I have below query which is costing too much time and i have to optimize the query performance. There is no index on any of the table.
But now for query performance optimization i am thinking to create index. But not sure on particulary which filtered column i have to create index.
I am thinking i will do group by and count the number of distinct records for all the filtered column condition and then decide on which column i should create index but not sure about this.
Select * from ORDER_MART FOL where FOL.PARENT_PROD_SRCID
IN
(
select e.PARENT_PROD_SRCID
from SRC_GRP a
JOIN MAR_GRP b ON a.h_lpgrp_id = b.h_lpgrp_id
JOIN DATA_GRP e ON e.parent_prod_srcid = b.H_LOCPR_ID
WHERE a.CHILD_LOCPR_ID != 0
AND dt_id BETWEEN 20170101 AND 20170731
AND valid_order = 1
AND a.PROD_TP_CODE like 'C%'
)
AND FOL.PROD_SRCID = 0 and IS_CAPS = 1;
Below is my query execution plan:
Select *
from ORDER_MART FOL
INNER JOIN (
select distinct e.PARENT_PROD_SRCID
from SRC_GRP a
JOIN MAR_GRP b ON a.h_lpgrp_id = b.h_lpgrp_id
JOIN DATA_GRP e ON e.parent_prod_srcid = b.H_LOCPR_ID
WHERE a.CHILD_LOCPR_ID != 0 -- remove the lines from INT_CDW_DV.S_LOCAL_PROD_GRP_MAIN with child prod srcid equal to 0
AND dt_id BETWEEN 20170101 AND 20170731
AND valid_order = 1 --and is_caps=1
AND a.PROD_TP_CODE like 'C%'
) sub ON sub.PARENT_PROD_SRCID=FOL.PARENT_PROD_SRCID
where FOL.PROD_SRCID = 0 and IS_CAPS = 1;
What if you use JOIN instead of IN and add distinct to reduce amount of rows in the subquery.
Related
I have a table Product with 240 000 rows.
I want to select from this table data where idproduct = idproductcomponent
Output makes a table with 3 columns A12345678 35655455952625 9638520963258960, so in different column.
Always idproductcomponent of idproducttype 1 is 0, and idproductcomponent of idproducttype 2,3 are the same of idproduct of idproducttype 1.
Pelase, can you share with me any idea for this select ?
Assuming your database is SQL Server (you don't say which one it is) the query could look like:
select
a.name,
b.name,
c.name
from t a
left join t b on b.idproductcomponent = a.idproduct and b.idproducttype = 2
left join t c on c.idproductcomponent = a.idproduct and c.idproducttype = 3
where a.idproducttype = 1
and a.idproduct = 11163 -- parameter you are searching for
To increase the performance of this query you can add the index:
create index ix1 on t (idproductcomponent);
In my project I need find difference task based on old and new revision in the same table.
id | task | latest_Rev
1 A N
1 B N
2 C Y
2 A Y
2 B Y
Expected Result:
id | task | latest_Rev
2 C Y
So I tried following query
Select new.*
from Rev_tmp nw with (nolock)
left outer
join rev_tmp old with (nolock)
on nw.id -1 = old.id
and nw.task = old.task
and nw.latest_rev = 'y'
where old.task is null
when my table have more than 20k records this query takes more time?
How to reduce the time?
In my company don't allow to use subquery
Use LAG function to remove the self join
SELECT *
FROM (SELECT *,
CASE WHEN latest_Rev = 'y' THEN Lag(latest_Rev) OVER(partition BY task ORDER BY id) ELSE NULL END AS prev_rev
FROM Rev_tmp) a
WHERE prev_rev IS NULL
My answer assumes
You can't change the indexes
You can't use subqueries
All fields are indexed separately
If you look at the query, the only value that really reduces the resultset is latest_rev='Y'. If you were to eliminate that condition, you'd definitely get a table scan. So we want that condition to be evaluated using an index. Unfortunately a field that just values 'Y' and 'N' is likely to be ignored because it will have terrible selectivity. You might get better performance if you coax SQL Server into using it anyway. If the index on latest_rev is called idx_latest_rev then try this:
Set transaction isolated level read uncommitted
Select new.*
from Rev_tmp nw with (index(idx_latest_rev))
left outer
join rev_tmp old
on nw.id -1 = old.id
and nw.task = old.task
where old.task is null
and nw.latest_rev = 'y'
latest_Rev should be a Bit type (boolean equivalent), i better for performance (Detail here)
May be can you add index on id, task
, latest_Rev columns
You can try this query (replace left outer by not exists)
Select *
from Rev_tmp nw
where nw.latest_rev = 'y' and not exists
(
select * from rev_tmp old
where nw.id -1 = old.id and nw.task = old.task
)
I am using the below query to update one column based on the conditions it is specified. I am using "inner join" but it is taking more than 15 seconds to run the query even if it has to update no records(0 records).
UPDATE CONFIGURATION_LIST
SET DUPLICATE_SERIAL_NUM = 0
FROM CONFIGURATION_LIST
INNER JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT APPLIED_MAT_CODE, APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER, COUNT(*) AS NB
FROM CONFIGURATION_LIST
WHERE
PLANT = '0067'
AND APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER IS NOT NULL
AND APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER !=''
AND DUPLICATE_SERIAL_NUM = 1
GROUP BY
APPLIED_MAT_CODE, APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER
HAVING
COUNT(*) = 1) T2 ON T2.APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER = CONFIGURATION_LIST.APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER
AND T2.APPLIED_MAT_CODE = CONFIGURATION_LIST.APPLIED_MAT_CODE
WHERE
CONFIGURATION_LIST.PLANT = '0067'
AND DUPLICATE_SERIAL_NUM = 1
The index is there with APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER and APPLIED_MAT_CODE and fragmentation is also fine.
Could you please help me on the above query performance.
First, you don't need the DISTINCT when using GROUP BY. SQL Server probably ignores it, but it is a bad idea anyway:
UPDATE CONFIGURATION_LIST
SET DUPLICATE_SERIAL_NUM = 0
FROM CONFIGURATION_LIST INNER JOIN
(SELECT APPLIED_MAT_CODE, APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER, COUNT(*) AS NB
FROM CONFIGURATION_LIST cl
WHERE cl.PLANT = '0067' AND
cl.APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER IS NOT NULL AND
cl.APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER <> ''
cl.DUPLICATE_SERIAL_NUM = 1
GROUP BY cl.APPLIED_MAT_CODE, cl.APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER
HAVING COUNT(*) = 1
) T2
ON T2.APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER = CONFIGURATION_LIST.APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER AND
T2.APPLIED_MAT_CODE = CONFIGURATION_LIST.APPLIED_MAT_CODE
WHERE CONFIGURATION_LIST.PLANT = '0067' AND
DUPLICATE_SERIAL_NUM = 1;
For this query, you want the following index: CONFIGURATION_LIST(PLANT, DUPLICATE_SERIAL_NUM, APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER, APPLIED_MAT_CODE, APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER).
The HAVING COUNT(*) = 1 suggests that you might really want NOT EXISTS (which would normally be faster). But you don't really explain what the query is supposed to be doing, you only say that this code is slow.
Looks like you're checking the table for rows that exist in the same table with the same values, and if not, update the duplicate column to zero. If your table has a unique key (identity field or composite key), you could do something like this:
UPDATE C
SET C.DUPLICATE_SERIAL_NUM = 0
FROM
CONFIGURATION_LIST C
where
not exists (
select
1
FROM
CONFIGURATION_LIST C2
where
C2.APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER = C.APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER and
C2.APPLIED_MAT_CODE = C.APPLIED_MAT_CODE and
C2.UNIQUE_KEY_HERE != C.UNIQUE_KEY_HERE
) and
C.PLANT = '0067' and
C.DUPLICATE_SERIAL_NUM = 1
I will try with a select first:
select APPLIED_MAT_CODE, APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER, count(*) as n
from CONFIGURATION_LIST cl
where
cl.PLANT='0067' and
cl.APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER IS NOT NULL and
cl.APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER <> ''
group by APPLIED_MAT_CODE, APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER;
How many rows do you get with this and how long does it take?
If you remove your DUPLICATE_SERIAL_NUM column from your table it might be very simple. The DUPLICATE_SERIAL_NUM suggests that you are searching for duplicates. As you count your rows you could introduce a simple table that contains the counts:
create table CLCOUNT ( N int unsigned, C int /* or what APPLIED_MAT_CODE is */, S int /* or what APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER is */, PLANT char(20) /* or what PLANT is */, index unique (C,S,PLANT), index(PLANT,N));
insert into CLCOUNT select count(*), cl.APPLIED_MAT_CODE, cl.APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER, cl.PLANT
from CONFIGURATION_LIST cl
where
cl.PLANT='0067' and
cl.APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER IS NOT NULL and
cl.APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER <> ''
group by APPLIED_MAT_CODE, APPLIED_SERIAL_NUMBER;
How long does this take?
Now you can simply select * from CLCOUNT where PLANT='0067' and N=1;
This is all far from being perfect. But you should be able to analyze (EXPLAIN SELECT ...) your queries and find why it takes so long.
I have a pretty big MSSQL stored procedure that I need to conditionally check for certain IDs:
Select SomeColumns
From BigTable b
Join LotsOfTables l on b.LongStringField = l.LongStringField
Where b.SomeID in (1,2,3,4,5)
I wanted to conditionally check the SomeID field, so I did the following:
if #enteredText = 'This'
INSERT INTO #AwesomeIDs
VALUES(1),(2),(3)
if #enteredText = 'That'
INSERT INTO #AwesomeIDs
VALUES(4),(5)
Select SomeColumns
From BigTable b
Join LotsOfTables l on b.LongStringField = l.LongStringField
Where b.SomeID in (Select ID from #AwesomeIDs)
Nothing else has changed, yet I can't even get the latter query to grab 5 records. The top query returns 5000 records in less than 3 seconds. Why is selecting from a table variable so much drastically slower?
Two other possible options you can consider
Option 1
Select SomeColumns
From BigTable b
Join LotsOfTables l on b.LongStringField = l.LongStringField
Where
( b.SomeID IN (1,2,3) AND #enteredText = 'This')
OR
( b.SomeID IN (4,5) AND #enteredText = 'That')
Option 2
Select SomeColumns
From BigTable b
Join LotsOfTables l on b.LongStringField = l.LongStringField
Where EXISTS (Select 1
from #AwesomeIDs
WHERE b.SomeID = ID)
Mind you for Table variables , SQL Server always assumes there is only ONE row in the table (except sql 2014 , assumption is 100 rows) and it can affect the estimated and actual plans. But 1 row against 3 not really a deal breaker.
I'm running into a problem that's driving me nuts.
When running the query below, I get a count of 233,769
SELECT COUNT(distinct Member_List_Link.UserID)
FROM Member_List_Link with (nolock)
INNER JOIN MasterMembers with (nolock)
ON Member_List_Link.UserID = MasterMembers.UserID
WHERE MasterMembers.Active = 1 And
Member_List_Link.GroupID = 5 AND
MasterMembers.ValidUsers = 1 AND
Member_List_Link.Status = 1
But if I run the same query without the distinct keyword, I get a count of 233,748
SELECT COUNT(Member_List_Link.UserID)
FROM Member_List_Link with (nolock)
INNER JOIN MasterMembers with (nolock)
ON Member_List_Link.UserID = MasterMembers.UserID
WHERE MasterMembers.Active = 1 And Member_List_Link.GroupID = 5
AND MasterMembers.ValidUsers = 1 AND Member_List_Link.Status = 1
To test, I recreated all the tables and place them into temp tables and ran the queries again:
SELECT COUNT(distinct #Temp_Member_List_Link.UserID)
FROM #Temp_Member_List_Link with (nolock)
INNER JOIN #Temp_MasterMembers with (nolock)
ON #Temp_Member_List_Link.UserID = #Temp_MasterMembers.UserID
WHERE #Temp_MasterMembers.Active = 1 And
#Temp_Member_List_Link.GroupID = 5 AND
#Temp_MasterMembers.ValidUsers = 1 AND
#Temp_Member_List_Link.Status = 1
And without the distinct keyword
SELECT COUNT(#Temp_Member_List_Link.UserID)
FROM #Temp_Member_List_Link with (nolock)
INNER JOIN #Temp_MasterMembers with (nolock)
ON #Temp_Member_List_Link.UserID = #Temp_MasterMembers.UserID
WHERE #Temp_MasterMembers.Active = 1 And
#Temp_Member_List_Link.GroupID = 5 AND
#Temp_MasterMembers.ValidUsers = 1 AND
#Temp_Member_List_Link.Status = 1
On a side note, I recreated the temp tables by simply running (select * from Member_List_Link into #temp...)
And now when I check to see the difference between COUNT(column) vs. COUNT(distinct column) with these temp tables, I don't see any!
So why is there a discrepancy with the original tables?
I'm running SQL Server 2008 (Dev Edition).
UPDATE - Including statistics profile
PhysicalOp column only for the first query (without distinct)
NULL
Compute Scalar
Stream Aggregate
Clustered Index Seek
PhysicalOp column only for the first query (with distinct)
NULL
Compute Scalar
Stream Aggregate
Parallelism
Stream Aggregate
Hash Match
Hash Match
Bitmap
Parallelism
Index Seek
Parallelism
Clustered Index Scan
Rows and Executes for the 1st query (without distinct)
1 1
0 0
1 1
1 1
Rows and Executes for the 2nd query (with distinct)
Rows Executes
1 1
0 0
1 1
16 1
16 16
233767 16
233767 16
281901 16
281901 16
281901 16
234787 16
234787 16
Adding OPTION(MAXDOP 1) to the 2nd query (with distinct)
Rows Executes
1 1
0 0
1 1
233767 1
233767 1
281901 1
548396 1
And the resulting PhysicalOp
NULL
Compute Scalar
Stream Aggregate
Hash Match
Hash Match
Index Seek
Clustered Index Scan
FROM http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187373.aspx
NOLOCK Is equivalent to READUNCOMMITTED. For more information, see READUNCOMMITTED later in this topic.
READUNCOMMITED will read rows twice if they are the subject of a transation- since both the roll foward and roll back rows exist within the database when the transaction is IN process.
By default all queries are read committed which excludes uncommitted rows
When you insert into a temp table the select will give you only committed rows - I believe this covers all the symptoms you are trying to explain
I think i have got the answer to your question but tell me first is userid a primary key in your original table ?
if yes,then CTAS query to create temp table would not copy any primary key of original table ,it only copy NOT NULL constraint that is not a part of primary key..fine?
now what happened your original table had a primary key so count(distinct column_name) doesnt include tuples with null records and while you created temp tables , primary key doesnt get copied and hence the NOT NULL constraint doesnt get to the temp table!!
is that clear to you?
It's hard to reproduce this behaviour, so I'm punching in the dark here:
The WITH (NOLOCK) statement enables reading of uncommitted data. I'm guessing you've added that to not lock anything for your users? If you remove those and issue a
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTED
Prior to executing the query, you should get more reliable results. But then, the tables may receive locks while executing the query.
If that doesn't work, my guess is that DISTINCT use an index to optimize. Check the queryplan, and rebuild indexes as necessary. Could be the source of your problem.
What result do you get with
SELECT count(*) FROM (
SELECT distinct Member_List_Link.UserID
FROM Member_List_Link with (nolock)
INNER JOIN MasterMembers with (nolock)
ON Member_List_Link.UserID = MasterMembers.UserID
WHERE MasterMembers.Active = 1 And
Member_List_Link.GroupID = 5 AND
MasterMembers.ValidUsers = 1 AND
Member_List_Link.Status = 1
) as m
AND WITH:
SELECT count(*) FROM (
SELECT distinct Member_List_Link.UserID
FROM Member_List_Link
INNER JOIN MasterMembers
ON Member_List_Link.UserID = MasterMembers.UserID
WHERE MasterMembers.Active = 1 And
Member_List_Link.GroupID = 5 AND
MasterMembers.ValidUsers = 1 AND
Member_List_Link.Status = 1
) as m
Ray, please try the following
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM
(
SELECT Member_List_Link.UserID, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY Member_List_Link.UserID ORDER BY (SELECT NULL)) N
FROM Member_List_Link with (nolock)
INNER JOIN MasterMembers with (nolock)
ON Member_List_Link.UserID = MasterMembers.UserID
WHERE MasterMembers.Active = 1 And
Member_List_Link.GroupID = 5 AND
MasterMembers.ValidUsers = 1 AND
Member_List_Link.Status = 1
) A
WHERE N = 1
when you use count with distinct column it doesn't count columns having values null.
create table #tmp(name char(4) null)
insert into #tmp values(null)
insert into #tmp values(null)
insert into #tmp values("AAA")
Query:-
1> select count(*) from #tmp
2> go
3
1> select count(distinct name) from #tmp
2> go
1
1> select distinct name from #tmp
2> go
name
NULL
AAA
but it works in derived table
1> select count(*) from ( select distinct name from #tmp) a
2> go
2
Note:- I tested it in Sybase