I am having an issue with a query where the query plan says that 15% of the execution cost is for one table. However, this table is very small (only 9 rows).
Clearly there is a problem if the smallest table involved in the query has the highest cost.
My guess is that the query keeps on looping over the same table again and again, rather than caching the results.
What can I do about this?
Sorry, I can't paste the exact code (which is quite complex), but here is something similar:
SELECT Foo.Id
FROM Foo
-- Various other joins have been removed for the example
LEFT OUTER JOIN SmallTable as st_1 ON st_1.Id = Foo.SmallTableId1
LEFT OUTER JOIN SmallTable as st_2 ON st_2.Id = Foo.SmallTableId2
WHERE (
-- various where clauses removed for the example
)
AND (st_1.Id is null OR st_1.Code = 7)
AND (st_2.Id is null OR st_2.Code = 4)
Take these execution-plan statistics with a wee grain of salt. If this table is "disproportionately small," relative to all the others, then those cost-statistics probably don't actually mean a hill o' beans.
I mean... think about it ... :-) ... if it's a tiny table, what actually is it? Probably, "it's one lousy 4K storage-page in a file somewhere." We read it in once, and we've got it, period. End of story. Nothing (actually...) there to index; no (actual...) need to index it; and, at the end of the day, the DBMS will understand this just as well as we do. Don't worry about it.
Now, having said that ... one more thing: make sure that the "cost" which seems to be attributed to "the tiny table" is not actually being incurred by very-expensive access to the tables to which it is joined. If those tables don't have decent indexes, or if the query as-written isn't able to make effective use of them, then there's your actual problem; that's what the query optimizer is actually trying to tell you. ("It's just a computer ... backwards things says it sometimes.")
Without the query plan it's difficult to solve your problem here, but there is one glaring clue in your example:
AND (st_1.Id is null OR st_1.Code = 7)
AND (st_2.Id is null OR st_2.Code = 4)
This is going to be incredibly difficult for SQL Server to optimize because it's nearly impossible to accurately estimate the cardinality. Hover over the elements of your query plan and look at EstimatedRows vs. ActualRows and EstimatedExecutions vs. ActualExecutions. My guess is these are way off.
Not sure what the whole query looks like, but you might want to see if you can rewrite it as two queries with a UNION operator rather than using the OR logic.
Well, with the limited information available, all I can suggest is that you ensure all columns being used for comparisons are properly indexed.
In addition, you haven't stated if you have an actual performance problem. Even if those table accesses took up 90% of the query time, it's most likely not a problem if the query only takes (for example) a tenth of a second.
Related
There is a rather complex SQL Server query I have been attempting to optimize for some months now which takes a very long time to execute despite multiple index additions (adding covering, non-clustered indexes) and query refactoring/changes. Without getting into the full details, the execution plan is below. Is there anything here which jumps out to anyone as particularly inefficient or bad? I got rid of all key lookups and there appears to be heavy use of index seeks which is why I am confused that it still takes a huge amount of time somehow. When the query runs, the bottleneck is clearly CPU (not disk I/O). Thanks much for any thoughts.
OK so I made a change based on Martin's comments which have seemingly greatly helped the query speed. I'm not 100% positive this is the solution bc I've been running this a lot and it's possible that so much underlying data has been put into memory that it is now fast. But I think there is actually a true difference.
Specifically, the 3 scans inside of the nested loops were being caused by sub-queries on very small tables that contain a small set of records to be completely excluded from the result set. Conceptually, the query was something like:
SELECT fields
FROM (COMPLEX JOIN)
WHERE id_field NOT IN (SELECT bad_ID_field FROM BAD_IDs)
the idea being that if a record appears in BAD_IDs it should never be included in the results.
I tinkered with this and changed it to something like:
SELECT fields
FROM (COMPLEX JOIN)
LEFT JOIN BAD_IDs ON id_field = bad_ID_field
WHERE BAD_IDs.bad_ID_field IS NULL
This is logically the same thing - it excludes results for any ID in BAD_IDs - but it uses a join instead of a subquery. Even the execution plan is almost identical; a TOP operation gets changed to a FILTER elsewhere in the tree, but the clustered index scan is still there.
But, it seems to run massively faster! Is this to be expected? I have always assumed that a subquery used in the fashion I did was OK and that the server would know how to create the fastest (and presumably identical, which it almost is) execution plan. Is this not correct?
Thx!
We are trying to optimize some of our queries.
One query is doing the following:
SELECT t.TaskID, t.Name as Task, '' as Tracker, t.ClientID, (<complex subquery>) Date,
INTO [#Gadget]
FROM task t
SELECT TOP 500 TaskID, Task, Tracker, ClientID, dbo.GetClientDisplayName(ClientID) as Client
FROM [#Gadget]
order by CASE WHEN Date IS NULL THEN 1 ELSE 0 END , Date ASC
DROP TABLE [#Gadget]
(I have removed the complex subquery. I don't think it's relevant other than to explain why this query has been done as a two stage process.)
I thought it would be far more efficient to merge this down into a single query using subqueries as:
SELECT TOP 500 TaskID, Task, Tracker, ClientID, dbo.GetClientDisplayName(ClientID)
FROM
(
SELECT t.TaskID, t.Name as Task, '' as Tracker, t.ClientID, (<complex subquery>) Date,
FROM task t
) as sub
order by CASE WHEN Date IS NULL THEN 1 ELSE 0 END , Date ASC
This would give the optimizer better information to work out what was going on and avoid any temporary tables. I assumed it should be faster.
But it turns out it is a lot slower. 8 seconds vs. under 5 seconds.
I can't work out why this would be the case, as all my knowledge of databases imply that subqueries would always be faster than using temporary tables.
What am I missing?
Edit --
From what I have been able to see from the query plans, both are largely identical, except for the temporary table which has an extra "Table Insert" operation with a cost of 18%.
Obviously as it has two queries the cost of the Sort Top N is a lot higher in the second query than the cost of the Sort in the Subquery method, so it is difficult to make a direct comparison of the costs.
Everything I can see from the plans would indicate that the subquery method would be faster.
"should be" is a hazardous thing to say of database performance. I have often found that temp tables speed things up, sometimes dramatically. The simple explanation is that it makes it easier for the optimiser to avoid repeating work.
Of course, I've also seen temp tables make things slower, sometimes much slower.
There is no substitute for profiling and studying query plans (read their estimates with a grain of salt, though).
Obviously, SQL Server is choosing the wrong query plan. Yes, that can happen, I've had exactly the same scenario as you a few times.
The problem is that optimizing a query (you mention a "complex subquery") is a non-trivial task: If you have n tables, there are roughly n! possible join orders -- and that's just the beginning. So, it's quite plausible that doing (a) first your inner query and (b) then your outer query is a good way to go, but SQL Server cannot deduce this information in reasonable time.
What you can do is to help SQL Server. As Dan Tow writes in his great book "SQL Tuning", the key is usually the join order, going from the most selective to the least selective table. Using common sense (or the method described in his book, which is a lot better), you could determine which join order would be most appropriate and then use the FORCE ORDER query hint.
Anyway, every query is unique, there is no "magic button" to make SQL Server faster. If you really want to find out what is going on, you need to look at (or show us) the query plans of your queries. Other interesting data is shown by SET STATISTICS IO, which will tell you how much (costly) HDD access your query produces.
I have re-iterated this question here: How can I force a subquery to perform as well as a #temp table?
The nub of it is, yes, I get that sometimes the optimiser is right to meddle with your subqueries as if they weren't fully self contained but sometimes it makes a bad wrong turn when it tries to be clever in a way that we're all familiar with. I'm saying there must be a way of switching off that "cleverness" where necessary instead of wrecking a View-led approach with temp tables.
I've heard that using an IN Clause can hurt performance because it doesn't use Indexes properly. See example below:
SELECT ID, Name, Address
FROM people
WHERE id IN (SELECT ParsedValue FROM UDF_ParseListToTable(#IDList))
Is it better to use the form below to get these results?
SELECT ID,Name,Address
FROM People as p
INNER JOIN UDF_ParseListToTable(#IDList) as ids
ON p.ID = ids.ParsedValue
Does this depend on which version of SQL Server you are using? If so which ones are affected?
Yes, assuming relatively large data sets.
It's considered better to use EXISTS for large data sets. I follow this and have noticed improvements in my code execution time.
According to the article, it has to do with how the IN vs. EXISTS is internalized. Another article: http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/mladenp/archive/2007/05/18/60210.aspx
It's very simple to find out - open Management studio, put both versions of the query in, then run with the Show Execution plan turned on. Compare the two execution plans. Often, but not always, the query optimizer will make the same exact plan / literally do the same thing for different versions of a query that are logically equivalent.
In fact, that's its purpose - the goal is that the optimizer would take ANY version of a query, assuming the logic is the same, and make an optimal plan. Alas, the process isn't perfect.
Here's one scientific comparison:
http://sqlinthewild.co.za/index.php/2010/01/12/in-vs-inner-join/
http://sqlinthewild.co.za/index.php/2009/08/17/exists-vs-in/
IN can hurt performance because SQL Server must generate a complete result set and then create potentially a huge IF statement, depending on the number of rows in the result set. BTW, calling a UDF can be a real performance hit as well. They are very nice to use but can really impact performance, if you are not careful. You can Google UDF and Performance to do some research on this.
More than the IN or the Table Variable, I would think that proper use of an Index would increase the performance of your query.
Also, from the table name, it does not seem like you are going to have a lot of entries in it so which way you go may be moot point in this particular example.
Secondly, IN will be evaluated only once since there is no subquery. In your case, the #IDList variable is probably going to cause mistmatches you will need #IDList1, #IDList2, #IdList3.... because IN demands a list.
As a general rule of thumb, you should avoid IN with subqueries and use EXISTS with a join - you will get better performance more often than not.
Your first example is not the same as your second example, because WHERE X IN (#variable) is the same as WHERE X = #variable (i.e. you cannot have variable lists).
Regarding performance, you'll have to look at the execution plans to see what indexes are chosen.
I have a stored procedure which filters based on the result of the DATEADD function - My understanding is that this is similar to using user defined functions in that because SQL server cannot store statistics based on the output of that function it has trouble evaluating the cost of an execution plan.
The query looks a little like this:
SELECT /* Columns */ FROM
TableA JOIN TableB
ON TableA.id = TableB.join_id
WHERE DATEADD(hour, TableB.HoursDifferent, TableA.StartDate) <= #Now
(So its not possible to pre-calculate the outcome of the DATEADD)
What I'm seeing is a terrible terrible execution plan which I believe is due to SQL server incorrectly estimating the number of rows being returned from a part of the tree as being 1, when in fact its ~65,000. I have however seen the same stored procedure execute in a fraction of the time when different (not neccessarily less) data is present in the database.
My question is - in cases like these how does the query optimiser estimate the outcome of the function?
UPDATE: FYI, I'm more interested in understanding why some of the time I get a good execution plan and why the rest of the time I don't - I already have a pretty good idea of how I'm going to fix this in the long term.
It's not the costing of the plan that's the problem here. The function on the columns prevent SQL from doing index seeks. You're going to get an index scan or a table scan.
What I'd suggest is to see if you can get one of the columns out of the function, basically see if you can move the function to the other side of the equality. It's not perfect, but it means that at least one column can be used for an index seek.
Something like this (rough idea, not tested) with an index on TableB.HoursDifference, then an index on the join column in TableA
DATEDIFF(hour, #Now, TableA.StartDate) >= TableB.HoursDifferent
On the costing side, I suspect that the optimiser will use the 30% of the table 'thumb-suck' because it can't use statistics to get an accurate estimate and because it's an inequality. Meaning it's going to guess that 30% of the table will be returned by that predicate.
It's really hard to say anything for sure without seeing the execution plans. You mention an estimate of 1 row and an actual of 65000. In some cases, that's not a problem at all.
http://sqlinthewild.co.za/index.php/2009/09/22/estimated-rows-actual-rows-and-execution-count/
It would help to see the function, but one thing I have seen is burying functions like that in queries can result in poor performance. If you can evaluate some of it beforehand you might be in better shape. For example, instead of
WHERE MyDate < GETDATE()
Try
DECLARE #Today DATETIME
SET #Today = GETDATE()
...
WHERE MyDate < #Today
this seems to perform better
#Kragen,
Short answer: If you are doing queries with ten tables, get used to it. You need to learn all about query hints, and a lot more tricks besides.
Long answer:
SQL server generally generates excellent query plans for up to about three to five tables only. Once you go beyond that in my experience you are basically going to have to write the query plan yourself, using all the index and join hints. (In addition, Scalar functions seem to get estimated at Cost=Zero, which is just mad.)
The reason is it is just too damn complicated after that. The query optimiser has to decide what to do algorithmically, and there are too many possible combinations for even the brightest geniuses on the SQL Server team to create an algorithm which works truly universally.
They say the optimiser is smarter than you. That may be true. But you have one advantage. That advantage is if it doesn't work, you can throw it out and try again! By about the sixth attempt you should have something acceptable, even for a ten-table join, if you know the data. The query optimiser cannot do that, it has to come up with some sort of plan instantly, and it gets no second chances.
My favourite trick is to force the order of the where clause by converting it to a case statement. Instead of:
WHERE
predicate1
AND predicate2
AND....
Use this:
WHERE
case
when not predicate1 then 0
when not predicate2 then 0
when not .... then 0
else 1 end = 1
Order your predicates cheapest to most expensive, and you get an outcome which is logically the same but which SQL server doesn't get to mess around with - it has to do them in the order you say.
I have two insert statements, almost exactly the same, which run in two different schemas on the same Oracle instance. What the insert statement looks like doesn't matter - I'm looking for a troubleshooting strategy here.
Both schemas have 99% the same structure. A few columns have slightly different names, other than that they're the same. The insert statements are almost exactly the same. The explain plan on one gives a cost of 6, the explain plan on the other gives a cost of 7. The tables involved in both sets of insert statements have exactly the same indexes. Statistics have been gathered for both schemas.
One insert statement inserts 12,000 records in 5 seconds.
The other insert statement inserts 25,000 records in 4 minutes 19 seconds.
The number of records being insert is correct. It's the vast disparity in execution times that confuses me. Given that nothing stands out in the explain plan, how would you go about determining what's causing this disparity in runtimes?
(I am using Oracle 10.2.0.4 on a Windows box).
Edit: The problem ended up being an inefficient query plan, involving a cartesian merge which didn't need to be done. Judicious use of index hints and a hash join hint solved the problem. It now takes 10 seconds. Sql Trace / TKProf gave me the direction, as I it showed me how many seconds each step in the plan took, and how many rows were being generated. Thus TKPROF showed me:-
Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
23690 NESTED LOOPS OUTER (cr=3310466 pr=17 pw=0 time=174881374 us)
23690 NESTED LOOPS (cr=3310464 pr=17 pw=0 time=174478629 us)
2160900 MERGE JOIN CARTESIAN (cr=102 pr=0 pw=0 time=6491451 us)
1470 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID TBL1 (cr=57 pr=0 pw=0 time=23978 us)
8820 INDEX RANGE SCAN XIF5TBL1 (cr=16 pr=0 pw=0 time=8859 us)(object id 272041)
2160900 BUFFER SORT (cr=45 pr=0 pw=0 time=4334777 us)
1470 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID TBL1 (cr=45 pr=0 pw=0 time=2956 us)
8820 INDEX RANGE SCAN XIF5TBL1 (cr=10 pr=0 pw=0 time=8830 us)(object id 272041)
23690 MAT_VIEW ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID TBL2 (cr=3310362 pr=17 pw=0 time=235116546 us)
96565 INDEX RANGE SCAN XPK_TBL2 (cr=3219374 pr=3 pw=0 time=217869652 us)(object id 272084)
0 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID TBL3 (cr=2 pr=0 pw=0 time=293390 us)
0 INDEX RANGE SCAN XIF1TBL3 (cr=2 pr=0 pw=0 time=180345 us)(object id 271983)
Notice the rows where the operations are MERGE JOIN CARTESIAN and BUFFER SORT. Things that keyed me into looking at this were the number of rows generated (over 2 million!), and the amount of time spent on each operation (compare to other operations).
Use the SQL Trace facility and TKPROF.
The main culprits in insert slow downs are indexes, constraints, and oninsert triggers. Do a test without as many of these as you can remove and see if it's fast. Then introduce them back in and see which one is causing the problem.
I have seen systems where they drop indexes before bulk inserts and rebuild at the end -- and it's faster.
The first thing to realize is that, as the documentation says, the cost you see displayed is relative to one of the query plans. The costs for 2 different explains are not comparable. Secondly the costs are based on an internal estimate. As hard as Oracle tries, those estimates are not accurate. Particularly not when the optimizer misbehaves. Your situation suggests that there are two query plans which, according to Oracle, are very close in performance. But which, in fact, perform very differently.
The actual information that you want to look at is the actual explain plan itself. That tells you exactly how Oracle executes that query. It has a lot of technical gobbeldy-gook, but what you really care about is knowing that it works from the most indented part out, and at each step it merges according to one of a small number of rules. That will tell you what Oracle is doing differently in your two instances.
What next? Well there are a variety of strategies to tune bad statements. The first option that I would suggest, if you're in Oracle 10g, is to try their SQL tuning advisor to see if a more detailed analysis will tell Oracle the error of its ways. It can then store that plan, and you will use the more efficient plan.
If you can't do that, or if that doesn't work, then you need to get into things like providing query hints, manual stored query outlines, and the like. That is a complex topic. This is where it helps to have a real DBA. If you don't, then you'll want to start reading the documentation, but be aware that there is a lot to learn. (Oracle also has a SQL tuning class that is, or at least used to be, very good. It isn't cheap though.)
I've put up my general list of things to check to improve performance as an answer to another question:
Favourite performance tuning tricks
... It might be helpful as a checklist, even though it's not Oracle-specific.
I agree with a previous poster that SQL Trace and tkprof are a good place to start. I also highly recommend the book Optimizing Oracle Performance, which discusses similar tools for tracing execution and analyzing the output.
SQL Trace and tkprof are only good if you have access to theses tools. Most of the large companies that I do work for do not allow developers to access anything under the Oracle unix IDs.
I believe you should be able to determine the problem by first understanding the question that is being asked and by reading the explain plans for each of the queries. Many times I find that the big difference is that there are some tables and indexes that have not been analyzed.
Another good reference that presents a general technique for query tuning is the book SQL Tuning by Dan Tow.
When the performance of a sql statement isn't as expected / desired, one of the first things I do is to check the execution plan.
The trick is to check for things that aren't as expected. For example you might find table scans where you think an index scan should be faster or vice versa.
A point where the oracle optimizer sometimes takes a wrong turn are the estimates how many rows a step will return. If the execution plan expects 2 rows, but you know it will more like 2000 rows, the execution plan is bound to be less than optimal.
With two statements to compare you can obviously compare the two execution plans to see where they differ.
From this analysis, I come up with an execution plan that I think should be suited better. This is not an exact execution plan, but just some crucial changes, to the one I found, like: It should use Index X or a Hash Join instead of a nested loop.
Next thing is to figure out a way to make Oracle use that execution plan. Often by using Hints, or creating additonal indexes, sometimes changing the SQL statement. Then of course test that the changed statement
a) still does what it is supposed to do
b) is actually faster
With b it is very important to make sure you are testing the correct use case. A typical pit fall is the difference between returning the first row, versus returning the last row. Most tools show you the first results as soon as they are available, with no direct indication, that there is more work to be done. But if your actual program has to process all rows before it continues to the next processing step, it is almost irrelevant when the first row appears, it is only relevant when the last row is available.
If you find a better execution plan, the final step is to make you database actually use it in the actual program. If you added an index, this will often work out of the box. Hints are an option, but can be problematic if a library creates your sql statement, those ofte don't support hints. As a last resort you can save and fix execution plans for specific sql statements. I'd avoid this approach, because its easy to become forgotten and in a year or so some poor developer will scratch her head why the statement performs in a way that might have been apropriate with the data one year ago, but not with the current data ...
analyzing the oI also highly recommend the book Optimizing Oracle Performance, which discusses similar tools for tracing execution and utput.