I have a huge table in my database and a stored procedure accessing it, which needs pagination.
To achieve this I want total records of the table, and for that, I am facing performance issue because for doing that I need to run this query twice:
First time to get count for all records
Secondly when I need to select records in that page range
Is there any way I can avoid the first query for getting the total count instead of I can use row count or something else?
One way to do it would be something like this:
SELECT
(your list of columns),
COUNT(*) OVER ()
FROM
dbo.YourTable
ORDER BY
(whatever column you want to order by)
OFFSET x ROWS FETCH NEXT y ROWS ONLY;
With the OFFSET / FETCH, you retrieve only a page of data - and the COUNT(*) OVER() will give you the total count of the rows in the table - all in a single query
Related
I have a query as following:
SELECT Brand,Id,Model FROM product
Which takes time in order of seconds as Product table has more than 1 million records.
But the query executes within no time. (less than even one second))
select count(*) as numberOfRows from (SELECT Brand,Id,Model FROM product) result
Why is that?
When you execute a Query, the Time taken will vary depending on the Number of Columns and Rows and their datatypes.
In a table where you have 10 Columns, The Performance will be different if you select all columns (*) for all records and Just 1 or Two Columns for All records.
Because The Amount of data loaded is less in the Second case, it will execute faster.
Just like that, When you say Count(*) the result is Just a single Cell whereas in your first Select, you are selecting Millions of rows for those 3 columns, So the amount of Data is high.
That's why you are getting the Count(*) result faster. You don't need to give * inside the count, Instead Just use Count(1) for even more better performance.
I need to get the total no of records in a table for pagination purpose..it has some around 1 million records...the count is calculated as part of page load..i can do count query but it takes little more time thus increasing the time to page load.So to avoid that i have used
select ROW_NUMS,OWNER from ALL_TABLES where table_name='table1'
But the problem is that this query for some tables gives result as zero and also sometimes the count is not correct(different from count query)
any idea how to update the all_tables data for a table and how all_table
If You want the exact number of records in a table, You need to select count(*). This result will be correct. NUM_ROWS has never been to provide the exact number of rows.
You can gather the table, but this will give you the estimate count.
exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats('<OWNER>', '<TABLE_NAME>');
To get an accurate row count you can get the database to do the heavy lifting before it sends the data to the client, e.g.:
SELECT t.*
,COUNT(*) OVER () AS row_count
FROM my_table t;
You need to run ANALYZE statement to properly update that column
I have a news table with a number of rows. My page populates the rows in groups of 12 by loading separate PHP pages for each set.
Is there SQL statement that will allow me to query the table, get the row count, and isolate based on a determined number range. For instance, if I only want rows 13-24.
Thanks for the help.
The answer depends on the database. Assuming you have mysql, use LIMIT.
In the example below 13 is the start row and from there it will give 12 rows.
select *
from tbl
order by field1, field2
limit 13 , 12
I am querying my table to achieve pagination but I do not know the total number of rows in the table.
select name from table where id = 1 limit 0, 10
Is there a way to find out the total number of rows that would have returned if I had not used limit clause without querying for total count.
SQLite computes results on the fly when they are actually needed.
The only way to get the total count is to run the actual query (or better, SELECT COUNT(*)) without the LIMIT.
Depends on which back end technology you are using. In PHP, mysql_num_rows() returns number of rows without actually fetching the data.
I've a big table which contains more than 100K records, in oracle. I want to get all of the records and save each row to a file with JDBC.
In order to make it faster, I want to create 100 threads to read the data from the table concurrently. I will get the total count of the records in the first sql, then split it to 100 pages, then get one page in a thread with a new connection.
But I've a problem, that there is no any column can be used to order. There is no column with sequence, no accurate timestamp. I can't use a sql query without order by clause to query, since there is no guarantee it will return the data with the same order every time (per this question).
So is it possible to solve it?
Finally, I used rowid to order:
select * from mytable order by rowid
It seems work well.