I have a problem to decide whether to use a view or a temp table.
I have a stored procedure that i call from program. In that SP i store the result of a long query in a temp table, name the columns and make another queries on that table store the results in labels or a gridview or whatever and drop the Temp Table. I could also store the query-result in a view and make queries on that view. So what is better or in what case do i HAVE to use a VIEW/ Temp Table.
According to my research a view has the benefit of: Security, Simplicity and Column Name Specification. My temporary table fulfills all that too (according to my opinion).
If the query is "long" and you are accessing the results from multiple queries, then a temporary table is the better choice.
A view, in general, is just a short-cut for a select statement. If does not imply that the results are ever run and processed. If you use a view, the results will need to be regenerated each time it is used. Although subsequent runs of the view may be more efficient (say because the pages used by the view query are in cache), a temporary table actually stores the results.
In SQL Server, you can also use table variables (declare #t table . . .).
Using a temporary table (or table variable) within a single stored procedure would seem to have few implications in terms of security, simplicity, and column names. Security would be handled by access to the stored procedure. Column names are needed for either solution. Simplicity is hard to judge without more information, but nothing sticks out as being particularly complicated.
depends
A view must replicate the processing of your "long query" each time it is run, while a temp table stores the results.
so do you want to use more processing or more storage?
You can store some view values (persistent index) which could help on processing, but you don't provide enough info to really explore this.
If you are talking about just storing the data for the use within a single procedure call, then a temp table is the way to go.
I'd like to also mention that for temporary table,
You cannot refer to a TEMPORARY table more than once in the same query.
This make temp table inconvenient for the cases where you want to use self join on it.
It is really a situational and operation specific question and answer may vary depending on the requirements of the scenario.
However, a small point that i would like to add is that if you are using a view to store results of a complex query, which are in turn used in operations of a GridView, then it can be troublesome to perform update operations on complex views. On the contrary, Temp Tables can suffice to this perfectly.
Again, There are scenario's where Views may be a better choice [ as in Multiple Database Servers if not handled properly] but it depends on what you want to do.
In general I would use a temporary table when I want to refer multiple times to the same table within a stored procedure, and a view when I want to use the table across different stored procedures.
A view does not persist the data (in principle): each time you reference the view SQL uses the logic from the view to access the original table. So you would not want to build a view on a view on a view, or use multiple references to a view that has complex logic.
Related
I create a table from a junction between 3 tables.
The issue that I'm facing is that this table becomes outdated once a new modification affects once of the original table used to supply its data.
How should solve this problem? Is a trigger the only solution?
You have several options:
Live with the outdated data and periodically (say once a day or once an hour) update the table.
Use a trigger to update the associated values.
Use a view.
Use an indexed view if possible (see here).
The last option is a way to define a view that SQL Server updates automatically -- what is called a materialized view in other databases. That said, not all queries are supported in materialized views.
"There are two problems in computer science. Cache coherency, and naming things." Tables derived from other tables exemplify both.
SQL Server supports materialized views, if you actually need them. Before you decide you do, do what every good carpenter does: measure twice and cut once. That is, write an ordinary view, and see how fast it is. If it's too slow -- however defined -- find out why. Most of the time, slow views can be sped up using indexes. If you have 100s of millions of rows, you might convert the view to a function that takes an argument applied to the WHERE clause, making it a "parameterized" view.
Let me start by stating that when writing SELECT statements in a stored procedure or elsewhere in application code, I ALWAYS specify columns explicitly rather than using SELECT *.
That said, I have a case where I have many stored procedures that need exactly the same columns back because they are used to hydrate the same models on the client. In an effort to make the code less brittle and less prone forgetting to update a stored procedure with a new column, I am thinking of creating a view and selecting from that in my stored procedures using SELECT *.
To help clarify, here are examples of what the stored procedures might be named:
Entity_GetById
Entity_GetByX
Entity_GetForY
-- and on and on...
So in each of these stored procedures, I would have
SELECT *
FROM EntityView
WHERE...[criteria based on the stored procedure]
I'm wondering if there is any cost to doing this. I understand the pitfalls of SELECT * FROM Table but by selecting from a view that exists specifically to define the columns needed seems to mitigate this.
Are there any other reasons I wouldn't want to use this approach?
Personally, I don't see a problem with this approach.
However, there is a range of opinions on the use of select * in production code, which generally discourages it for the outermost query (of course, it is fine in subqueries).
You do want to make sure that the stored procedures are recompiled if there is any change to either the view or to the underlying tables supplying the view. You probably want to use schemabinding to ensure that (some) changes to the underlying tables do not inadvertently affect the view(s).
I don't know your system, but using a view would not affect performance?
SELECT * from the view makes sense, but does the view just selects specific columns from one table?
If not then look carefully into performance.
If I remember correctly in MS SQL stored procedure can return a recordset.
If I right you can try to wrap various queries into kind of sub queries stored procedure and have a one main which selects specific columns -- here complication should fail if you miss something in .
Even better would be having stored procedures which ask by various parameters and returns only primary keys (as record set or in temporary table) and one main which fetch all required columns based on returned primary keys.
I'm building a reporting app, and so I'm crunching an awful lot of data. Part of my approach to creating the app in an agile way is to use SQL views to take the strain off the DB if multiple users are all bashing away.
One example is:
mysql_query("CREATE VIEW view_silverpop_clicks_baby_$email AS SELECT view_email_baby_position.EmailAddress, view_email_baby_position.days, silverpop_campaign_emails.id, silverpop_actions.`Click Name` , silverpop_actions.`Mailing Id`
FROM silverpop_actions
INNER JOIN view_email_baby_position ON (silverpop_actions.Email = view_email_baby_position.EmailAddress ) , silverpop_campaign_emails
WHERE silverpop_campaign_emails.id = $email
AND view_email_baby_position.days
BETWEEN silverpop_campaign_emails.low
AND silverpop_campaign_emails.high
AND silverpop_actions.`Event Type` = 'Click Through'") or die(mysql_error());
And then later in the script this view is used to calculate the number of clicks a particular flavour of this email has had.
$sql = "SELECT count(*) as count FROM `view_silverpop_clicks_baby_$email` WHERE `Click Name` LIKE '$countme%'";
My question is in 2 parts really:
Are views always good? Can you
have too many?
Could I create yet another set of
views to cache the count variable in
the second snippet of code. If so
how could I approach this? I can't
quite make this out yet.
Thanks!
To answer your questions.
1.) I don't know that I can think of an instance where views are BAD in and of themselves, but it would be bad to use them unnecessarily. Whether you can have too many really depends on your situation.
2.) Having another set of views will not cache the count variable so it wouldn't be beneficial from that standpoint.
Having said that, I think you have a misunderstanding on what a view actually does. A view is just a definition of a particular SQL statement and it does not cache data. When you execute a SELECT * FROM myView;, the database is still executing the select statement defined in the CREATE VIEW definition just as it would if a user was executing that statement.
Some database vendors offer a different kind of view called a materialized view. In this case the table data needed to create the view is stored/cached and is usually updated based on a refresh rate specified when you create it. This is "heavy" in the sense that your data is stored twice, but can create better execution plans because the data is already joined, aggregated, etc. Note though, you only see the data based on the last refresh of the materialized view, where with a normal view you see the data as it currently exists in the underlying tables. Currently, MySQL does not support materialized views.
Some useful uses of views are to:
Create easier/cleaner SQL statements for complex queries (which is something you are doing)
Security. If you have tables where you want a user to be able to see some columns or rows, but not other columns/rows, you restrict access to the base table and create a view of the base table that only selects the columns/rows that the user should have access too.
Create aggregations of tables
Views are used by query optimizer so they often help in querying for information more efficiently.
Indexed or materialized views however create a table with the required information which can make quite a difference. Think of it as denormalization of you db scheme without changing existing scheme. You get best of both worlds.
Some views are never used so they represent needles compexity -which is bad.
Indexed views cannot reference other views (mssql) so there's hardly a point in creating such view.
I have a UDF in SQL 2005 that I would need to schemabind as it is used in a view that I need an index on.
This UDF gets information from a table that is located in a different db (same server) then the one where the UDF is located.
Since it is invalid to specify table as [DBName].dbo.[Tablename], is there a way I can get the info from the table in the other db?
Schema binding is supposed to guarantee consistency. However consistency can not be guaranteed across two different databases, therefore schema-binding cannot be made across two different databases. In other words it's impossible to achieve.
Imagine that, for example, one database is restored to an earlier point in time - the index on the indexed view would become corrupt and queries would be returning wrong results.
If your UDF is in Database1, and it needs to access data from a table in Database2, all you have to do is create a view in Database1 that grabs the data you need from the table(s) in Database2. Then use this view in your UDF.
Works just fine, I used this approach many times.
Hope it helps.
what is the difference (system resource wise) between using views and temporary tables? I have a complex report that will be built from numerous tables. I am trying to determine if I should use a series of views or temp tables (SQL 2008). Is there a difference?
A view is just an alias for the query.
A temporary table materializes the resultset.
Views, being just aliases, don't take time to be filled, but they may be less performant when being selected from.
Temporary tables take some time (and effort) to be populated but can be more efficient.
Note that SQL Server optimizer can create a temporary table in runtime from a view (which you will see in the query statistics and plan as Worktable in tempdb), index it and populate it with the rows, and even add the missing rows on demand (these operations are called Eager Spool and Lazy Spool)
This makes the view rewinding much more efficient: instead of reevaluating the whole view each time its results are needed, the results are stored in a temporary table either all at once (as in Eager Spool), or incrementally (as in Lazy Spool).
SQL Server, though, can materialize views by creating clustered indexes on them, though not all views can be indexed (to be indexable, the view must meet certain conditions described here).
View is just a "fixed" SELECT statement with a name. If you have complex query, or in other case, if you want to show only partial data from the table you use view. Views exists in the database you have created it in.
Temporary table is the table like any others, but it is stored in tempdb database and is deleted after you finish stored procedure, etc. (local table). There can be seen only in the scope of the procedure you use it in. There are also global temporary tables, which can be seen outside the procedure.
chances are that an indexed view would probably work for you more than inserting data into temp table/s. also, instead of using a series of views you'd be better of consolidating into one view. it's much easier to manage and will most likely improve performance. also, the right indexes on your source tables will also improve performance.