My question is about performance on SQL server tables.
Assume I have a table that has many columns, for example 30 columns, with 1 column indexed. This table has approximately 30,000 rows.
If I perform a select that selects the indexed column, and one more, for example this:
SELECT IndexedColumn, column1
FROM table
Will this be slower than performing the same select on a table that only has 2 columns, and doing a SELECT * ...
So basically, will the existence of the extra columns slow down the select query event if I am not retrieving the data from the extra columns?
There will be minor difference on the very end of the process as you don't have to print/pass the rest of information for the end client (either SSMS or other app).
When performing a read based on clustered index all of the column (without BLOB) are saved on the same page set so to read the data you have to access the same set of pages anyway.
You would see a performance increase if you would have a nonclustered index on the column list you are after as then they are saved in their own structure of data pages (so it would be less to read).
Assuming that you are using the default Clustered Index created by SQL server when defining the primary key on the table in both scenarios then no, there shouldn't be any performance difference between these two scenarios. Maybe worth just checking it out and generating an Actual Execution plan to see for yourself? -- Actually not sure above is true, as given this is rowstore, the first table wont be able to fit as many rows onto each page so will suffer more of an IO/Disk overhead when reading data.
I have created a unique, clustered index on a view. The clustered index contains 5 columns (out of the 30 on this view), but a typical select using this view will want all 30 columns.
Doing some testing shows that the time it takes to query for the 5 columns is way faster than all 30 columns. Is this because that is just natural overhead regarding selecting on 6x as many columns, or because the indexed view is not storing the non-indexed columns in a temp table, and therefore needs to perform some extra steps to gather the missing columns (joins on base tables I guess?)
If the latter, what are some steps to prevent this? Well, even if the former... what are some ways around this!
Edit: for comparison purposes, a select on the indexed view with just the 5 columns is about 10x faster than the same query on the base tables. But a select on all columns is basically equivalent in speed to the query on the base tables.
A clustered index, by definition, contains every field in every row in the table. It basically is a recreation of the table, but with the physical data pages in order by the clustered index, with b-tree sorting to allow quick access to specified values of your clustered key(s).
Are you just pulling values or are you getting aggregate functions like MIN(), MAX(), AVG(), SUM() for the other 25 fields?
An indexed view is a copy of the data, stored (clustered) potentially (and normally) in a different way to the base table. For all purposes
you now have two copies of the data
SQL Server is smart enough to see that the view and table are aliases of each other
for queries that involve only the columns in the indexed view
if the indexed view contains all columns, it is considered a full alias and can be used (substituted) by the optimizer wherever the table is queried
the indexed view can be used as just another index for the base table
When you select only the 5 columns from tbl (which has an indexed view ivw)
SQL Server completely ignores your table, and just gives you data from ivw
because the data pages are shorter (5 columns only), more records can be grabbed into memory in each page retrieval, so you get a 5x increase in speed
When you select all 30 columns - there is no way for the indexed view to be helpful. The query completely ignores the view, and just selects data from the base table.
IF you select data from all 30 columns,
but the query filters on the first 4 columns of the indexed view,*
and the filter is very selective (will result in a very small subset of records)
SQL Server can use the indexed view (scanning/seeking) to quickly generate a small result set, which it can then use to JOIN back to the base table to get the rest of the data.
However, similarly to regular indexes, an index on (a,b,c,d,e) or in this case clustered indexed view on (a,b,c,d,e) does NOT help a query that searches on (b,d,e) because they are not the first columns in the index.
I have one table [table] with two columns that needs to be filtered: [column1] and [column2].
In my program I execute a query like:
select * from [table] where [column1] = 'foo' and [column2] = 'bar';
Which is faster:
Creating two indexes, one on each column. ([column1] and [column2])
Creating one index containing both columns. ([column1]+[column2])
This question have been bugging me for a while, I have no idea how query optimization works and how SQL Server uses the created indexes to speed up queries.
Second one is ALWAYS faster for this query - but you need to put the more selective one first (in the order of indexes) to benefit more. The only exception is if for performance reasons, SQL decides to use clustered index so ignores the non-clustered.
The combination of two values create a much more selective criteria. Also it helps with performance since there is no BOOKMARK LOOKUP required on a covering index.
Bookmark lookups are the source of major performance degradation and that is why covering index is always better than 2 indexes.
UPDATE
Bear in mind, if you have your index as column1+coulmn2, searches on just column2 cannot use this index so you will need a separate index on column2 as well.
It depends!
It depends on the selectivity of those columns.
If you were not selecting all columns '*', you might be able to utilise a really fast covering index, comprised of the where clause columns and INCLUDE'ing the columns in the SELECT list.
I am working on optimizing a SQL query that goes against a very wide table in a legacy system. I am not able to narrow the table at this point for various reasons.
My query is running slowly because it does an Index Seek on an Index I've created, and then uses a Bookmark Lookup to find the additional columns it needs that do not exist in the Index. The bookmark lookup takes 42% of the query time (according to the query optimizer).
The table has 38 columns, some of which are nvarchars, so I cannot make a covering index that includes all the columns. I have tried to take advantage of index intersection by creating indexes that cover all the columns, however those "covering" indexes are not picked up by the execution plan and are not used.
Also, since 28 of the 38 columns are pulled out via this query, I'd have 28/38 of the columns in the table stored in these covering indexes, so I'm not sure how much this would help.
Do you think a Bookmark Lookup is as good as it is going to get, or what would another option be?
(I should specify that this is SQL Server 2000)
OH,
the covering index with include should work. Another option might be to create a clustered indexed view containing only the columns you need.
Regards,
Lieven
You could create an index with included columns as another option
example from BOL, this is for 2005 and up
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX IX_Address_PostalCode
ON Person.Address (PostalCode)
INCLUDE (AddressLine1, AddressLine2, City, StateProvinceID);
To answer this part "I have tried to take advantage of index intersection by creating indexes that cover all the columns, however those "covering" indexes are not picked up by the execution plan and are not used."
An index can only be used when the query is created in a way that it is sargable, in other words if you use function on the left side of the operator or leave out the first column of the index in your WHERE clause then the index won't be used. If the selectivity of the index is low then also the index won't be used
Check out SQL Server covering indexes for some more info
As a follow up to "What are indexes and how can I use them to optimise queries in my database?" where I am attempting to learn about indexes, what columns are good index candidates? Specifically for an MS SQL database?
After some googling, everything I have read suggests that columns that are generally increasing and unique make a good index (things like MySQL's auto_increment), I understand this, but I am using MS SQL and I am using GUIDs for primary keys, so it seems that indexes would not benefit GUID columns...
Indexes can play an important role in query optimization and searching the results speedily from tables. The most important step is to select which columns are to be indexed. There are two major places where we can consider indexing: columns referenced in the WHERE clause and columns used in JOIN clauses. In short, such columns should be indexed against which you are required to search particular records. Suppose, we have a table named buyers where the SELECT query uses indexes like below:
SELECT
buyer_id /* no need to index */
FROM buyers
WHERE first_name='Tariq' /* consider indexing */
AND last_name='Iqbal' /* consider indexing */
Since "buyer_id" is referenced in the SELECT portion, MySQL will not use it to limit the chosen rows. Hence, there is no great need to index it. The below is another example little different from the above one:
SELECT
buyers.buyer_id, /* no need to index */
country.name /* no need to index */
FROM buyers LEFT JOIN country
ON buyers.country_id=country.country_id /* consider indexing */
WHERE
first_name='Tariq' /* consider indexing */
AND
last_name='Iqbal' /* consider indexing */
According to the above queries first_name, last_name columns can be indexed as they are located in the WHERE clause. Also an additional field, country_id from country table, can be considered for indexing because it is in a JOIN clause. So indexing can be considered on every field in the WHERE clause or a JOIN clause.
The following list also offers a few tips that you should always keep in mind when intend to create indexes into your tables:
Only index those columns that are required in WHERE and ORDER BY clauses. Indexing columns in abundance will result in some disadvantages.
Try to take benefit of "index prefix" or "multi-columns index" feature of MySQL. If you create an index such as INDEX(first_name, last_name), don’t create INDEX(first_name). However, "index prefix" or "multi-columns index" is not recommended in all search cases.
Use the NOT NULL attribute for those columns in which you consider the indexing, so that NULL values will never be stored.
Use the --log-long-format option to log queries that aren’t using indexes. In this way, you can examine this log file and adjust your queries accordingly.
The EXPLAIN statement helps you to reveal that how MySQL will execute a query. It shows how and in what order tables are joined. This can be much useful for determining how to write optimized queries, and whether the columns are needed to be indexed.
Update (23 Feb'15):
Any index (good/bad) increases insert and update time.
Depending on your indexes (number of indexes and type), result is searched. If your search time is gonna increase because of index then that's bad index.
Likely in any book, "Index Page" could have chapter start page, topic page number starts, also sub topic page starts. Some clarification in Index page helps but more detailed index might confuse you or scare you. Indexes are also having memory.
Index selection should be wise. Keep in mind not all columns would require index.
Some folks answered a similar question here: How do you know what a good index is?
Basically, it really depends on how you will be querying your data. You want an index that quickly identifies a small subset of your dataset that is relevant to a query. If you never query by datestamp, you don't need an index on it, even if it's mostly unique. If all you do is get events that happened in a certain date range, you definitely want one. In most cases, an index on gender is pointless -- but if all you do is get stats about all males, and separately, about all females, it might be worth your while to create one. Figure out what your query patterns will be, and access to which parameter narrows the search space the most, and that's your best index.
Also consider the kind of index you make -- B-trees are good for most things and allow range queries, but hash indexes get you straight to the point (but don't allow ranges). Other types of indexes have other pros and cons.
Good luck!
It all depends on what queries you expect to ask about the tables. If you ask for all rows with a certain value for column X, you will have to do a full table scan if an index can't be used.
Indexes will be useful if:
The column or columns have a high degree of uniqueness
You frequently need to look for a certain value or range of values for
the column.
They will not be useful if:
You are selecting a large % (>10-20%) of the rows in the table
The additional space usage is an issue
You want to maximize insert performance. Every index on a table reduces insert and update performance because they must be updated each time the data changes.
Primary key columns are typically great for indexing because they are unique and are often used to lookup rows.
Any column that is going to be regularly used to extract data from the table should be indexed.
This includes:
foreign keys -
select * from tblOrder where status_id=:v_outstanding
descriptive fields -
select * from tblCust where Surname like "O'Brian%"
The columns do not need to be unique. In fact you can get really good performance from a binary index when searching for exceptions.
select * from tblOrder where paidYN='N'
In general (I don't use mssql so can't comment specifically), primary keys make good indexes. They are unique and must have a value specified. (Also, primary keys make such good indexes that they normally have an index created automatically.)
An index is effectively a copy of the column which has been sorted to allow binary search (which is much faster than linear search). Database systems may use various tricks to speed up search even more, particularly if the data is more complex than a simple number.
My suggestion would be to not use any indexes initially and profile your queries. If a particular query (such as searching for people by surname, for example) is run very often, try creating an index over the relevate attributes and profile again. If there is a noticeable speed-up on queries and a negligible slow-down on insertions and updates, keep the index.
(Apologies if I'm repeating stuff mentioned in your other question, I hadn't come across it previously.)
It really depends on your queries. For example, if you almost only write to a table then it is best not to have any indexes, they just slow down the writes and never get used. Any column you are using to join with another table is a good candidate for an index.
Also, read about the Missing Indexes feature. It monitors the actual queries being used against your database and can tell you what indexes would have improved the performace.
Your primary key should always be an index. (I'd be surprised if it weren't automatically indexed by MS SQL, in fact.) You should also index columns you SELECT or ORDER by frequently; their purpose is both quick lookup of a single value and faster sorting.
The only real danger in indexing too many columns is slowing down changes to rows in large tables, as the indexes all need updating too. If you're really not sure what to index, just time your slowest queries, look at what columns are being used most often, and index them. Then see how much faster they are.
Numeric data types which are ordered in ascending or descending order are good indexes for multiple reasons. First, numbers are generally faster to evaluate than strings (varchar, char, nvarchar, etc). Second, if your values aren't ordered, rows and/or pages may need to be shuffled about to update your index. That's additional overhead.
If you're using SQL Server 2005 and set on using uniqueidentifiers (guids), and do NOT need them to be of a random nature, check out the sequential uniqueidentifier type.
Lastly, if you're talking about clustered indexes, you're talking about the sort of the physical data. If you have a string as your clustered index, that could get ugly.
A GUID column is not the best candidate for indexing. Indexes are best suited to columns with a data type that can be given some meaningful order, ie sorted (integer, date etc).
It does not matter if the data in a column is generally increasing. If you create an index on the column, the index will create it's own data structure that will simply reference the actual items in your table without concern for stored order (a non-clustered index). Then for example a binary search can be performed over your index data structure to provide fast retrieval.
It is also possible to create a "clustered index" that will physically reorder your data. However you can only have one of these per table, whereas you can have multiple non-clustered indexes.
The ol' rule of thumb was columns that are used a lot in WHERE, ORDER BY, and GROUP BY clauses, or any that seemed to be used in joins frequently. Keep in mind I'm referring to indexes, NOT Primary Key
Not to give a 'vanilla-ish' answer, but it truly depends on how you are accessing the data
It should be even faster if you are using a GUID.
Suppose you have the records
100
200
3000
....
If you have an index(binary search, you can find the physical location of the record you are looking for in O( lg n) time, instead of searching sequentially O(n) time. This is because you dont know what records you have in you table.
Best index depends on the contents of the table and what you are trying to accomplish.
Taken an example A member database with a Primary Key of the Members Social Security Numnber. We choose the S.S. because the application priamry referes to the individual in this way but you also want to create a search function that will utilize the members first and last name. I would then suggest creating a index over those two fields.
You should first find out what data you will be querying and then make the determination of which data you need indexed.