I have a query that is running slowly. I know generally to make performance faster, limit joins, and try to use procs instead of straight queries. Due to business rules, I cannot use procs. I've already cut the number of joins as much as I can think of.
What's the next step in query tuning?
Adding indexes is probably the number one thing you can do to improve query performance and you haven't mentioned it.
Have you looked at the execution plan to see whether that could be improved with additional indexes?
Additionally you should make sure that your queries are written in such a way so they can use any indexes that are present effectively (e.g. avoid non sargable constructs, avoid *)
the easiest thing to do is go to management studio run this command:
SET SHOWPLAN_ALL ON
then run your actual query.
You will not get your regular query result set. It will give you the execution plan (a very detailed list of what SQL Server does to turn your query) in a result set. Look over the output and try to learn what it means. I generally look for "SCAN", that is a slow part, and I try rewriting it so it uses an index.
Related
I asked a question here Using cursor in OLTP databases (SQL server)
where people responded saying cursors should never be used.
I feel cursors are very powerful tools that are meant to be used (I don't think Microsoft supports cursors for bad developers).Suppose you have a table where the value of a column in a row is dependent on the value of the same column in the previous row. If it is a one time back end process, don't you think using a cursor would be an acceptable choice?
Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of scenarios where I feel there should be no shame in using cursors. Please let me know if you guys feel otherwise.
A one time back end process to clean bad data which completes execution within a few minutes.
Batch processes that run once in a long period of time (something like once a year).
If in the above scenarios, there is no visible strain on the other processes, wouldn't it be unreasonable to spend extra hours writing code to avoid cursors? In other words in certain cases the developer's time is more important than the performance of a process that has almost no impact on anything else.
In my opinion these would be some scenarios where you should seriously try to avoid using a cursor.
A stored proc called from a website that can get called very often.
A SQL job that would run multiple times a day and consume a lot of resources.
I think its very superficial to make a general statement like "cursors should never be used" without analyzing the task at hand and actually weighing it against the alternatives.
Please let me know of your thoughts.
There are several scenarios where cursors actually perform better than set-based equivalents. Running totals is the one that always comes to mind - look for Itzik's words on that (and ignore any that involve SQL Server 2012, which adds new windowing functions that give cursors a run for their money in this situation).
One of the big problems people have with cursors is that they perform slowly, they use temporary storage, etc. This is partially because the default syntax is a global cursor with all kinds of inefficient default options. The next time you're doing something with a cursor that doesn't need to do things like UPDATE...WHERE CURRENT OF (which I've been able to avoid my entire career), give it a fair shake by comparing these two syntax options:
DECLARE c CURSOR
FOR <SELECT QUERY>;
DECLARE c CURSOR
LOCAL STATIC READ_ONLY FORWARD_ONLY
FOR <SELECT QUERY>;
In fact the first version represents a bug in the undocumented stored procedure sp_MSforeachdb which makes it skip databases if the status of any database changes during execution. I subsequently wrote my own version of the stored procedure (see here) which both fixed the bug (simply by using the latter version of the syntax above) and added several parameters to control which databases would be chosen.
A lot of people think that a methodology is not a cursor because it doesn't say DECLARE CURSOR. I've seen people argue that a while loop is faster than a cursor (which I hope I've dispelled here) or that using FOR XML PATH to perform group concatenation is not performing a hidden cursor operation. Looking at the plan in a lot of cases will show the truth.
In a lot of cases cursors are used where set-based is more appropriate. But there are plenty of valid use cases where a set-based equivalent is much more complicated to write, for the optimizer to generate a plan for, both, or not possible (e.g. maintenance tasks where you're looping through tables to update statistics, calling a stored procedure for each value in a result, etc.). The same is true for a lot of big multi-table queries where the plan gets too monstrous for the optimizer to handle. In these cases it can be better to dump some of the intermediate results into a temporary structure first. The same goes for some set-based equivalents to cursors (like running totals). I've also written about the other way, where people almost always think instinctively to use a while loop / cursor and there are clever set-based alternatives that are much better.
UPDATE 2013-07-25
Just wanted to add some additional blog posts I've written about cursors, which options you should be using if you do have to use them, and using set-based queries instead of loops to generate sets:
Best Approaches for Running Totals - Updated for SQL Server 2012
What impact can different cursor options have?
Generate a Set or Sequence Without Loops: [Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3]
The issue with cursors in SQL Server is that the engine is set-based internally, unlike other DBMS's like Oracle which are cursor-based internally. This means that when you create a cursor in SQL Server, temporary storage needs to be created and the set-based resultset needs to be copied over to the temporary cursor storage. You can see why this would be expensive right off the bat, not to mention any row-by-row processing that you might be doing on top of the cursor itself. The bottom line is that set-based processing is more efficient, and often times your cursor-based operation can be done better using a CTE or temp table.
That being said, there are cases where a cursor is probably acceptable, as you said for one-off operations. The most common use I can think of is in a maintenance plan where you may be iterating through all the databases on a server executing various maintenance tasks. As long as you limit your usage and don't design whole applications around RBAR (row-by-agonizing-row) processing, you should be fine.
In general cursors are a bad thing. However in some cases it is more practical to use a cursor and in some it is even faster to use one. A good example is a cursor through a contact table sending emails based on some criteria. (Not to open up the question if sending an email from your DBMS is a good idea - let's just assume it is for the problem at hand.) There is no way to write that set-based. You could use some trickery to come up with a set-based solution to generate dynamic SQL, but a real set-based solution does not exist.
However, a calculation involving the previous row can be done using a self join. That is usually still faster than a cursor.
In all cases you need to balance the effort involved in developing a faster solution. If nobody cares, if you process runs in 1 minute or in one hour, use what gets the job done quickest. If you are looping through a dataset that grows over time like an [orders] table, try to stay away from a cursor if possible. If you are not sure, do a performance test comparing a cursor base with a set-based solution on several significantly different data sizes.
I had always disliked cursors because of their slow performance. However, I found I didn't fully understand the different types of cursors and that in certain instances, cursors are a viable solution.
When you have a business problem that can only be solved by processing one row at a time, then a cursor is appropriate.
So to improve performance with the cursor, change the type of cursor you are using. Something I didn't know was, if you don't specify which type of cursor you are declaring, you get the Dynamic Optimistic type by default, which is the one that is the slowest for performance because it's doing lots of work under the hood. However, by declaring your cursor as a different type, say a static cursor, it has very good performance.
See these articles for a fuller explanation:
The Truth About Cursors: Part I
The Truth About Cursors: Part II
The Truth About Cursors: Part III
I think the biggest con against cursors is performance, however, not laying out a task in a set based approach would probably rank second. Third would be readability and layout of the tasks as they usually don't have a lot of helpful comments.
SQL Server is optimized to run the set based approach. You write the query to return a result set of data, like a join on tables for example, but the SQL Server execution engine determines which join to use: Merge Join, Nested Loop Join, or Hash Join. SQL Server determines the best possible joining algorithm based upon the participating columns, data volume, indexing structure, and the set of values in the participating columns. So using a set based approach is generally the best approach in performance over the procedural cursor approach.
They are necessary for things like dynamic SQL pivoting, but you should try and avoid using them whenever possible.
When we add or remove a new index to speed up something, we may end up slowing down something else.
To protect against such cases, after creating a new index I am doing the following steps:
start the Profiler,
run a SQL script which contains lots of queries I do not want to slow down
load the trace from a file into a table,
analyze CPU, reads, and writes from the trace against the results from the previous runs, before I added (or removed) an index.
This is kind of automated and kind of does what I want. However, I am not sure if there is a better way to do it. Is there some tool that does what I want?
Edit 1 The person who voted to close my question, could you explain your reasons?
Edit 2 I googled up but did not find anything that explains how adding an index can slow down selects. However, this is a well known fact, so there should be something somewhere. If nothing comes up, I can write up a few examples later on.
Edit 3 One such example is this: two columns are highly correlated, like height and weight. We have an index on height, which is not selective enough for our query. We add an index on weight, and run a query with two conditions: a range on height and a range on weight. because the optimizer is not aware of the correlation, it grossly underestimates the cardinality of our query.
Another example is adding an index on increasing column, such as OrderDate, can seriously slow down a query with a condition like OrderDate>SomeDateAfterCreatingTheIndex.
Ultimately what you're asking can be rephrased as 'How can I ensure that the queries that already use an optimal, fast, plan do not get 'optimized' into a worse execution plan?'.
Whether the plan changes due to parameter sniffing, statistics update or metadata changes (like adding a new index) the best answer I know of to keep the plan stable is plan guides. Deploying plan guides for critical queries that already have good execution plans is probably the best way to force the optimizer into keep using the good, validated, plan. See Applying a Fixed Query Plan to a Plan Guide:
You can apply a fixed query plan to a plan guide of type OBJECT or
SQL. Plan guides that apply a fixed query plan are useful when you
know about an existing execution plan that performs better than the
one selected by the optimizer for a particular query.
The usual warnings apply as to any possible abuse of a feature that prevents the optimizer from using a plan which may be actually better than the plan guide.
How about the following approach:
Save the execution plans of all typical queries.
After applying new indexes, check which execution plans have changed.
Test the performance of the queries with modified plans.
From the page "Query Performance Tuning"
Improve Indexes
This page has many helpful step-by-step hints on how to tune your indexes for best performance, and what to watch for (profiling).
As with most performance optimization techniques, there are tradeoffs. For example, with more indexes, SELECT queries will potentially run faster. However, DML (INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE) operations will slow down significantly because more indexes must be maintained with each operation. Therefore, if your queries are mostly SELECT statements, more indexes can be helpful. If your application performs many DML operations, you should be conservative with the number of indexes you create.
Other resources:
http://databases.about.com/od/sqlserver/a/indextuning.htm
However, it’s important to keep in mind that non-clustered indexes slow down the data modification and insertion process, so indexes should be kept to a minimum
http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/tip/Stored-procedure-to-find-fragmented-indexes-in-SQL-Server
Fragmented indexes and tables in SQL Server can slow down application performance. Here's a stored procedure that finds fragmented indexes in SQL servers and databases.
Ok . First off, index's slow down two things (at least)
-> insert/update/delete : index rebuild
-> query planning : "shall I use that index or not ?"
Someone mentioned the query planner might take a less efficient route - this is not supposed to happen.
If your optimizer is even half-decent, and your statistics / parameters correct, there is no way it's going to pick the wrong plan.
Either way, in your case (mssql), you can hardly trust the optimizer and will still have to check every time.
What you're currently doing looks quite sound, you should just make sure the data you're looking at is relevant, i.e. real use case queries in the right proportion (this can make a world of difference).
In order to do that I always advise to write a benchmarking script based on real use - through logging of production-env. queries, a bit like I said here :
Complete db schema transformation - how to test rewritten queries?
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.
Is there an SQL query that can give me the fields that are used in most stored procedures or updated, selected most in a given table. I am asking this because I want to figure out which fields to put indexes on.
Take a look at the missing indexes article on SQLServerPedia http://sqlserverpedia.com/wiki/Find_Missing_Indexes
I think you are looking at the problem the wrong way around.
What you first need to identify are the most expensive (cumulative: so both single-run high cost, and many-runs lower cost) queries in your normal workload.
Once you have identified those queries, you can analyse their query plans and create appropriate indexes.
This SO Answer might be of use: How Can I Log and Find the Most Expensive Queries? (title and tags say SQL Server 2008, but my accepted answer applies to any version).
Most used fields are by no means index candidates. Good index candidates are those that correctly balance the extra storage requirements with SARGability and query projection coverage, as described in Index Design Basics. You should follow the advice the very engine is giving you, using the Missing Indexes feature:
sys.dm_db_missing_index_group_stats
sys.dm_db_missing_index_groups
sys.dm_db_missing_index_details
sys.dm_db_missing_index_columns
A good action plan is to start from the most expensive queries by IO obtained from sys.dm_exec_query_stats and then open the plan of the query with sys.dm_exec_query_plan in Management Studio and at the top of the query plan view will be a proposed index, with the CREATE INDEX just ready to copy and paste into execution. In fact you don't even have to run the queries to find the most expensive query in the plan cache, there are already SSMS reports that can find it for you.
Wish it was that easy.... You need to do a search for SQL Query Optimization. There are lots of tools to use for what you need.
And knowing which fields are used often does not tell you much about what you need to do to optimize access.
You might have some luck by searching your code for all the queries and then running a SELECT EXPLAIN on them. This should give you some glaring numbers when a query is poorly indexed. Unfortunately it won't give you an idea of which statements are called most frequently.
Also - I've noticed some issues with type mismatching in queries. When you pass a string containing a number and it's querying an index based on integers then it will scan the entire table.
I can't seem to get acceptable performance from FullText Catalogs. We have situations where we must run 100k+ queries as quickly as possible. Some of the queries use FREETEXT some don't. Here's an example of a query
IF EXISTS(select 1 from user_data d where d.userid=#userid and FREETEXT(*, #activities) SET #match=1
This can take between 3-15 seconds. I need it to be much faster < 1s if possible.
I like the "flexibility" of the fulltext query in that it can search across multiple columns and the syntax is pretty intuitive. I'd rather not use a Like statement because we want to be able to match words like "Writer" and "Writing".
I've tried some of the suggestions listed here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms142560(SQL.90).aspx
We've got as much memory and cpu as we can afford, unfortunately we can't put the catalogs on their own disk controllers.
I'm stumped and ready to explore other alternatives to FullText Queries. Is there anything else out there that gives that kind of "Writer"/"Writing" similar matches? Perhaps even something that uses the CLR?
Check out these alternatives, although I doubt they'll improve performance without isolating them onto separate hardware:
Which search technology to use with ASP.NET?
Lucene.Net and SQL Server
Due to the nature of FREETEXT, the performance is less than when you'd use CONTAINS, simply because it has to take into account less precise alternatives for the keywords given. CONTAINS can find Writing when you specify Write btw, I'm not sure if you've checked whether CONTAINS will do the trick or not.
Also be sure to avoid IF statements in SQL, as they often lead to a complete recompilation of the execution plan for every query execution, which will likely contribute to the poor performance you're seeing. I'm not sure how the IF statement is used, as it's likely inside a bigger piece of SQL. Try to merge the EXISTS query with that bigger piece of sql, as you can set the #match parameter from within the SELECT statement inside the EXISTS, or get rid of the variable altogether and use the EXISTS clause as a predicate in the bigger query.
SQL is a set-oriented language and interpreted. Therefore, it's often faster to get rid of imperative programming constructs and use the native set-operators of sql instead.
perhaps https://github.com/MahyTim/LuceneNetSqlDirectory can help you, it allows to store a LuceneNET index in SQLServer.