I have a SQL Server 2008 R2 database containing a very huge table that we use for reporting. Every night around 40,000 records are inserted into the table. I read in many articles that Indexed views are suitable for OLAP or Warehouse databases, not for transaction tables.
My goal is not to query the whole table, but to query a subset, say last 3 months data. Don't want to use triggers to create a subset. Would an indexed view be suitable for my scenario ? If not, any better ideas ?
You might need to check some repercussions about using an indexed view. Here are some details of some items to consider before. http://msdotnetbuddy.blogspot.com/2010/12/indexed-view-in-mssql-server.html
You could also partition your big table, into let's say having only quarterly data. You would only query on a subset. If that is not an option, you could also create a temporary cache table, that only contains data specific for this report.
You could use an indexed view, you will need to use the "with schemabinding" keywords, you can put this into any search engine to find the implications of using this.
Related
Due to the way our database is stored, we have tables for each significant event that occurs within a products life:
Acquired
Sold
Delivered
I need to go through and find the status of a product at any given time. In order to do so I'd need to query all of the tables within the schema and find the record with the most up to date record. I know this is possible by union-ing all tables and then finding the MAX timestamp but I wonder if there's a more elegant solution?
Is it possible to query all tables by just querying the root schema or database? Is there a way to loop through all tables within the schema and substitute that into the FROM clause?
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks
You could write a Stored Procedure but, IMO, that would only be worth the effort (and more elegant) if the list of tables changed regularly.
If the list of tables is relatively fixed then creating a UNION statement is probably the most elegant solution and relatively trivial to create - if you plan to use it regularly then just create it as a View.
The way I always approach this type of problem (creating the same SQL for multiple tables) is to dump the list of tables out into Excel, generate the SQL statement for the first table using functions, copy this function down for all the table names and then concatenate all these statements in a final function. You can then just paste this text back into your SQL editor
what will happen when I query a view in sql 2000?
Does it query the underlying table? Is making a view on table fasten the query execution?
There is a table with 10 million records(Records from 2005 to till date).
The users are often interested in the current year data.So if i create a view on the table,only using the current year data then would that increase the query performance,while querying the view ?
I mean instead of querying the table with where condition year='2013' , the user can query the view and get better performance?
As Damien stated in his comment, the definitions of views are expanded and the query used to build them is "inlined" into your own query, so it is unlikely that you will get any performance increase by using a standard view.
An alternative is to create an indexed view, which is a standard view that has a clustered index created on it, effectively materialising it and making it act as if it were a table. In non-enterprise editions of SQL server you need to use the NOEXPAND hint when referencing the indexed view to make the optimiser take the index into account, but you can get performance gains this way.
There are special considerations for indexed views, certain settings and conditions that must be set for them to work, it's all detailed here:
Creating an Indexed View
I'm Working on My Program that Works With SQL Server.
for Store Data in Database Table, Which of the below approaches is correct?
Store Many Rows Just in One Table (10 Million Record)
Store Fewer Rows in Several Table (500000 Record) (exp: for each Year Create One Table)
It depends on how often you access data.If you are not using the old records, then you can archive those records. Splitting up of tables is not desirable as it may confuse you while fetching data.
I would say to store all the data in a single table, but implement a table partition on the older data. Partioning the data will increase query performance.
Here are some references:
http://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/1914/sql-server-database-partitioning-myths-and-truths/
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188730.aspx
http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2008/01/25/sql-server-2005-database-table-partitioning-tutorial-how-to-horizontal-partition-database-table/
Please note that this table partioning functionality is only available in Enterprise Edition.
Well, it depends!
What are you going to do with the data? If you are querying this data a lot of times it could be a better solution to split the data in (for example) year tables. That way you would have a better performance since you have to query smaller tables.
But on the other side. With a bigger table and with good query's you might not even see a performance issue. If you only need to store this data it would be better to just use 1 table.
BTW For loading this data into the database you could use BCP (bulkcopy), which is a fast way of inserting a lot of rows.
The size of each record of table is a performance parameter. that means if size of record was small SQL Server fetch more records in each read from physical hard.
In most of our queries we not use all column of table, and may be some column use only in specific query. Is it possible for we partitioning columns of each table to have better performance.
I use SQL Server 2008 R2.
Thank you.
True column level partitioning comes with column oriented storage, see Inside the SQL Server 2012 Columnstore Indexes, but that is available only in SQL Server 2012 and addresses specific BI workloads, not general SQL Server apps.
In row oriented storage the vertical partitioning is actually another name for designing proper covering indexes. If the engine has an alternative narrow index it will use it instead of the base table, when possible.
The last alternative, manually splinting the table and joining the vertical 'shards' in queries (or defining joining views, same thing) is usually ill advised and seldom pays off.
At the moment with SQL Server 2008, you cannot partition tables horizontally. If you have a large number of columns, you would need to chop it into horizontal chunk tables that share a common key and then skin them with an update-able view to give the illusion of one very wide table.
If there are just a few large columns (e.g. VARCHAR(1000)), you can normalize your data into unique value tables.
The one exception to the no column partitioning rule are character columns declared as max (varchar(max), for example).
These are stored on a separate data page. I believe this page is not read in unless the column is referenced in the query. If I am wrong, I'am sure more knowledge people will correct me.
the mysql certification guide suggests that views can be used for:
creating a summary that may involve calculations
selecting a set of rows with a WHERE clause, hide irrelevant information
result of a join or union
allow for changes made to base table via a view that preserve the schema of original table to accommodate other applications
but from how to implement search for 2 different table data?
And maybe you're right that it doesn't
work since mysql views are not good
friends with indexing. But still. Is
there anything to search for in the
shops table?
i learn that views dont work well with indexing so, will it be a big performance hit, for the convenience it may provide?
A view can be simply thought of as a SQL query stored permanently on the server. Whatever indices the query optimizes to will be used. In that sense, there is no difference between the SQL query or a view. It does not affect performance any more negatively than the actual SQL query. If anything, since it is stored on the server, and does not need to be evaluated at run time, it is actually faster.
It does afford you these additional advantages
reusability
a single source for optimization
This mysql-forum-thread about indexing views gives a lot of insight into what mysql views actually are.
Some key points:
A view is really nothing more than a stored select statement
The data of a view is the data of tables referenced by the View.
creating an index on a view will not work as of the current version
If merge algorithm is used, then indexes of underlying tables will be used.
The underlying indices are not visible, however. DESCRIBE on a view will show no indexed columns.
MySQL views, according to the official MySQL documentation, are stored queries that when invoked produce a result set.
A database view is nothing but a virtual table or logical table (commonly consist of SELECT query with joins). Because a database view is similar to a database table, which consists of rows and columns, so you can query data against it.
Views should be used when:
Simplifying complex queries (like IF ELSE and JOIN or working with triggers and such)
Putting extra layer of security and limit or restrict data access (since views are merely virtual tables, can be set to be read-only to specific set of DB users and restrict INSERT )
Backward compatibility and query reusability
Working with computed columns. Computed columns should NOT be on DB tables, because the DB schema would be a bad design.
Views should not be use when:
associate table(s) is/are tentative or subjected to frequent structure change.
According to http://www.mysqltutorial.org/introduction-sql-views.aspx
A database table should not have calculated columns however a database view should.
I tend to use a view when I need to calculate totals, counts etc.
Hope that help!
One more down side of view that doesn't work well with mysql replicator as well as it is causing the master a bit behind of the slave.
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=30998