Related
I have recently noticed that nobody uses views in my company (and it's a big company).
I want to create a few views largely because they make my queries simpler to the eye, and these views are on somewhat big tables that don't get very frequent updates (once a day).
My alternative is to create a type table of type record an populate it each time a SP is called. Is this better than using a view? (my guess is no)
PS: database is oracle 10g and
EDIT:
- yes i have asked around but no one could give me a reason.
- both the views and the queries that will be using them are heavy on joins.
Aesthetics doesn't have a place in SQL, or coding in general, when there's performance implications.
If the optimizer determines that predicate pushing can occur, a view will be as good as directly querying the table(s) the view represents. And as Justin mentions, because a view is a macro that expands into the underlying query the view represents -- a soft parse (re-use of the query from cache) is very likely because the cache check needs to match queries exactly.
But be aware of the following:
layering views (one view based on another) is a bad practice -- errors won't be encountered until the view is run
joining views to other tables and or views is highly suspect -- the optimizer might not see things as well if the underlying query is in place of the view reference. I've had such experiences, because the views joined to were doing more than what the query needed -- sometimes, the queries from all the views used were condensed into a single query that ran much better.
I recommend creating your views, and comparing the EXPLAIN plans to make sure that you are at least getting identical performance. I'd need to see your code for populating a TYPE before commenting on the approach, but it sounds like a derived table in essence...
It's possible you would benefit from using materialized views, but they are notorious restricted in what they support.
It certainly sounds like creating some views would be helpful in this case.
Have you asked around to see why no one uses views? That seems quite odd and would certainly tend to indicate that you're not reusing your SQL very efficiently. Without views, you'd tend to put the same logic in many different SQL statements rather than in a single view which would make maintenance a pain.
One reason not to use views which may or may not be valid... is that they have the potential to create complexity where there isn't any
For example I could write
CREATE VIEW foo as <SOME COMPLEX QUERY>
then later I could write
CREATE Procedure UseFoo as
BEGIN
SELECT
somefields
FROM
x
INNER JOIN foo
.....
So now I'm creating to objects that need to be deployed, maintained, version controlled etc...
Or I could write either
CREATE Procedure UseFoo as
BEGIN
WITH foo as (<SOME COMPLEX QUERY>)
SELECT
somefields
FROM
x
INNER JOIN foo
.....
or
CREATE Procedure UseFoo as
BEGIN
SELECT
somefields
FROM
x
INNER JOIN <SOME COMPLEX QUERY> foo
.....
And now I only need to deploy, maintain, and version control a single object.
If <SOME COMPLEX QUERY> only exists in one context maintaining two separate objects creates an unnecessary burden. Also after deployment any changes to requires evaluating things that rely on UseFoo. When two object you need to visit anything that evaluating on UseFoo and Foo
Of course on the other hand if Foo represents some shared logic the evaluation is required anyway but you only have to find and change a single object.
It has been my experience that when you have a large/complex database and some complex queries and no views, it is just because the users just don't know what views are, or how to use them. Once I explained the benifits of using a view, most people used them with out any problems.
From your description, I would just make a view, not a new table.
Views are great for hiding complexity -- if your users can just run the views you create as-is (as opposed to writing a query against the view), this is good.
But views also come with performance issues -- if your users know how to write sql, and they understand the tables they're using, it might be better to let them keep doing that.
Consider also that stored procedures are less prone to (the same) performance issues that views are.
here is a link to and a snippet from a nice article that describes views as well as how to tune them for better peformance.
Uses of Views
Views are useful for providing a horizontal or vertical subset of data
from a table (possibly for security reasons) ; for hiding the
complexity of a query; for ensuring that exactly the same SQL is used
throughout your application; and in n-tier applications to retrieve
supplementary information about an item from a related table......
http://www.smart-soft.co.uk/Oracle/oracle-tuning-part4-vw-use.htm
In my limited experience in working with ORMs (so far LLBL Gen Pro and Entity Framework 4), I've noticed that inherently, queries return data for all columns. I know NHibernate is another popular ORM, and I'm not sure that this applies with it or not, but I would assume it does.
Of course, I know there are workarounds:
Create a SQL view and create models and mappings on the view
Use a stored procedure and create models and mappings on the result set returned
I know that adhering to certain practices can help mitigate this:
Ensuring your row counts are reasonably limited when selecting data
Ensuring your tables aren't excessively wide (large number of columns and/or large data types)
So here are my questions:
Are the above practices sufficient, or should I still consider finding ways to limit the number of columns returned?
Are there other ways to limit returned columns other than the ones I listed above?
How do you typically approach this in your projects?
Thanks in advance.
UPDATE: This sort of stems from the notion that SELECT * is thought of as a bad practice. See this discussion.
One of the reasons to use an ORM of nearly any kind is to delay a lot of those lower-level concerns and focus on the business logic. As long as you keep your joins reasonable and your table widths sane, ORMs are designed to make it easy to get data in and out, and that requires having the entire row available.
Personally, I consider issues like this premature optimization until encountering a specific case that bogs down because of table width.
First of : great question, and about time someone asked this! :-)
Yes, the fact an ORM typically returns all columns for a database table is something you need to take into consideration when designing your systems. But as you've mentioned - there are ways around this.
The main fact for me is to be aware that this is what happens - either a SELECT * FROM dbo.YourTable, or (better) a SELECT (list of all columns) FROM dbo.YourTable.
This is not a problem when you really want the whole object and all its properties, and as long as you load a few rows, that's fine, too - the convenience beats the raw performance.
You might need to think about changing your database structures a little bit - things like:
maybe put large columns like BLOBs into separate tables with a 1:1 link to your base table - that way, a select on the parent tables doesn't grab all those large blobs of data
maybe put groups of columns that are optional, that might only show up in certain situations, into separate tables and link them - again, just to keep the base tables lean'n'mean
Also: avoid trying to "arm-wrestle" your ORM into doing bulk operations - that's just not their strong point.
And: keep an eye on performance, and try to pick an ORM that allows you to change certain operations into e.g. stored procedures - Entity Framework 4 allows this. So if the deletes are killing you - maybe you just write a Delete stored proc for that table and handle that operation differently.
The question here covers your options fairly well. Basically you're limited to hand-crafting the HQL/SQL. It's something you want to do if you run into scalability problems, but if you do in my experience it can have a very large positive impact. In particular, it saves a lot of disk and network IO, so your scalability can take a big jump. Not something to do right away though: analyse then optimise.
Are there other ways to limit returned columns other than the ones I listed above?
NHibernate lets you add projections to your queries so you wouldn't need to use views or procs just to limit your columns.
For me this has only been an issue if the tables has LOTS of columns > 30 or if the column had alot of data for example a over 5000 character in a field.
The approach I have used is to just map another object to the existing table but with only the fields I need. So for a search that populates a table with 100 rows I would have a
MyObjectLite, but when I click to view the Details of that Row I would call a GetById and return a MyObject that has all the columns.
Another approach is to use custom SQL, Stroed procs but I only think you should go down this path if you REALLY need the performance gain and have users complaining. SO unless there is a performance problem do not waste your time trying to fix a problem that does not exist.
You can limit number of returned columns by using Projection and Transformers.AliasToBean and DTO here how it looks in Criteria API:
.SetProjection(Projections.ProjectionList()
.Add(Projections.Property("Id"), "Id")
.Add(Projections.Property("PackageName"), "Caption"))
.SetResultTransformer(Transformers.AliasToBean(typeof(PackageNameDTO)));
In LLBLGen Pro, you can return Typed Lists which not only allow you to define which fields are returned but also allow you to join data so you can pull a custom list of fields from multiple tables.
Overall, I agree that for most situations, this is premature optimization.
One of the big advantages of using LLBLGen and other ORMs as well (I just feel confident speaking about LLBLGen because I have used it since its inception) is that the performance of the data access has been optimized by folks who understand the issues better than your average bear.
Whenever they figure out a way to further speed up their code, you get those changes "for free" just by re-generating your data layer or by installing a new dll.
Unless you consider yourself an expert at writing data access code, ORMs probably improve most developers efficacy and accuracy.
I'm just trying to get a general idea of what views are used for in RDBMSes. That is to say, I know what a view is and how to make one. I also know what I've used them for in the past.
But I want to make sure I have a thorough understanding of what a view is useful for and what a view shouldn't be useful for. More specifically:
What is a view useful for?
Are there any situations in which it is tempting to use a view when you shouldn't use one?
Why would you use a view in lieu of something like a table-valued function or vice versa?
Are there any circumstances that a view might be useful that aren't apparent at first glance?
(And for the record, some of these questions are intentionally naive. This is partly a concept check.)
In a way, a view is like an interface. You can change the underlying table structure all you want, but the view gives a way for the code to not have to change.
Views are a nice way of providing something simple to report writers. If your business users want to access the data from something like Crystal Reports, you can give them some views in their account that simplify the data -- maybe even denormalize it for them.
1) What is a view useful for?
IOPO In One Place Only•Whether you consider the data itself or the queries that reference the joined tables, utilizing a view avoids unnecessary redundancy. •Views also provide an abstracting layer preventing direct access to the tables (and the resulting handcuffing referencing physical dependencies). In fact, I think it's good practice1 to offer only abstracted access to your underlying data (using views & table-valued functions), including views such as CREATE VIEW AS SELECT * FROM tblData1I hafta admit there's a good deal of "Do as I say; not as I do" in that advice ;)
2) Are there any situations in which it is tempting to use a view when you shouldn't use one?
Performance in view joins used to be a concern (e.g. SQL 2000). I'm no expert, but I haven't worried about it in a while. (Nor can I think of where I'm presently using view joins.)Another situation where a view might be overkill is when the view is only referenced from one calling location and a derived table could be used instead. Just like an anonymous type is preferable to a class in .NET if the anonymous type is only used/referenced once. • See the derived table description in http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177634.aspx
3) Why would you use a view in lieu of something like a table-valued function or vice versa?
(Aside from performance reasons) A table-valued function is functionally equivalent to a parameterized view. In fact, a common simple table-valued function use case is simply to add a WHERE clause filter to an already existing view in a single object.
4) Are there any circumstances that a view might be useful that aren't apparent at first glance?
I can't think of any non-apparent uses of the top of my head. (I suppose if I could, that would make them apparent ;)
Views can be used to provide security (ie: users can have access to views that only access certain columns in a table), views can provide additional security for updates, inserts, etc. Views also provide a way to alias column names (as do sp's) but views are more of an isolation from the actual table.
In a sense views denormalize. Denormalization is sometimes necessary to provide data in a more meaningful manner. This is what a lot of applications do anyway by way of domain modeling in their objects. They help present the data in a way that more closely matches a business' perspective.
In addition to what the others have stated, views can also be useful for removing more complecated SQL queries from the application.
As an example, instead of in an application doing:
sql = "select a, b from table1 union
select a, b from table2";
You could abstract that to a view:
create view union_table1_table2_v as
select a,b from table1
union
select a,b from table2
and in the app code, simply have:
sql = "select a, b from union_table1_table2_v";
Also if the data structures ever change, you won't have to change the app code, recompile, and redeploy. you would just change the view in the db.
Views hide the database complexity. They are great for a lot of reasons and are useful in a lot of situations, but if you have users that are allowed to write their own queries and reports, you can use them as a safeguard to make sure they don't submit badly designed queries with nasty cartesian joins that take down your database server.
The OP asked if there were situations where it might be tempting to use a view, but it's not appropriate.
What you don't want to use a view for is a substitute for complex joins. That is, don't let your procedural programming habit of breaking a problem down into smaller pieces lead you toward using several views joined together instead of one larger join. Doing so will kill the database engine's efficiency since it's essentially doing several separate queries rather than one larger one.
For example, let's say you have to join tables A, B, C, and D together. You may be tempted to make a view out of tables A & B and a view out of C & D, then join the two views together. It's much better to just join A, B, C, and D in one query.
Views can centralize or consolidate data. Where I'm at we have a number of different databases on a couple different linked servers. Each database holds data for a different application. A couple of those databases hold information that are relavent to a number of different applications. What we'll do in those circumstances is create a view in that application's database that just pulls data from the database where the data is really stored, so that the queries we write don't look like they're going across different databases.
The responses so far are correct -- views are good for providing security, denormalization (although there is much pain down that road if done wrong), data model abstraction, etc.
In addition, views are commonly used to implement business logic (a lapsed user is a user who has not logged in in the last 40 days, that sort of thing).
Views save a lot of repeated complex JOIN statements in your SQL scripts. You can just encapsulate some complex JOIN in some view and call it in your SELECT statement whenever needed. This would sometimes be handy, straight forward and easier than writing out the join statements in every query.
A view is simply a stored, named SELECT statement. Think of views like library functions.
I wanted to highlight the use of views for reporting. Often, there is a conflict between normalizing the database tables to speed up performance, especially for editing and inserting data (OLTP uses), and denormalizing to reduce the number of table joins for queries for reporting and analysis (OLAP uses). Of necessity, OLTP usually wins, because data entry must have optimal performance. Creating views, then, for optimal reporting performance, can help to satisfy both classes of users (data entry and report viewers).
I remember a very long SELECT which involved several UNIONs. Each UNION included a join to a price table which was created on the fly by a SELECT that was itself fairly long and hard to understand. I think it would have been a good idea to have a view that to create the price table. It would have shortened the overall SELECT by about half.
I don't know if the DB would evaluate the view once, or once each time in was invoked. Anyone know? If the former, using a view would improved performance.
Anytime you need [my_interface] != [user_interface].
Example:
TABLE A:
id
info
VIEW for TABLE A:
Customer Information
this is a way you might hide the id from the customer and rename the info to a more verbose name both at once.
The view will use underlying index for primary key id, so you won't see a performance loss, just better abstraction of the select query.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I once worked with an architect who banned the use of SQL views. His main reason was that views made it too easy for a thoughtless coder to needlessly involve joined tables which, if that coder tried harder, could be avoided altogether. Implicitly he was encouraging code reuse via copy-and-paste instead of encapsulation in views.
The database had nearly 600 tables and was highly normalised, so most of the useful SQL was necessarily verbose.
Several years later I can see at least one bad outcome from the ban - we have many hundreds of dense, lengthy stored procs that verge on unmaintainable.
In hindsight I would say it was a bad decision, but what are your experiences with SQL views? Have you found them bad for performance? Any other thoughts on when they are or are not appropriate?
There are some very good uses for views; I have used them a lot for tuning and for exposing less normalized sets of information, or for UNION-ing results from multiple selects into a single result set.
Obviously any programming tool can be used incorrectly, but I can't think of any times in my experience where a poorly tuned view has caused any kind of drawbacks from a performance standpoint, and the value they can provide by providing explicitly tuned selects and avoiding duplication of complex SQL code can be significant.
Incidentally, I have never been a fan of architectural "rules" that are based on keeping developers from hurting themselves. These rules often have unintended side-effects -- the last place I worked didn't allow using NULLs in the database, because developers might forget to check for null. This ended up forcing us to work around "1/1/1900" dates and integers defaulted to "0" in all the software built against the databases, and introducing a litany of bugs caused by devs working around places where NULL was the appropriate value.
You've answered your own question:
he was encouraging code reuse via copy-and-paste
Reuse the code by creating a view. If the view performs poorly, it will be much easier to track down than if you have the same poorly performing code in several places.
Not a big fan of views (Can't remember the last time I wrote one) but wouldn't ban them entirely either. If your database allows you to put indexes on the views and not just on the table, you can often improve performance a good bit which makes them better. If you are using views, make sure to look into indexing them.
I really only see the need for views for partitioning data and for extremely complex joins that are really critical to the application (thinking of financial reports here where starting from the same dataset for everything might be critical). I do know some reporting tools seem to prefer views over stored procs.
I am a big proponent of never returning more records or fields than you need in a specific instance and the overuse of views tends to make people return more fields (and in way too many cases, too many joins) than they need which wastes system resources.
I also tend to see that people who rely on views (not the developer of the view - the people who only use them) often don't understand the database very well (so they would get the joins wrong if not using the view) and that to me is critical to writing good code against the database. I want people to understand what they are asking the db to do, not rely on some magic black box of a view. That is all personal opinion of course, your mileage may vary.
Like BlaM I personally haven't found them easier to maintain than stored procs.
Edited in Oct 2010 to add:
Since I orginally wrote this, I have had occasion to work with a couple of databases designed by people who were addicted to using views. Even worse they used views that called views that called views (to the point where eventually we hit the limit of the number of tables that can be called). This was a performance nightmare. It took 8 minutes to get a simple count(*) of the records in one view and much longer to get data. If you use views, be very wary of using views that call other views. You will be building a system that will very probably not work under the normal performance load on production. In SQL Server you can only index views that do not call other views, so what ends up happening when you use views in a chain, is that the entire record set has to be built for each view and it is not until you get to the last one that the where clause criteria are applied. You may need to generate millions of records just to see three. You may join to the same table 6 times when you really only need to join to it once, you may return many many more columns than you need in the final results set.
My current database was completely awash with countless small tables of no more than 5 rows each. Well, I could count them but it was cluttered. These tables simply held constant type values (think enum) and could very easily be combined into one table. I then made views that simulated each of the tables I deleted to ensure backward compactability. Worked great.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned thus far is use of views to provide a logical picture of the data to end users for ad hoc reporting or similar.
This has two merits:
To allow the user to single "tables" containing the data they expect rather requiring relatively non technical users to work out potentially complex joins (because the database is normalised)
It provides a means to allow some degree of ah hoc access without exposing the data or the structure to the end users.
Even with non ad-hoc reporting its sometimes signicantly easier to provide a view to the reporting system that contains the relveant data, neatly separating production of data from presentation of same.
Like all power, views have its own dark side. However, you cannot blame views for somebody writing bad performing code. Moreover views can limit the exposure of some columns and provide extra security.
Views are good for ad-hoc queries, the kind that a DBA does behind the scenes when he/she needs quick access to data to see what's going on with the system.
But they can be bad for production code. Part of the reason is that it's sort of unpredictable what indexes you will need with a view, since the where clause can be different, and therefore hard to tune. Also, you are generally returning a lot more data than is actually necesary for the individual queries that are using the view. Each of these queries could be tightened up and tuned individually.
There are specific uses of views in cases of data partitioning that can be extremely useful, so I'm not saying they should avoided altogether. I'm just saying that if a view can be replaced by a few stored procedures, you will be better off without the view.
We use views for all of our simple data exports to csv files. This simplifies the process of writing a package and embedding the sql within the package which becomes cumbersome and hard to debug against.
Using views, we can execute a view and see exactly what was exported, no cruft or unknowns. It greatly helps in troubleshooting problems with improper data exports and hides any complex joins behind the view. Granted, we use a very old legacy system from a TERMS based system that exports to sql, so the joins are a little more complex than usual.
Some time ago I've tried to maintain code that used views built from views built from views... That was a pain in the a**, so I got a little allergic to views :)
I usually prefer working with tables directly, especially for web applications where speed is a main concern. When accessing tables directly you have the chance to tweak your SQL-Queries to achieve the best performance. "Precompiled"/cached working plans might be one advantage of views, but in many cases just-in-time compilation with all given parameters and where clauses in consideration will result in faster processing over all.
However that does not rule out views totally, if used adequately. For example you can use a view with the "users" table joined with the "users_status" table to get an textual explanation for each status - if you need it. However if you don't need the explanation: use the "users" table, not the view. As always: Use your brain!
Views have been helpful to us in their role for use by public web based applications that dip from a production database. Simplified security is the primary advantage we see since the table design in the database may combine sensitive and non-sensitive data within the same table. A stored procedure shares much of this advantage, but the view is read-only, has potential interop advantages, and is a less complex thing for junior people to implement.
This security abstraction advantage also applies when views are used for end-user ad-hoc queries; this would be less of an advantage if we had a proper, flattened, data warehouse representation of our data.
From an application stand point which uses an ORM, it's a lot harder to execute a custom query than doing a select on a discretely mapped type (eg, the view).
For example, if you need just 5 fields of a table that has many (say 30 or 40) an ORM framework will create an entity to represent the table.
That means that even though you only need a few properties of the entity, the select query generated by the ORM framework will bring the entire entity in its full glory. A view on the other hand, although also mapped to an entity with the ORM framework, will only bring the data you need.
Second, since ORM frameworks map entities to tables, relationships between entities are generated (and hydrated) on the client side, meaning that the query has to execute and return to the app before linking of those entities can happen at runtime within the app.
Some frameworks bypass that by returning the data from multiple linked entities in a giant select (with multiple joins), bringing in the columns of all related tables in one call. Internally the framework disassembles the giant result set and structures the logical presentation of the linked entities before returning those entities to the caller app.
Point being is that views are a life saver for apps using ORM. The alternative is to manually make db calls, and manually passing the resulting recordsets into usable entities/models.
While this approach is good and definitely produces a result, it has lots of negative facets. Manual code... is manual; hard to maintain, cumbersome in implementation, and causes devs to worry more about the specifics of the DB provider API vs the logical domain model. Not to mention that it increases time to production (its a lot more labourious) costs for development, maintenance, surface area of bugs, etc.
So for anyone saying views are bad, please consider the other side of things; The stuff the high and mighty DBA's most often have no clue about.
Let's see if I can come up with a lame analogy ...
"I don't need a phillips screwdriver. I carry a flat head and a grinder!"
Dismissing views out of hand will cause pain long term. For one, it's easier to debug and modify a single view definition than it is to ship modified code.
Views can also reduce the size of complex queries (in the same way stored procs can).
This can reduce network bandwith for very busy databases.
I infrequently (monthly/quarterly) generate hundreds of Crystal Reports reports using Microsoft SQL Server 2005 database views. Are those views wasting CPU cycles and RAM during all the time that I am not reading from them? Should I instead use stored procedures, temporary tables, or short-lived normal tables since I rarely read from my views?
I'm not a DBA so I don't know what's going on behind the scenes inside the database server.
Is it possible to have too many database views? What's considered best practice?
For the most part, it doesn't matter. Yes, SQL Server will have more choices when it parses SELECT * FROM table (it'll have to look in the system catalogs for 'table') but it's highly optimized for that, and provided you have sufficient RAM (most servers nowadays do), you won't notice a difference between 0 and 1,000 views.
However, from a people-perspective, trying to manage and figure out what "hundreds" of views are doing is probably impossible, so you likely have a lot of duplicated code in there. What happens if some business rules change that are embedded in these redundant views?
The main point of views is to encapsulate business logic into a pseudo table (so you may have a person table, but then a view called "active_persons" which does some magic). Creating a view for each report is kind of silly unless each report is so isolated and unique that there is no ability to re-use.
A view is a query that you run often with preset parameters. If you know you will be looking at the same data all the time you can create a view for ease of use and for data binding.
That being said, when you select from a view the view defining query is run along with the query you are running.
For example, if vwCustomersWhoHavePaid is:
Select * from customers where paid = 1
and the query you are running returns the customers who have paid after August first is formatted like this:
Select * from vwCustomersWhoHavePaid where datepaid > '08/01/08'
The query you are actually running is:
Select * from (Select * from customers where paid = 1) where datepaid > '08/01/08'
This is something you should keep in mind when creating views, they are a way of storing data that you look at often. It's just a way of organizing data so it's easier to access.
The views are only going to take up cpu/memory resources when they are called.
Anyhow, best practice would be to consolidate what can be consolidated, remove what can be removed, and if it's literally only used by your reports, choose a consistent naming standard for the views so they can easily be grouped together when looking for a particular view.
Also, unless you really need transactional isolation, consider using the NOLOCK table hint in your queries.
-- Kevin Fairchild
You ask: What's going on behind the scenes?
A view is a bunch of SQL text. When a query uses a view, SQL Server places that SQL text into the query. This happens BEFORE optimization. The result is the optimizer can consider the combined code instead of two separate pieces of code for the best execution plan.
You should look at the execution plans of your queries! There is so much to learn there.
SQL Server also has a concept of a clustered view. A clustered view is a system maintained result set (each insert/update/delete on the underlying tables can cause insert/update/deletes on the clustered view's data). It is a common mistake to think that views operate in the way that clustered views operate.