Jeff, you are right. The second should take longer, but actually the 1st query takes MUCH longer in this case. I just don't understand why in this case.

Here are stats from the actual queries:

(1 row(s) affected)

(199 row(s) affected)

Table 'GooglePos'. Scan count 398, logical reads 58888876, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

Table 'Pages'. Scan count 0, logical reads 2116, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

Table 'Visits'. Scan count 1, logical reads 459642, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

Table 'Queries'. Scan count 0, logical reads 3, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

(1 row(s) affected)

SQL Server Execution Times:

CPU time = 88858 ms, elapsed time = 88961 ms.

(199 row(s) affected)

Table 'Pages'. Scan count 17, logical reads 31, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

Table 'Visits'. Scan count 1, logical reads 93, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

Table 'Queries'. Scan count 17, logical reads 933, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

Table 'GooglePos'. Scan count 2, logical reads 15, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

(1 row(s) affected)

SQL Server Execution Times:

CPU time = 127 ms, elapsed time = 177 ms.