Firstly, I should point out I don't have much knowledge on SQL Server indexes.
My situation is that I have an SQL Server 2008 database table that has a varchar(max) column usually filled with a lot of text.
My ASP.NET web application has a search facility which queries this column for keyword searches, and depending on the number of keywords searched for their may be one or many LIKE '%keyword%' statements in the SQL query to do the search.
My web application also allows searching by various other columns in this table as well, not just that one column. There is also a few joins from other tables too.
My question is, is it worthwhile creating an index on this column to improve performance of these search queries? And if so, what type of index, and will just indexing the one column be enough or do I need to include other columns such as the primary key and other searchable columns?
The best analogy I've ever seen for why an index won't help '%wildcard%' searches:
Take two people. Hand each one the same phone book. Say to the person on your left:
Tell me how many people are in this phone book with the last name "Smith."
Now say to the person on your right:
Tell me how many people are in this phone book with the first name "Simon."
An index is like a phone book. Very easy to seek for the thing that is at the beginning. Very difficult to scan for the thing that is in the middle or at the end.
Every time I've repeated this in a session, I see light bulbs go on, so I thought it might be useful to share here.
you cannot create an index on a varchar(max) field. The maximum amount of bytes on a index is 900. If the column is bigger than 900 bytes, you can create the index but any insert with more then 900 bytes will fail.
I suggest you to read about fulltext search. It should suits you in this case
It's not worthwhile creating a regular index if you're doing LIKE '%keyword%' searches. The reason is that indexing works like searching a dictionary, where you start in the middle then split the difference until you find the word. That wildcard query is like asking you to lookup a word that contains the text "to" or something-- the only way to find matches is to scan the whole dictionary.
You might consider a full-text search, however, which is meant for this kind of scenario (see here).
The best way to find out is to create a bunch of test queries that resemble what would happen in real life and try to run them against your DB with and without the index. However, in general, if you are doing many SELECT queries, and little UPDATE/DELETE queries, an index might make your queries faster.
However, if you do a lot of updates, the index might hurt your performance, so you have to know what kind of queries your DB will have to deal with before you make this decision.
Related
Our application connects to a SQL Server database. There is a column that is nvarchar(max) that has been added an must be included in the search. The number of records in the this DB is only in the 10s of thousands and there are only a few hundred people using the application. I'm told to explore Full Text Search, is this necessary?
This is like asking, I work 5 miles away, and I was told to consider buying a car. Is this necessary? Too many variables to give you a simple and correct answer to your question. For example, is it a nice walk? Is there public transit available? Is your schedule flexible? Do you have to go far for lunch or run errands after work?
Full-Text Search can help if your typical searches are going to be WHERE col LIKE '%foo%' - but whether it is necessary depends on how large this column will get, whether your searches are true wildcard searches, your tolerance for millisecond vs. nanosecond queries, the amount of concurrency, even seemingly extraneous stuff like whether the data is always in memory and can be searched more efficiently.
The better answer is that you should try it. Populate a table with a copy of your data, add a full-text index, and see if your typical workload improves by using full-text queries instead of LIKE. It probably will, but there's no way for us to know for sure even if you add more specifics than ballpark row counts.
In a similar situation I ended up making a table structure that was more search friendly and indexable, then setting up a batch job to copy records from the live database to the reporting one.
In my case the original data didn't come close to needing an nvarchar(max) column so I could get away with that. Your mileage may vary. In any case, the answer is "try a few things and see what works for you".
I am new in sql server,
my manager has given me job where i have to find out performance of query in sql server 2008.
That query is very complex having joins between views and table. I read in internet that joins between views and table cause performance hurt?
If any expert can help me on this? Any good link where i found knowledge of this? How to calculate query performance in sql server?
Look at the query plan - it could be anything. Missing indexes on one of the underlying view tables, missing indexes on the join table or something else.
Take a look at this article by Gail Shaw about finding performance issues in SQL Server - part 1, part 2.
A view (that isn't indexed/materialised) is just a macro: no more, no less
That is, it expands into the outer query. So a join with 3 views (with 4, 5, and 6 joins respectively) becomes a single query with 15 JOINs.
This is a common "I can reuse it" mistake: DRY doesn't usually apply to SQL code.
Otherwise, see Oded's answer
Oded is correct, you should definitely start with the query plan. That said, there are a couple of things that you can already see at a high level, for example:
CONVERT(VARCHAR(8000), CN.Note) LIKE '%T B9997%'
LIKE searches with a wildcard at the front are bad news in terms of performance, because of the way indexes work. If you think about it, it's easy to find all people in the phone book whose name starts with "Smi". If you try to find all people who have "mit" anywhere in their name, you will find that you need to read the entire phone book. SQL Server does the same thing - this is called a full table scan, and is typically quite slow. The other issue is that the left side of the condition uses a function to modify the column (specifically, converting it to a varchar). Essentially, this again means that SQL Server cannot use an index, even if there was one for the column CN.Note.
My guess is that the column is a text column, and that you will not be allowed to change the filter logic to remove the wildcard at the beginning of the search. In this case, I would recommend looking into Full-Text Search / Indexing functionality. By enabling full text indexing, and using specific keywords such as CONTAINS, you should get better performance.
Again (as with all performance optimisation scenarios), you should still start with the query plan to see if this really is the biggest problem with the query.
I am trying to visualize how to create a search for an application that we are building. I would like a suggestion on how to approach 'searching' through large sets of data.
For instance, this particular search would be on a 750k record minimum table, of product sku's, sizing, material type, create date, etc;
Is anyone aware of a 'plugin' solution for Coldfusion to do this? I envision a google like single entry search where a customer can type in the part number, or the sizing, etc, and get hits on any or all relevant results.
Currently if I run a 'LIKE' comparison query, it seems to take ages (ok a few seconds, but still), and it is too long. At times making a user sit there and wait up to 10 seconds for queries & page loads.
Or are there any SQL formulas to help accomplish this? I want to use a proven method to search the data, not just a simple SQL like or = comparison operation.
So this is a multi-approach question, should I attack this at the SQL level (as it ultimately looks to be) or is there a plug in/module for ColdFusion that I can grab that will give me speedy, advanced search capability.
You could try indexing your db records with a Verity (or Solr, if CF9) search.
I'm not sure it would be faster, and whether even trying it would be worthwhile would depend a lot on how often you update the records you need to search. If you update them rarely, you could do an Verity Index update whenever you update them. If you update the records constantly, that's going to be a drag on the webserver, and certainly mitigate any possible gains in search speed.
I've never indexed a database via Verity, but I've indexed large collections of PDFs, Word Docs, etc, and I recall the search being pretty fast. I don't know if it will help your current situation, but it might be worth further research.
If your slowdown is specifically the search of textual fields (as I surmise from your mentioning of LIKE), the best solution is building an index table (not to be confiused with DB table indexes that are also part of the answer).
Build an index table mapping the unique ID of your records from main table to a set of words (1 word per row) of the textual field. If it matters, add the field of origin as a 3rd column in the index table, and if you want "relevance" features you may want to consider word count.
Populate the index table with either a trigger (using splitting) or from your app - the latter might be better, simply call a stored proc with both the actual data to insert/update and the list of words already split up.
This will immediately drastically speed up textual search as it will no longer do "LIKE", AND will be able to use indexes on index table (no pun intended) without interfering with indexing on SKU and the like on the main table.
Also, ensure that all the relevant fields are indexed fully - not necessarily in the same compund index (SKU, sizing etc...), and any field that is searched as a range field (sizing or date) is a good candidate for a clustered index (as long as the records are inserted in approximate order of that field's increase or you don't care about insert/update speed as much).
For anything mode detailed, you will need to post your table structure, existing indexes, the queries that are slow and the query plans you have now for those slow queries.
Another item is to enure that as little of the fields are textual as possible, especially ones that are "decodable" - your comment mentioned "is it boxed" in the text fields set. If so, I assume the values are "yes"/"no" or some other very limited data set. If so, simply store a numeric code for valid values and do en/de-coding in your app, and search by the numeric code. Not a tremendous speed improvement but still an improvement.
I've done this using SQL's full text indexes. This will require very application changes and no changes to the database schema except for the addition of the full text index.
First, add the Full Text index to the table. Include in the full text index all of the columns the search should perform against. I'd also recommend having the index auto update; this shouldn't be a problem unless your SQL Server is already being highly taxed.
Second, to do the actual search, you need to convert your query to use a full text search. The first step is to convert the search string into a full text search string. I do this by splitting the search string into words (using the Split method) and then building a search string formatted as:
"Word1*" AND "Word2*" AND "Word3*"
The double-quotes are critical; they tell the full text index where the words begin and end.
Next, to actually execute the full text search, use the ContainsTable command in your query:
SELECT *
from containstable(Bugs, *, '"Word1*" AND "Word2*" AND "Word3*"')
This will return two columns:
Key - The column identified as the primary key of the full text search
Rank - A relative rank of the match (1 - 1000 with a higher ranking meaning a better match).
I've used approaches similar to this many times and I've had good luck with it.
If you want a truly plug-in solution then you should just go with Google itself. It sounds like your doing some kind of e-commerce or commercial site (given the use of the term 'SKU'), So you probably have a catalog of some kind with product pages. If you have consistent markup then you can configure a google appliance or service to do exactly what you want. It will send a bot in to index your pages and find your fields. No SQl, little coding, it will not be dependent on your database, or even coldfusion. It will also be quite fast and familiar to customers.
I was able to do this with a coldfusion site in about 6 hours, done! The only thing to watch out for is that google's index is limited to what the bot can see, so if you have a situation where you want to limit access based on a users role or permissions or group, then it may not be the solution for you (although you can configure a permission service for Google to check with)
Because SQL Server is where your data is that is where your search performance is going to be a possible issue. Make sure you have indexes on the columns you are searching on and if using a like you can't use and index if you do this SELECT * FROM TABLEX WHERE last_name LIKE '%FR%'
But it can use an index if you do it like this SELECT * FROM TABLEX WHERE last_name LIKE 'FR%'. The key here is to allow as many of the first characters to not be wild cards.
Here is a link to a site with some general tips. https://web.archive.org/web/1/http://blogs.techrepublic%2ecom%2ecom/datacenter/?p=173
We are storing the metadata of the content in the database tables. Out which there is a column named keywords which contains the keywords related to the content. So, should we normalise the table based on the keyword column because the keyword column will be holding multiple values.
I don't think the answer to this question is complicated at all. This is a textbook normalization problem and the answer is yes, you should definitely normalize this.
Storing multiple values in one column is a violation of first-normal form (most designers try to get to third-normal). The only reason you would want to do this is as a performance optimization, i.e. if the database is extremely large and you are able to use some special indexing strategy on the denormalized column to pull off some specific optimization (i.e. a materialized path). That is not the case here.
Not normalizing will make it difficult to write queries and impossible to index properly. And if you are storing keywords, I can only assume that the reason is for a keyword search - so you definitely want to be able to index this data and write simple queries.
Please - normalize your data.
I think the answer to the question is very complicated. All the big books about database design says that normalization is a good thing. But in your case it depends on how you are going to query the data. For example if you need to get all the rows that contains a key word you will have to use the like operator which is not very fast. But if you have all the key words in a table then you have only a where which is much faster.
Here's the problem : I've got a huuge (well at my level) mysql database with technical products in it. I ve got something like 150k rows of products in my database plus 10 to 20 others tables with the same amount of rows. Each tables contains a lot of criteria. Some of the criteria are text values, some are decimal, some are just boolean. I would like to provide a web access (php) to this database with filters on each criteria but I dont know how to do that really fast. I started to create a big table with all colums merged to avoid multiple join, it's cool, faster than the big join but still very very slow. Putting an index on all criteria, doesnt improve things (and i heard it was a bad idea). I was wondering if there were some cool algorithms that could help me preprocess the multi criteria search. Any idea ?
Thanks ahead.
If you're frustrated trying to do this in SQL, you could take a look at Lucene. It lets you do range searches, full text, etc.
Try Full Text Search
You might want to try globbing your text fields together and doing full text search.
Optimize Your Queries
For the other columns, rank them in order of how frequently you expect them to be used.
Write a test suite of queries, and run them all to get a sense of the performance. Then start adding indexes, and see how it affects performance. Keep adding indexes while the performance gets better. Stop when it gets worse.
Use Explain Plan
Since you didn't provide your SQL or table layout, I can't be more specific. But use the Explain Plan command to make sure your queries are hitting indexes, rather than doing table scans. This can be tricky since subtle stuff like the order of the columns in the query can affect whether or not an index is operative.