But, that looks like that's the approach you're using in either case.)
Given the choice between the two options you've shown, go with the single query. That's going to be faster.
As far as a different approach, it really depends on what you are doing with those arrays.
You could actually have the database return the rows in a specified sequence, using an ORDER BY clause.
To get all of the 'news' rows first, followed by everything that isn't 'news', you could
ORDER BY type<=>'news' DESC
That's MySQL short hand for the more ANSI standards compliant:
ORDER BY CASE WHEN t.type = 'news' THEN 1 ELSE 0 END DESC
Rather than fetch every single row and store it in an array, you could just fetch from the cursor as you output each row, e.g.
while($row = $query->fetch_assoc()) {
echo "<br>Title: " . htmlspecialchars($row['title']);
echo "<br>byline: " . htmlspecialchars($row['byline']);
echo "<hr>";
}
Best way of dealing with a situation like this is to test this for yourself. Doesn't matter how many records do you have at the moment. You can simulate whatever amount you'd like, that's never a problem. Also, 1000-2000 is really a small set of data.
I somewhat don't understand why you'd have to iterate over all the records twice. You should never retrieve all the records in a query either way, but only a small subset you need to be working with. In a typical site where you manage articles it's usually about 10 records per page MAX. No user will ever go through 2000 articles in a way you'd have to pull all the records at once. Utilize paging and smart querying.
// iterate over each array separate to generate article summaries
Not really what you mean by this, but something tells me this data should be stored in the database as well. I really hope you're not generating article excerpts on the fly for every page hit.
It all sounds to me more like a bad architecture design than anything else...
PS: I believe sorting/ordering/filtering of a database data should be done on the database server, not in the application itself. You may save some traffic by doing a single query, but it won't help much if you transfer too much data at once, that you won't be using anyway.
I have this 2 mysql tables: TableA and TableB
TableA
* ColumnAId
* ColumnA1
* ColumnA2
TableB
* ColumnBId
* ColumnAId
* ColumnB1
* ColumnB2
In PHP, I wanted to have this multidimensional array format
$array = array(
array(
'ColumnAId' => value,
'ColumnA1' => value,
'ColumnA2' => value,
'TableB' => array(
array(
'ColumnBId' => value,
'ColumnAId' => value,
'ColumnB1' => value,
'ColumnB2' => value
)
)
)
);
so that I can loop it in this way
foreach($array as $i => $TableA) {
echo 'ColumnAId' . $TableA['ColumnAId'];
echo 'ColumnA1' . $TableA['ColumnA1'];
echo 'ColumnA2' . $TableA['ColumnA2'];
echo 'TableB\'s';
foreach($value['TableB'] as $j => $TableB) {
echo $TableB['...']...
echo $TableB['...']...
}
}
My problem is that, what is the best way or the proper way of querying MySQL database so that I can achieve this goal?
Solution1 --- The one I'm using
$array = array();
$rs = mysqli_query("SELECT * FROM TableA", $con);
while ($row = mysqli_fetch_assoc($rs)) {
$rs2 = mysqli_query("SELECT * FROM Table2 WHERE ColumnAId=" . $row['ColumnAId'], $con);
// $array = result in array
$row['TableB'] = $array2;
}
I'm doubting my code cause its always querying the database.
Solution2
$rs = mysqli_query("SELECT * FROM TableA JOIN TableB ON TableA.ColumnAId=TableB.ColumnAId");
while ($row = mysqli_fet...) {
// Code
}
The second solution only query once, but if I have thousand of rows in TableA and thousand of rows in TableB for each TableB.ColumnAId (1 TableA.ColumnAId = 1000 TableB.ColumnAId), thus this solution2 takes much time than the solution1?
Neither of the two solutions proposed are probably optimal, BUT solution 1 is UNPREDICTABLE and thus INHERENTLY FLAWED!
One of the first things you learn when dealing with large databases is that 'the best way' to do a query is often dependent upon factors (referred to as meta-data) within the database:
How many rows there are.
How many tables you are querying.
The size of each row.
Because of this, there's unlikely to be a silver bullet solution for your problem. Your database is not the same as my database, you will need to benchmark different optimizations if you need the best performance available.
You will probably find that applying & building correct indexes (and understanding the native implementation of indexes in MySQL) in your database does a lot more for you.
There are some golden rules with queries which should rarely be broken:
Don't do them in loop structures. As tempting as it often is, the overhead on creating a connection, executing a query and getting a response is high.
Avoid SELECT * unless needed. Selecting more columns will significantly increase overhead of your SQL operations.
Know thy indexes. Use the EXPLAIN feature so that you can see which indexes are being used, optimize your queries to use what's available and create new ones.
Because of this, of the two I'd go for the second query (replacing SELECT * with only the columns you want), but there are probably better ways to structure the query if you have the time to optimize.
However, speed should NOT be your only consideration in this, there is a GREAT reason not to use suggestion one:
PREDICTABILITY: why read-locks are a good thing
One of the other answers suggests that having the table locked for a long period of time is a bad thing, and that therefore the multiple-query solution is good.
I would argue that this couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, I'd argue that in many cases the predictability of running a single locking SELECT query is a greater argument FOR running that query than the optimization & speed benefits.
First of all, when we run a SELECT (read-only) query on a MyISAM or InnoDB database (default systems for MySQL), what happens is that the table is read-locked. This prevents any WRITE operations from happening on the table until the read-lock is surrendered (either our SELECT query completes or fails). Other SELECT queries are not affected, so if you're running a multi-threaded application, they will continue to work.
This delay is a GOOD thing. Why, you may ask? Relational data integrity.
Let's take an example: we're running an operation to get a list of items currently in the inventory of a bunch of users on a game, so we do this join:
SELECT * FROM `users` JOIN `items` ON `users`.`id`=`items`.`inventory_id` WHERE `users`.`logged_in` = 1;
What happens if, during this query operation, a user trades an item to another user? Using this query, we see the game state as it was when we started the query: the item exists once, in the inventory of the user who had it before we ran the query.
But, what happens if we're running it in a loop?
Depending on whether the user traded it before or after we read his details, and in which order we read the inventory of the two players, there are four possibilities:
The item could be shown in the first user's inventory (scan user B -> scan user A -> item traded OR scan user B -> scan user A -> item traded).
The item could be shown in the second user's inventory (item traded -> scan user A -> scan user B OR item traded -> scan user B -> scan user A).
The item could be shown in both inventories (scan user A -> item traded -> scan user B).
The item could be shown in neither of the user's inventories (scan user B -> item traded -> scan user A).
What this means is that we would be unable to predict the results of the query or to ensure relational integrity.
If you're planning to give $5,000 to the guy with item ID 1000000 at midnight on Tuesday, I hope you have $10k on hand. If your program relies on unique items being unique when snapshots are taken, you will possibly raise an exception with this kind of query.
Locking is good because it increases predictability and protects the integrity of results.
Note: You could force a loop to lock with a transaction, but it will still be slower.
Oh, and finally, USE PREPARED STATEMENTS!
You should never have a statement that looks like this:
mysqli_query("SELECT * FROM Table2 WHERE ColumnAId=" . $row['ColumnAId'], $con);
mysqli has support for prepared statements. Read about them and use them, they will help you to avoid something terrible happening to your database.
Definitely second way. Nested query is an ugly thing since you're getting all query overheads (execution, network e t.c.) every time for every nested query, while single JOIN query will be executed once - i.e. all overheads will be done only once.
Simple rule is not to use queries in cycles - in general. There could be exceptions, if one query will be too complex, so due to performance in should be split, but in a certain case that can be shown only by benchmarks and measures.
If you want to do algorithmic evaluation of your data in your application code (which I think is the right thing to do), you should not use SQL at all. SQL was made to be a human readable way to ask for computational achieved data from a relational database, which means, if you just use it to store data, and do the computations in your code, you're doing it wrong anyway.
In such a case you should prefer using a different storage/retrieving possibility like a key-value store (there are persistent ones out there, and newer versions of MySQL exposes a key-value interface as well for InnoDB, but it's still using a relational database for key-value storage, aka the wrong tool for the job).
If you STILL want to use your solution:
Benchmark.
I've often found that issuing multiple queries can be faster than a single query, because MySQL has to parse less query, the optimizer has less work to do, and more often than not the MySQL optimzer just fails (that's the reason things like STRAIGHT JOIN and index hints exist). And even if it does not fail, multiple queries might still be faster depending on the underlying storage engine as well as how many threads try to access the data at once (lock granularity - this only applies with mixing in update queries though - neither MyISAM nor InnoDB lock the whole table for SELECT queries by default). Then again, you might even get different results with the two solutions if you don't use transactions, as data might change between queries if you use multiple queries versus a single one.
In a nutshell: There's way more to your question than what you posted/asked for, and what a generic answer can provide.
Regarding your solutions: I'd prefer the first solution if you have an environment where a) data changes are common and/or b) you have many concurrent running threads (requests) accessing and updating your tables (lock granularity is better with split up queries, as is cacheability of the queries) ; if your database is on a different network, e.g. network latency is an issue, you're probably better of with the first solution (but most people I know have MySQL on the same server, using socket connections, and local socket connections normally don't have much latency).
Situation may also change depending on how often the for loop is actually executed.
Again: Benchmark
Another thing to consider is memory efficiency and algorithmic efficiency. Later one is about O(n) in both cases, but depending on the type of data you use to join, it could be worse in any of the two. E.g. if you use strings to join (you really shouldn't, but you don't say), performance in the more php dependent solution also depends on php hash map algorithm (arrays in php are effectively hash maps) and the likelyhood of a collision, while mysql string indexes are normally fixed length, and thus, depending on your data, might not be applicable.
For memory efficiency, the multi query version is certainly better, as you have the php array anyway (which is very inefficient in terms of memory!) in both solutions, but the join might use a temp table depending on several circumstances (normally it shouldn't, but there ARE cases where it does - you can check using EXPLAIN for your queries)
In some case, you should using limit for best performance
If you wanna show 1000 rows
And some single query( master data)
you should run 1000 with limit between 10-100
Then get your foreign key to master data with single query with using WHERE IN in your query. then count your unique data to limit master data.
Example
Select productID, date from transaction_product limit 100
Get all productID and make it unique
Then
Select price from master_product WHERE IN (1,2 3 4) limit 4(count from total unique)
foreach(transaction)
master_poduct[productID]