I have a table structured as below
partial_id1 | partial_id2 | partial_id3|partial_id4| Name | Address
____________|_____________|____________|___________|______|____________
and select query as
select
A.bla1,
A.bla2,
A.bla3
B.Name,
C.Name,
D.Name
from TABLE1 as A
left join ABOVE_TABLE as B
on
B.partial_id1||B.partial_id2||B.partial_id3||B.partial_id4=RPAD(A.ID1,11,'0')
left join ABOVE_TABLE as C
on
C.partial_id1||C.partial_id2||C.partial_id3||C.partial_id4=RPAD(A.ID2,11,'0')
left join ABOVE_TABLE as D
on
D.partial_id1||D.partial_id2||D.partial_id3||D.partial_id4=RPAD(A.ID3,11,'0')
where A.PK in ('1','2','22')
This query is taking too much time. If I remove the left joins it takes <50ms and if I leave them as is, it takes around 4 seconds.
How can I optimize this query? How can I avoid concatenation in join condition?
The answer to this is to fix your database design. Creating a table where you have to concatenate multiple columns to form a key is not a great design for performance.
Note that when you use column functions (concatenate on the left, RPAD on the right) this eliminates the possibility of using indexes (unless you are on DB2 10.5, which added expression-based indexes).
Related
I am trying to find a solution in order to improve the String searching process and I selected FULL-TEXT INDEX Strategy.
However, after implementing it, I still can see there is a performance hit when it comes to search by using multiple strings using multiple Full-Text Index tables with OR clauses.
(E.x. WHERE CONTAINS(F.*,'%Gayan%') OR CONTAINS(P.FirstName,'%John%'))
As a solution, I am trying to use CONTAINSTABLE expecting a performance improvement.
Now, I am facing an issue with CONTAINSTABLE when it comes to joining tables with a LEFT JOIN
Please go through the example below.
Query 1
SELECT F.Name,p.*
FROM P.Role PR
INNER JOIN P.Building F ON PR.PID = F.PID
LEFT JOIN CONTAINSTABLE(P.Building,*,'%John%') AS FFTIndex ON F.ID = FFTIndex.[Key]
LEFT JOIN P.Relationship PRSHIP ON PR.id = prship.ToRoleID
LEFT JOIN P.Role PR2 ON PRSHIP.ToRoleID = PR2.ID
LEFT JOIN P.Person p ON pr2.ID = p.PID
LEFT JOIN CONTAINSTABLE(P.Person,FirstName,'%John%') AS PFTIndex ON P.ID = PFTIndex.[Key]
WHERE F.Name IS NOT NULL
This produces the below result.
Query 2
SELECT F.Name,p.*
FROM P.Role PR
INNER JOIN P.Building F ON PR.PID = F.PID
INNER JOIN P.Relationship PRSHIP ON PR.id = prship.ToRoleID
INNER JOIN P.Role PR2 ON PRSHIP.ToRoleID = PR2.ID
INNER JOIN P.Person p ON pr2.ID = p.PID
WHERE CONTAINS(F.*,'%Gayan%') OR CONTAINS(P.FirstName,'%John%')
AND F.Name IS NOT NULL
Result
Expectation
To use query 1 in a way that works as the behavior of an SQL SERVER OR clause. As I can understand Query 1's CONTAINSTABLE, joins the data with the building table, and the rest of the results are going to ignore so that the CONTAINSTABLE of the Person table gets data that already contains the keyword filtered from the building table.
If the keyword = Building, I want to match the keyword in both the tables regardless of searching a saved record in both the tables. Having a record in each table is enough.
Summary
Query 2 performs well but is creates a slowness when the words in the indexes are growing. Query 1 seems optimized(When it comes to multiple online resources and MS Documentation),
however, it does not give me the expected output.
Is there any way to solve this problem?
I am not strictly attached to CONTAINSTABLE. Suggesting another optimization method will also be considerable.
Thank you.
Hard to say definitively without your full data set but a couple of options to explore
Remove Invalid % Wildcards
Why are you using '%SearchTerm%'? Does performance improve if you use the search term without the wildcards (%)? If you want a word that matches a prefix, try something like
WHERE CONTAINS (String,'"SearchTerm*"')
Try Temp Tables
My guess is CONTAINS is slightly faster than CONTAINSTABLE as it doesn't calculate a rank, but I don't know if anyone has ever attempted to benchmark it. Either way, I'd try saving off the matches to a temp table before joining up to the rest of the tables. This will allow the optimizer to create a better execution plan
SELECT ID INTO #Temp
FROM YourTable
WHERE CONTAINS (String,'"SearchTerm"')
SELECT *
FROM #Temp
INNER JOIN...
Optimize Full Text Index by Removing Noisy Words
You might find you have some noisy words aka words that reoccur many times in your data that are meaningless like "the" or perhaps some business jargon. Adding these to your stop list will mean your full text index will ignore them, making your index smaller thus faster
The query below will list indexed words with the most frequent at the top
Select *
From sys.dm_fts_index_keywords(Db_Id(),Object_Id('dbo.YourTable') /*Replace with your table name*/)
Order By document_count Desc
This OR That Criteria
For your WHERE CONTAINS(F.*,'%Gayan%') OR CONTAINS(P.FirstName,'%John%') criteria where you want this or that, is tricky. OR clauses generally perform even when using simple equality operators.
I'd try either doing two queries and union the results like:
SELECT * FROM Table1 F
/*Other joins and stuff*/
WHERE CONTAINS(F.*,'%Gayan%')
UNION
SELECT * FROM Table2 P
/*Other joins and stuff*/
WHERE CONTAINS(P.FirstName,'%John%')
OR this is much more work, but you could load all your data into giant denormalized table with all your columns. Then apply a full text index to that table and adjust your search criteria that way. It'd probably be the fastest method searching, but then you'd have to ensure the data is sync between the denormalized table and the underlying normalized tables
SELECT B.*,P.* INTO DenormalizedTable
FROM Building AS B
INNER JOIN People AS P
CREATE FULL TEXT INDEX ft ON DenormalizedTable
etc...
I encountered a problem regarding views in SQL Server 2017.
I'm running a query against a view which has multiple underlying tables behind. Besides tables involved in SELECT clause, other tables also get logical read by SQL Server, and I want to know why.
Here is scenario:
/*******************************************************/
CREATE VIEW v_test
AS
SELECT
a.col1,
a.col2,
b.col3,
b.col4,
c.col5,
c.col6,
d.col7,
d.col8,
e.col9,
e.col10,
f.col11,
f.col12,
g.col13,
g.col14
FROM a
LEFT JOIN b
LEFT JOIN c
LEFT JOIN d
LEFT JOIN e
LEFT JOIN f
LEFT JOIN g
/*********************************************************/
SELECT col1, col2
FROM V_test
The col1 col2 should only be pulled out from tbl_a.=>means, logical reads should only read table a.
However, the logical reads turns out to read more tables than tbl_a. In an scenario I got, it reads tbl_a thru tbl_g.
Why is this?
It is possible that rows from table A get eliminated or duplicated depending on all join conditions.
So to know how many rows should be returned all join conditions has to be evaluated in most cases.
SELECT
b.1, b.2, b.3, b.4, a.4, a.3, a.5
FROM
a
RIGHT JOIN
b ON a.id = b.id
This query is taking more than 7 minutes.
Both tables have around 100 000 records and just a select from each table runs around 12 seconds avg. In execution plan it is saying that table a has logical reads of around 8708 and 100% operator cost. Both tables have CI on ID.
Verify that an INDEX on the ID column exists in table A. For each row selected in B there will be a lookup of rows in A on the ID column. If an index does not exist on that column this will result in a table scan i.e. a lookup through 100k rows to find rows with that specific ID. Not efficient.
PS - General advice: write queries that don't use RIGHT JOIN, stick to INNER, LEFT and OUTER joins unless there is no other way (there almost always is).
Use this sql below to help you identify any missing indexes. My guess is you are missing at least one.
SELECT
statement AS [database.scheme.table],
column_id , column_name, column_usage,
migs.user_seeks, migs.user_scans,
migs.last_user_seek, migs.avg_total_user_cost,
migs.avg_user_impact
FROM sys.dm_db_missing_index_details AS mid
CROSS APPLY sys.dm_db_missing_index_columns (mid.index_handle)
INNER JOIN sys.dm_db_missing_index_groups AS mig
ON mig.index_handle = mid.index_handle
INNER JOIN sys.dm_db_missing_index_group_stats AS migs
ON mig.index_group_handle=migs.group_handle
ORDER BY mig.index_group_handle, mig.index_handle, column_id
If you add more than one table to the FROM clause (in a query), how does this impact the result set? Does it first select from the first table then from the second and then create a union (i.e., only the rowspace is impacted?) or does it actually do something like a join (i.e., extend the column space)? And when you use multiple tables in the FROM clause, does the WHERE clause filter both sub-result-sets?
Specifying two tables in your FROM clause will execute a JOIN. You can then use the WHERE clause to specify your JOIN conditions. If you fail to do this, you will end-up with a Cartesian product (every row in the first table indiscriminately joined to every row in the second).
The code will look something like this:
SELECT a.*, b.*
FROM table1 a, table2 b
WHERE a.id = b.id
However, I always try to explicitly specify my JOINs (with JOIN and ON keywords). That makes it abundantly clear (for the next developer) as to what you're trying to do. Here's the same JOIN, but explicitly specified:
SELECT a.*, b.*
FROM table1 a
INNER JOIN table2 b ON b.id = a.id
Note that now I don't need a WHERE clause. This method also helps you avoid generating an inadvertent Cartesian product (if you happen to forget your WHERE clause), because the ON is specified explicitly.
I am building a view in SQL Server 2000 (and 2005) and I've noticed that the order of the join statements greatly affects the execution plan and speed of the query.
select sr.WTSASessionRangeID,
-- bunch of other columns
from WTSAVW_UserSessionRange us
inner join WTSA_SessionRange sr on sr.WTSASessionRangeID = us.WTSASessionRangeID
left outer join WTSA_SessionRangeTutor srt on srt.WTSASessionRangeID = sr.WTSASessionRangeID
left outer join WTSA_SessionRangeClass src on src.WTSASessionRangeID = sr.WTSASessionRangeID
left outer join WTSA_SessionRangeStream srs on srs.WTSASessionRangeID = sr.WTSASessionRangeID
--left outer join MO_Stream ms on ms.MOStreamID = srs.MOStreamID
left outer join WTSA_SessionRangeEnrolmentPeriod srep on srep.WTSASessionRangeID = sr.WTSASessionRangeID
left outer join WTSA_SessionRangeStudent stsd on stsd.WTSASessionRangeID = sr.WTSASessionRangeID
left outer join WTSA_SessionSubrange ssr on ssr.WTSASessionRangeID = sr.WTSASessionRangeID
left outer join WTSA_SessionSubrangeRoom ssrr on ssrr.WTSASessionSubrangeID = ssr.WTSASessionSubrangeID
left outer join MO_Stream ms on ms.MOStreamID = srs.MOStreamID
On SQL Server 2000, the query above consistently generates a plan of cost 946. If I uncomment the MO_Stream join in the middle of the query and comment out the one at the bottom, the cost drops to 263. The execution speed drops accordingly. I always thought that the query optimizer would interpret the query appropriately without considering join order, but it seems that order matters.
So since order does seem to matter, is there a join strategy I should be following for writing faster queries?
(Incidentally, on SQL Server 2005, with almost identical data, the query plan costs were 0.675 and 0.631 respectively.)
Edit: On SQL Server 2000, here are the profiled stats:
946-cost query: 9094ms CPU, 5121 reads, 0 writes, 10123ms duration
263-cost query: 172ms CPU, 7477 reads, 0 writes, 170ms duration
Edit: Here is the logical structure of the tables.
SessionRange ---+--- SessionRangeTutor
|--- SessionRangeClass
|--- SessionRangeStream --- MO_Stream
|--- SessionRangeEnrolmentPeriod
|--- SessionRangeStudent
+----SessionSubrange --- SessionSubrangeRoom
Edit: Thanks to Alex and gbn for pointing me in the right direction. I also found this question.
Here's the new query:
select sr.WTSASessionRangeID // + lots of columns
from WTSAVW_UserSessionRange us
inner join WTSA_SessionRange sr on sr.WTSASessionRangeID = us.WTSASessionRangeID
left outer join WTSA_SessionRangeTutor srt on srt.WTSASessionRangeID = sr.WTSASessionRangeID
left outer join WTSA_SessionRangeClass src on src.WTSASessionRangeID = sr.WTSASessionRangeID
left outer join WTSA_SessionRangeEnrolmentPeriod srep on srep.WTSASessionRangeID = sr.WTSASessionRangeID
left outer join WTSA_SessionRangeStudent stsd on stsd.WTSASessionRangeID = sr.WTSASessionRangeID
// SessionRangeStream is a many-to-many mapping table between SessionRange and MO_Stream
left outer join (
WTSA_SessionRangeStream srs
inner join MO_Stream ms on ms.MOStreamID = srs.MOStreamID
) on srs.WTSASessionRangeID = sr.WTSASessionRangeID
// SessionRanges MAY have Subranges and Subranges MAY have Rooms
left outer join (
WTSA_SessionSubrange ssr
left outer join WTSA_SessionSubrangeRoom ssrr on ssrr.WTSASessionSubrangeID = ssr.WTSASessionSubrangeID
) on ssr.WTSASessionRangeID = sr.WTSASessionRangeID
SQLServer2000 cost: 24.9
I have to disagree with all previous answers, and the reason is simple: if you change the order of your left join, your queries are logically different and as such they produce different result sets. See for yourself:
SELECT 1 AS a INTO #t1
UNION ALL SELECT 2
UNION ALL SELECT 3
UNION ALL SELECT 4;
SELECT 1 AS b INTO #t2
UNION ALL SELECT 2;
SELECT 1 AS c INTO #t3
UNION ALL SELECT 3;
SELECT a, b, c
FROM #t1 LEFT JOIN #t2 ON #t1.a=#t2.b
LEFT JOIN #t3 ON #t2.b=#t3.c
ORDER BY a;
SELECT a, b, c
FROM #t1 LEFT JOIN #t3 ON #t1.a=#t3.c
LEFT JOIN #t2 ON #t3.c=#t2.b
ORDER BY a;
a b c
----------- ----------- -----------
1 1 1
2 2 NULL
3 NULL NULL
4 NULL NULL
(4 row(s) affected)
a b c
----------- ----------- -----------
1 1 1
2 NULL NULL
3 NULL 3
4 NULL NULL
The join order does make a difference to the resulting query. This is documented in BOL in the docs for FROM:
<joined_table>
Is a result set that is the product of two or more tables. For multiple joins, use parentheses to change the natural order of the joins.
You can alter the join order using parenthesis around the joins (BOL does show this in the syntax at the top of the docs, but it is easy to miss).
This is known as chiastic behaviour. You can also use the query hint OPTION (FORCE ORDER) to force a specific join order, but this can result in what are called "bushy plans" which may not be the most optimal for the query being executed.
Obviously, the SQL Server 2005 optimizer is a lot better than the SQL Server 2000 one.
However, there's a lot of truth in your question. Outer joins will cause execution to vary wildly based on order (inner joins tend to be optimized to the most efficient route, but again, order matters). If you think about it, as you build up left joins, you need to figure out what the heck is on the left. As such, each join must be calculated before every other join can be done. It becomes sequential, and not parallel. Now, obviously, there are things you can do to combat this (such as indexes, views, etc). But, the point stands: The table needs to know what's on the left before it can do a left outer join. And if you just keep adding joins, you're getting more and more abstraction to what, exactly is on the left (especially if you use joined tables as the left table!).
With inner joins, however, you can parallelize those quite a bit, so there's less of a dramatic difference as far as order's concerned.
A general strategy for optimizing queries containing JOINs is to look at your data model and the data and try to determine which JOINs will reduce number of records that must be considered the most quickly. The fewer records that must be considered, the faster the query will run. The server will generally produce a better query plan too.
Along with the above optimization make sure that any fields used in JOINs are indexed
You query is probably wrong anyway. Alex is correct. Eric may be correct too, but the query is wrong.
Lets' take this subset:
WTSA_SessionRange sr
left outer join
WTSA_SessionSubrange ssr on ssr.WTSASessionRangeID = sr.WTSASessionRangeID
left outer join
WTSA_SessionSubrangeRoom ssrr on ssrr.WTSASessionSubrangeID = ssr.WTSASessionSubrangeID
You are joining WTSA_SessionSubrangeRoom onto WTSA_SessionSubrange. You may have no rows from WTSA_SessionSubrange.
The join should be this:
WTSA_SessionRange sr
left outer join
(SELECT WTSASessionRangeID, columns I need
FROM
WTSA_SessionSubrange ssr
left outer join
WTSA_SessionSubrangeRoom ssrr on ssrr.WTSASessionSubrangeID = ssr.WTSASessionSubrangeID
) foo on foo.WTSASessionRangeID = sr.WTSASessionRangeID
This is why the join order is affecting results because it's a different query, declaratively speaking.
You'd also need to change the MO_Stream and WTSA_SessionRangeStream join too.
it depends on which of the join fields are indexed - if it has to table scan the first field, but use an index on the second, it's slow. If your first join field is an index, it'll be quicker. My guess is that 2005 optimizes it better by determining the indexed fields and performing those first
At DevConnections a few years ago a session on SQL Server performance stated that (a) order of outer joins DOES matter, and (b) when a query has a lot of joins, it will not look at all of them before making a determination on a plan. If you know you have joins that will help speed up a query, they should be early on in the FROM list (if you can).