参考了这篇帖子：http://topic.csdn.net/u/20100617/04/80D1BD99-2E1C-4083-AD87-72BF706CB536.html，我对分页代码进行了测试，增加一部分测试内容。我测试的表t_um_ob_gprs_log 共有数据近30W条，有时间我将用此脚本在服务器上测试近亿数据的表。

--开始测试查询
declare @now datetime
--max方案
select 'max'方案
select @now=getdate()
--begin
select top 10 * from t_um_ob_gprs_log
where c_id>(
  select max(c_id)
  from (
    select top 199999 c_id from t_um_ob_gprs_log order by c_id)tt)
--end
declare @maxDiff int
select @maxDiff=datediff(ms,@now,getdate()) 
--top方案
select 'top'方案
select @now=getdate()
--begin
select top 10 * from t_um_ob_gprs_log
where c_id not in(select top  199999 c_id from t_um_ob_gprs_log)
--end
declare @topDiff int
select @topDiff=datediff(ms,@now,getdate()) 
--row_number方案
select 'row_number' 方案
select @now=getdate()
--begin 
--select *
--from(
--select top 200009 row_number()over(order by c_id)rn,* from t_um_ob_gprs_log
--)t
--where rn>199999 
SELECT  TOP 10 * FROM (SELECT row_number() OVER(ORDER BY c_id) rn,* FROM t_um_ob_gprs_log)t
WHERE rn >199999 
--SELECT   * FROM (SELECT row_number() OVER(ORDER BY c_id) rn,* FROM t_um_ob_gprs_log)t
--WHERE rn >=199999 AND rn<=200009
--end
declare @row_numberDiff int
select @row_numberDiff=datediff(ms,@now,getdate()) 
--row方案 row_number中orderby以常量代替；排序时以最内层子查询排序
select 'row'方案
select @now=getdate()
--begin
--select *
--from (
--select row_number()over(order by tc)rn,*
--from (select top 200000 0 AS tc,* from t_um_ob_gprs_log)t
--)tt
--where rn>199999
--end
select *
from (
select row_number()over(order by tc)rn,*
from (select top 200009 0 AS tc,* from t_um_ob_gprs_log ORDER BY c_id)t
)tt
where rn>199999 
declare @rowDiff int
select @rowDiff=datediff(ms,@now,getdate()) 
--记录结果
select '第199999 - 200009' as 页码,@maxDiff as max方案,@topDiff as top方案,@rowDiff as row方案,@row_numberDiff as row_number方案 

测试结果：（执行了5次）

1) 
页码                max方案       top方案       row方案       row_number方案
----------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------
第199999 - 200009  126         156         76          76 
2)
页码                max方案       top方案       row方案       row_number方案
----------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------
第199999 - 200009  156         140         96          76 
3) 
页码                max方案       top方案       row方案       row_number方案
----------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------
第199999 - 200009  186         140         93          80 
4) 
页码                max方案       top方案       row方案       row_number方案
----------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------
第199999 - 200009  173         186         96          76 
5)
页码                max方案       top方案       row方案       row_number方案
----------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------
第199999 - 200009  186         143         76          93 

可见row_num ber方案还是很有优势的，而两种不同的row_number写法执行时间并没有明显的差距。

同时，也测试了几种不同写法的row_number执行效果：

declare @now datetime 
--row_number 方案
select 'row_number 1 ' 方案
select @now=getdate() 
select *
from(
select top 200009 row_number()over(order by c_id)rn,* from t_um_ob_gprs_log
)t
where rn>199999 
declare @row_numberDiff1 int
select @row_numberDiff1=datediff(ms,@now,getdate()) 
--row_number 方案
select 'row_number 2 ' 方案
select @now=getdate() 
SELECT  TOP 10 * FROM (SELECT row_number() OVER(ORDER BY c_id) rn,* FROM t_um_ob_gprs_log)t
WHERE rn >199999 
declare @row_numberDiff2 int
select @row_numberDiff2=datediff(ms,@now,getdate()) 
--row_number 方案
select 'row_number 3 ' 方案
select @now=getdate() 
SELECT   * FROM (SELECT row_number() OVER(ORDER BY c_id) rn,* FROM t_um_ob_gprs_log)t
WHERE rn >=199999 AND rn<=200009 
declare @row_numberDiff3 int
select @row_numberDiff3=datediff(ms,@now,getdate()) 
--row_number 方案
select 'row_number 4 ' 方案
select @now=getdate() 
select *
from (
select row_number()over(order by tc)rn,*
from (select top 200009 0 AS tc,* from t_um_ob_gprs_log ORDER BY c_id)t
)tt
where rn>199999 
declare @row_numberDiff4 int
select @row_numberDiff4=datediff(ms,@now,getdate()) 
--记录结果
select '第199999 - 200009' as 页码,@row_numberDiff1,@row_numberDiff2,@row_numberDiff3,@row_numberDiff4 

测试结果：（5次执行时间）

1)第199999 - 200009  106         110         80          93
2)第199999 - 200009  93          110         93          80
3)第199999 - 200009  123         96          76          76
4)第199999 - 200009  173         93          76          80
5)第199999 - 200009  203         76          80          76 
由此可见，后3种写法效率相差无几，第一种有明显的区别。