I have a simple SELECT statement with a couple columns referenced in the WHERE clause. Normally I do these simple ones in the VB code (setup a Command object, set Command Type to text, set Command Text to the Select statement). However I'm seeing timeout problems. We've optimized just about everything we can with our tables, etc.
I'm wondering if there'd be a big performance hit just because I'm doing the query this way, versus creating a simple stored procedure with a couple params. I'm thinking maybe the inline code forces SQL to do extra work compiling, creating query plan, etc. which wouldn't occur if I used a stored procedure.
An example of the actual SQL being run:
SELECT TOP 1 * FROM MyTable WHERE Field1 = #Field1 ORDER BY ID DESC
A well formed "inline" or "ad-hoc" SQL query - if properly used with parameters - is just as good as a stored procedure.
But this is absolutely crucial: you must use properly parametrized queries! If you don't - if you concatenate together your SQL for each request - then you don't benefit from these points...
Just like with a stored procedure, upon first executing, a query execution plan must be found - and then that execution plan is cached in the plan cache - just like with a stored procedure.
That query plan is reused over and over again, if you call your inline parametrized SQL statement multiple times - and the "inline" SQL query plan is subject to the same cache eviction policies as the execution plan of a stored procedure.
Just from that point of view - if you really use properly parametrized queries - there's no performance benefit for a stored procedure.
Stored procedures have other benefits (like being a "security boundary" etc.), but just raw performance isn't one of their major plus points.
It is true that the db has to do the extra work you mention, but that should not result in a big performance hit (unless you are running the query very, very frequently..)
Use sql profiler to see what is actually getting sent to the server. Use activity monitor to see if there are other queries blocking yours.
Your query couldn't be simpler. Is Field1 indexed? As others have said, there is no performance hit associated with "ad-hoc" queries.
For where to put your queries, this is one of the oldest debates in tech. I would argue that your requests "belong" to your application. They will be versionned with your app, tested with your app and should disappear when your app disappears. Putting them anywhere other than in your app is walking into a world of pain. But for goodness sake, use .sql files, compiled as embedded resources.
Select statement which is part of form clause of any
another statement is called as inline query.
Cannot take parameters.
Not a database object
Procedure:
Can take paramters
Database object
can be used globally if same action needs to be performed.
Related
I have then following tracert about one query in my application:
As you can see, the query reads all registers in the table and the result is a big impact in time duration.
But when I try to execute the query directly the result is another... What is wrong?
You executed ANOTHER query from SSMS.
The query shown in profiler is part of stored procedure, and has 8 parameters.
What you've executed is a query with constants that has another execution plan as all the constants are known and estimation was done in base of these known values.
When your sp's statement was executed the plan was created for god-knows-what sniffed parameters and this plan is different from what you have in SSMS.
From the thikness of arrows in SSMS it's clear that you query does not do 7.954.449 reads.
If you want to see you actual execution plan in profiler you should select corresponding event (Showplan XML Statistics Profile ).
Yes, There are two different queries. The Axapta uses placeholders in common. Your query uses literal constants.
The forceLiterals hint in the query make the Axapta query similar to your SSMS sample. Default Axapta hint is forcePlaceholders.
Main goal of placeholders is optimize a massive stream of similar queries with different constants from multiple clients. Mainly due to the use of a query plans cache.
see also the injection warning for forceLiterals:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa861766.aspx
I am creating a Java function that needs to use a SQL query with a lot of joins before doing a full scan of its result. Instead of hard-coding a lot of joins I decided to create a view with this complex query. Then the Java function just uses the following query to get this result:
SELECT * FROM VW_####
So the program is working fine but I want to make it faster since this SELECT command is taking a lot of time. After taking a look on its plan execution plan I created some indexes and made it +-30% faster but I want to make it faster.
The problem is that every operation in the execution plan have cost between 0% and 4% except one operation, a clustered-index insert that has +-50% of the execution cost. I think that the system is using a temporary table to store the view's data, but an index in this view isn't useful for me because I need all rows from it.
So what can I do to optimize that insert in the CWT_PrimaryKey? I think that I can't turn off that index because it seems to be part of the SQL Server's internals. I read somewhere that this operation could appear when you use cursors but I think that I am not using (or does the view use it?).
The command to create the view is something simple (no T-SQL, no OPTION, etc) like:
create view VW_#### as SELECTS AND JOINS HERE
And here is a picture of the problematic part from the execution plan: http://imgur.com/PO0ZnBU
EDIT: More details:
Well the query to create the problematic view is a big query that join a lot of tables. Based on a single parameter the Java-Client modifies the query string before creating it. This view represents a "data unit" from a legacy Database migrated to the SQLServer that didn't had any Foreign or Primary Key, so our team choose to follow this strategy. Because of that the view have more than 50 columns and it is made from the join of other seven views.
Main view's query (with a lot of Portuguese words): http://pastebin.com/Jh5vQxzA
The other views (from VW_Sintese1 until VW_Sintese7) are created like this one but without using extra views, they just use joins with the tables that contain the data requested by the main view.
Then the Java Client create a prepared Statement with the query "Select * from VW_Sintese####" and execute it using the function "ExecuteQuery", something like:
String query = "Select * from VW_Sintese####";
PreparedStatement ps = myConn.prepareStatement(query,ResultSet.TYPE_SCROLL_INSENSITIVE, ResultSet.CONCUR_READ_ONLY);
ResultSet rs = ps.executeQuery();
And then the program goes on until the end.
Thanks for the attention.
First: you should post the code of the view along with whatever is using the views because of the rest of this answer.
Second: the definition of a view in SQL Server is later used to substitute in querying. In other words, you created a view, but since (I'm assuming) it isn't an indexed view, it is the same as writing the original, long SELECT statement. SQL Server kind of just swaps it out in the DML statement.
From Microsoft's 'Querying Microsoft SQL Server 2012': T-SQL supports the following table expressions: derived tables, common table expressions (CTEs), views, inline table-valued functions.
And a direct quote:
It’s important to note that, from a performance standpoint, when SQL Server optimizes
queries involving table expressions, it first unnests the table expression’s logic, and therefore interacts with the underlying tables directly. It does not somehow persist the table expression’s result in an internal work table and then interact with that work table. This means that table expressions don’t have a performance side to them—neither good nor
bad—just no side.
This is a long way of reinforcing the first statement: please include the SQL code in the view and what you're actually using as the SELECT statement. Otherwise, we can't help much :) Cheers!
Edit: Okay, so you've created a view (no performance gain there) that does 4-5 LEFT JOIN on to the main view (again, you're not helping yourself out much here by eliminating rows, etc.). If there are search arguments you can use to filter down the resultset to fewer rows, you should have those in here. And lastly, you're ordering all of this at the top, so your query engine will have to get those views, join them up to a massive SELECT statement, figure out the correct order, and (I'm guessing here) the result count is HUGE and SQL's db engine is ordering it in some kind of temporary table.
The short answer: get less data (fewer columns and only the rows you need); don't order the results if the resultset is very large, just get the data to the client and then sort it there.
Again, if you want more help, you'll need to post table schemas and index strategies for all tables that are in the query (including the views that are joined) and you'll need to include all view definitions (including the views that are joined).
am used lot of time , i know the diff between sql query and sp ,
SQL query will be compiled everytime it is executed.
Stored procedures are compiled only once when they are
executed for the first time.
This is general database question
But one big doubt is ,
For example ,
one dynamic work , that is i pass the userid to SP and sp will return the username,password,full details,
So for this scenario the query should execute once again know, so what is the necessary of SP instead of SQL QUERY ,
Please clear this doubt ,
Hi thanks for all your updates,
but i dont want the advantage, comparison ,
just say ,
How sp executing , while we go with dynamic works,
For example ,
if pass userid 10 then sp also read records 10 ,
if i pass 14 then, SP again look the 14 records , see this same work NORMAL SQL QUERY
doing , but on that time execute and fetching ,so why should i go for sp ,
Regards
Stored procedures, like the name says, are stored on the database server. They are transmitted to the server and compiled when you create them, and executed when you call them.
Simple SQL queries, on the other hand, are transmitted to the server and compiled each time you use them.
So transmitting of a huge query (instead of a simple "execute procedure" command) and compiling create an overhead which can be avoided by the use of a stored procedure.
MySQL, like other RDBMS, has a query cache. But this avoid only compiling, and only if the query is exactly the same than a previously executed query, which means the cache is not used if you execute 2 times the same query, with different values in a where clause, for example.
I see no reason for a stored procedure simply to query for all user details.
Stored procedures are functional code that you execute on the database server. I can think of three reasons why you'd use them:
To create an interface for users that hides the schema details from clients.
Performance. Extensive calculations on a large data set might be done more efficiently on the database server
Sometimes it can be difficult (or impossible, depending on your skill) to express what you think you need in a declarative, set-based language like SQL. That's when some people throw up their hands and write stored procs.
Only 1. would be justifiable from your question. I would recommend sticking with SQL.
UPDATE: The new information you provided still does not justify stored procedures in my opinion. A query that returns 14 records is routine.
I'm trying to use SQL Server Profiler (2005) to track down some application performance problems. One of the calls being made is to a table-valued user-defined function. This function wraps a select that joins several tables together.
In SQL Server Profiler, the call to the UDF is logged. However, the select that underlies the UDF isn't being logged at all. Because of this, I'm not getting useful data on which tables & indexes are being hit. I'd like to feed this info into the Database Tuning Advisor for some indexing advice.
Is there any way (short of unwrapping the queries themselves) to log the tables called by UDFs in Profiler?
You can't: a multi-statement TVF is a black box and you can only get CPU, Read, Writes etc.
by "black box" I mean it's a fully encapsulated and opaque series of statements inside another query, and there is no "flow" like you'd get line by line through a stored proc.
An in-line TVF is expanded like a view or macro into the main query and can be seen.
Edit: related: Table Valued Function where did my query plan go?
A while ago I had a query that I ran quite a lot for one of my users. It was still being evolved and tweaked but eventually it stablised and ran quite quickly, so we created a stored procedure from it.
So far, so normal.
The stored procedure, though, was dog slow. No material difference between the query and the proc, but the speed change was massive.
[Background, we're running SQL Server 2005.]
A friendly local DBA (who no longer works here) took one look at the stored procedure and said "parameter spoofing!" (Edit: although it seems that it is possibly also known as 'parameter sniffing', which might explain the paucity of Google hits when I tried to search it out.)
We abstracted some of the stored procedure to a second one, wrapped the call to this new inner proc into the pre-existing outer one, called the outer one and, hey presto, it was as quick as the original query.
So, what gives? Can someone explain parameter spoofing?
Bonus credit for
highlighting how to avoid it
suggesting how to recognise possible cause
discuss alternative strategies, e.g. stats, indices, keys, for mitigating the situation
FYI - you need to be aware of something else when you're working with SQL 2005 and stored procs with parameters.
SQL Server will compile the stored proc's execution plan with the first parameter that's used. So if you run this:
usp_QueryMyDataByState 'Rhode Island'
The execution plan will work best with a small state's data. But if someone turns around and runs:
usp_QueryMyDataByState 'Texas'
The execution plan designed for Rhode-Island-sized data may not be as efficient with Texas-sized data. This can produce surprising results when the server is restarted, because the newly generated execution plan will be targeted at whatever parameter is used first - not necessarily the best one. The plan won't be recompiled until there's a big reason to do it, like if statistics are rebuilt.
This is where query plans come in, and SQL Server 2008 offers a lot of new features that help DBAs pin a particular query plan in place long-term no matter what parameters get called first.
My concern is that when you rebuilt your stored proc, you forced the execution plan to recompile. You called it with your favorite parameter, and then of course it was fast - but the problem may not have been the stored proc. It might have been that the stored proc was recompiled at some point with an unusual set of parameters and thus, an inefficient query plan. You might not have fixed anything, and you might face the same problem the next time the server restarts or the query plan gets recompiled.
Yes, I think you mean parameter sniffing, which is a technique the SQL Server optimizer uses to try to figure out parameter values/ranges so it can choose the best execution plan for your query. In some instances SQL Server does a poor job at parameter sniffing & doesn't pick the best execution plan for the query.
I believe this blog article http://blogs.msdn.com/queryoptteam/archive/2006/03/31/565991.aspx has a good explanation.
It seems that the DBA in your example chose option #4 to move the query to another sproc to a separate procedural context.
You could have also used the with recompile on the original sproc or used the optimize for option on the parameter.
A simple way to speed that up is to reassign the input parameters to local parameters in the very beginning of the sproc, e.g.
CREATE PROCEDURE uspParameterSniffingAvoidance
#SniffedFormalParameter int
AS
BEGIN
DECLARE #SniffAvoidingLocalParameter int
SET #SniffAvoidingLocalParameter = #SniffedFormalParameter
--Work w/ #SniffAvoidingLocalParameter in sproc body
-- ...
In my experience, the best solution for parameter sniffing is 'Dynamic SQL'. Two important things to note is that 1. you should use parameters in your dynamic sql query 2. you should use sp_executesql (and not sp_execute), which saves the execution plan for each parameter values
Parameter sniffing is a technique SQL Server uses to optimize the query execution plan for a stored procedure. When you first call the stored procedure, SQL Server looks at the given parameter values of your call and decides which indices to use based on the parameter values.
So when the first call contains not very typical parameters, SQL Server might select and store a sub-optimal execution plan in regard to the following calls of the stored procedure.
You can work around this by either
using WITH RECOMPILE
copying the parameter values to local variables inside the stored procedure and using the locals in your queries.
I even heard that it's better to not use stored procedures at all but to send your queries directly to the server.
I recently came across the same problem where I have no real solution yet.
For some queries the copy to local vars helps getting back to the right execution plan, for some queries performance degrades with local vars.
I still have to do more research on how SQL Server caches and reuses (sub-optimal) execution plans.
I had similar problem. My stored procedure's execution plan took 30-40 seconds. I tried using the SP Statements in query window and it took few ms to execute the same.
Then I worked out declaring local variables within stored procedure and transferring the values of parameters to local variables. This made the SP execution very fast and now the same SP executes within few milliseconds instead of 30-40 seconds.
Very simple and sort, Query optimizer use old query plan for frequently running queries. but actually the size of data is also increasing so at that time new optimized plan is require and still query optimizer using old plan of query. This is called Parameter Sniffing.
I have also created detailed post on this. Please visit this url:
http://www.dbrnd.com/2015/05/sql-server-parameter-sniffing/
Changing your store procedure to execute as a batch should increase the speed.
Batch file select i.e.:
exec ('select * from order where order id ='''+ #ordersID')
Instead of the normal stored procedure select:
select * from order where order id = #ordersID
Just pass in the parameter as nvarchar and you should get quicker results.