I was just tidying up some sql when I came across this query:
SELECT
jm.IMEI ,
jm.MaxSpeedKM ,
jm.MaxAccel ,
jm.MaxDeccel ,
jm.JourneyMaxLeft ,
jm.JourneyMaxRight ,
jm.DistanceKM ,
jm.IdleTimeSeconds ,
jm.WebUserJourneyId ,
jm.lifetime_odo_metres ,
jm.[Descriptor]
FROM dbo.Reporting_WebUsers AS wu WITH (NOLOCK)
INNER JOIN dbo.Reporting_JourneyMaster90 AS jm WITH (NOLOCK) ON wu.WebUsersId = jm.WebUsersId
INNER JOIN dbo.Reporting_Journeys AS j WITH (NOLOCK) ON jm.WebUserJourneyId = j.WebUserJourneyId
WHERE ( wu.isActive = 1 )
AND ( j.JourneyDuration > 2 )
AND ( j.JourneyDuration < 1000 )
AND ( j.JourneyDistance > 0 )
My question is does it make any performance difference the order of the joins as for the above query I would have done
FROM dbo.Reporting_JourneyMaster90 AS jm
and then joined the other 2 tables to that one
Join order in SQL2008R2 server does unquestionably affect query performance, particularly in queries where there are a large number of table joins with where clauses applied against multiple tables.
Although the join order is changed in optimisation, the optimiser does't try all possible join orders. It stops when it finds what it considers a workable solution as the very act of optimisation uses precious resources.
We have seen queries that were performing like dogs (1min + execution time) come down to sub second performance just by changing the order of the join expressions. Please note however that these are queries with 12 to 20 joins and where clauses on several of the tables.
The trick is to set your order to help the query optimiser figure out what makes sense. You can use Force Order but that can be too rigid. Try to make sure that your join order starts with the tables where the will reduce data most through where clauses.
No, the JOIN by order is changed during optimization.
The only caveat is the Option FORCE ORDER which will force joins to happen in the exact order you have them specified.
I have a clear example of inner join affecting performance. It is a simple join between two tables. One had 50+ million records, the other has 2,000. If I select from the smaller table and join the larger it takes 5+ minutes.
If I select from the larger table and join the smaller it takes 2 min 30 seconds.
This is with SQL Server 2012.
To me this is counter intuitive since I am using the largest dataset for the initial query.
Usually not. I'm not 100% this applies verbatim to Sql-Server, but in Postgres the query planner reserves the right to reorder the inner joins as it sees fit. The exception is when you reach a threshold beyond which it's too expensive to investigate changing their order.
JOIN order doesn't matter, the query engine will reorganize their order based on statistics for indexes and other stuff.
For test do the following:
select show actual execution plan and run first query
change JOIN order and now run the query again
compare execution plans
They should be identical as the query engine will reorganize them according to other factors.
As commented on other asnwer, you could use OPTION (FORCE ORDER) to use exactly the order you want but maybe it would not be the most efficient one.
AS a general rule of thumb, JOIN order should be with table of least records on top, and most records last, as some DBMS engines the order can make a difference, as well as if the FORCE ORDER command was used to help limit the results.
Wrong. SQL Server 2005 it definitely matters since you are limiting the dataset from the beginning of the FROM clause. If you start with 2000 records instead of 2 million it makes your query faster.
Related
I've just been debugging a slow SQL query.
It's a join between 2 tables, with a WHERE clause conditioning on either a property of 1 table OR the other.
If I re-write it as a UNION then it's suddenly 2 orders of magnitude faster, even though those 2 queries produce identical outputs:
DECLARE #UserId UNIQUEIDENTIFIER = '0019813D-4379-400D-9423-56E1B98002CB'
SELECT *
FROM Bookings
LEFT JOIN BookingPricings ON Booking = Bookings.ID
WHERE (BookingPricings.[Owner] in (#UserId) OR Bookings.MixedDealBroker in (#UserId))
--Execution time: ~4000ms
SELECT *
FROM Bookings
LEFT JOIN BookingPricings ON Booking = Bookings.ID
WHERE (BookingPricings.[Owner] in (#UserId))
UNION
SELECT *
FROM Bookings
LEFT JOIN BookingPricings ON Booking = Bookings.ID
WHERE (Bookings.MixedDealBroker in (#UserId))
--Execution time: ~70ms
This seems rather surprising to me! I would have expected the SQL compiler to be entirely capable of identifying that the 2nd form was equivalent and would have used that compilation approach if it were available.
Some context notes:
I've checked and IN (#UserId) vs = #UserId makes no difference.
Nor does JOIN vs LEFT JOIN.
Those tables each have 100,000s records, and the filter cuts it down to ~100.
In the slow version it seems to be reading every row of both tables.
So:
Does anyone have any ideas for how this comes about.
What (if anything) can I do to fix the performance without just re-writing the query as a series of UNIONs (not viable for a variety of reasons.)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Execution Plans:
This is a common limitation of SQL engines, not just in SQL Server, but also other database systems as well. The OR complicates the predicate enough that the execution plan selected isn't always ideal. This probably relates to the fact that only one index can be seeked into per instance of a table object at a time (for the most part), or in your specific case, your OR predicate is across two different tables, and other factors with how SQL engines are designed.
By using a UNION clause, you now have two instances of the Bookings table referenced, which can individually be seeked on separately in the most efficient way possible. That allows the SQL Engine to pick a better execution plan to serve you query.
This is pretty much just one of those things that are the way they are because that's just the way it is, and you need to remember the UNION clause workaround for future encounters of this kind of performance issue.
Also, in response to your comment:
I don't understand how the difference can affect the EP, given that the 2 different "phrasings" of the query are identical?
A new execution plan is generated every time one doesn't exist in the plan cache for a given query, essentially. The way the Engine determines if a plan for a query is already cached is based on the exact hashing of that query statement, so even an extra space character at the end of the query can result in a new plan being generated. Theoretically that plan can be different. So a different written query (despite being logically the same) can surely result in a different execution plan.
There are other reasons a plan can change on re-generation too, such as different data and statistics of that data, in the tables referenced in the query between executions. But these reasons don't really apply to your question above.
As already stated, the OR condition prevents the database engine from efficiently using the indexes in a single query. Because the OR condition spans tables, I doubt that the Tuning Advisor will come up with anything useful.
If you have a case where the query you have posted is part of a larger query, or the results are complex and you do not want to repeat code, you can wrap your initial query in a Common Table Expression (CTE) or a subquery and then feed the combined results into the remainder of your query. Sometimes just selecting one or more PKs in your initial query will be sufficient.
Something like:
SELECT <complex select list>
FROM (
SELECT Bookings.ID AS BookingsID, BookingPricings.ID AS BookingPricingsID
FROM Bookings
LEFT JOIN BookingPricings ON Booking = Bookings.ID
WHERE (BookingPricings.[Owner] in (#UserId))
UNION
SELECT Bookings.ID AS BookingsID, BookingPricings.ID AS BookingPricingsID
FROM Bookings B
LEFT JOIN BookingPricings ON Booking = Bookings.ID
WHERE (Bookings.MixedDealBroker in (#UserId))
) PRE
JOIN Bookings B ON B.ID = PRE.BookingsID
JOIN BookingPricings BP ON BP.ID = PRE.BookingPricingsID
<more joins>
WHERE <more conditions>
Having just the IDs in your initial select make the UNION more efficient. The UNION can also be changed to a yet more-efficient UNION ALL with careful use of additional conditions, such as AND Bookings.MixedDealBroker <> #UserId in the second part, to avoid overlapping results.
I'm working on an oracle query that is doing a select on a huge table, however the joins with other tables seem to be costing a lot in terms of time of processing.
I'm looking for tips on how to improve the working of this query.
I'm attaching a version of the query and the explain plan of it.
Query
SELECT
l.gl_date,
l.REST_OF_TABLES
(
SELECT
MAX(tt.task_id)
FROM
bbb.jeg_pa_tasks tt
WHERE
l.project_id = tt.project_id
AND l.task_number = tt.task_number
) task_id
FROM
aaa.jeg_labor_history l,
bbb.jeg_pa_projects_all p
WHERE
p.org_id = 2165
AND l.project_id = p.project_id
AND p.project_status_code = '1000'
Something to mention:
This query takes data from oracle to send it to a sql server database, so I need it to be this big, I can't narrow the scope of the query.
the purpose is to set it to a sql server job with SSIS so it runs periodically
One obvious suggestion is not to use sub query in select clause.
Instead, you can try to join the tables.
SELECT
l.gl_date,
l.REST_OF_TABLES
t.task_id
FROM
aaa.jeg_labor_history l
Join bbb.jeg_pa_projects_all p
On (l.project_id = p.project_id)
Left join (SELECT
tt.project_id,
tt.task_number,
MAX(tt.task_id) task_id
FROM
bbb.jeg_pa_tasks tt
Group by tt.project_id, tt.task_number) t
On (l.project_id = t.project_id
AND l.task_number = t.task_number)
WHERE
p.org_id = 2165
AND p.project_status_code = '1000';
Cheers!!
As I don't know exactly how many rows this query is returning or how many rows this table/view has.
I can provide you few simple tips which might be helpful for you for better query performance:
Check Indexes. There should be indexes on all fields used in the WHERE and JOIN portions of the SQL statement.
Limit the size of your working data set.
Only select columns you need.
Remove unnecessary tables.
Remove calculated columns in JOIN and WHERE clauses.
Use inner join, instead of outer join if possible.
You view contains lot of data so you can also break down and limit only the information you need from this view
I was just tidying up some sql when I came across this query:
SELECT
jm.IMEI ,
jm.MaxSpeedKM ,
jm.MaxAccel ,
jm.MaxDeccel ,
jm.JourneyMaxLeft ,
jm.JourneyMaxRight ,
jm.DistanceKM ,
jm.IdleTimeSeconds ,
jm.WebUserJourneyId ,
jm.lifetime_odo_metres ,
jm.[Descriptor]
FROM dbo.Reporting_WebUsers AS wu WITH (NOLOCK)
INNER JOIN dbo.Reporting_JourneyMaster90 AS jm WITH (NOLOCK) ON wu.WebUsersId = jm.WebUsersId
INNER JOIN dbo.Reporting_Journeys AS j WITH (NOLOCK) ON jm.WebUserJourneyId = j.WebUserJourneyId
WHERE ( wu.isActive = 1 )
AND ( j.JourneyDuration > 2 )
AND ( j.JourneyDuration < 1000 )
AND ( j.JourneyDistance > 0 )
My question is does it make any performance difference the order of the joins as for the above query I would have done
FROM dbo.Reporting_JourneyMaster90 AS jm
and then joined the other 2 tables to that one
Join order in SQL2008R2 server does unquestionably affect query performance, particularly in queries where there are a large number of table joins with where clauses applied against multiple tables.
Although the join order is changed in optimisation, the optimiser does't try all possible join orders. It stops when it finds what it considers a workable solution as the very act of optimisation uses precious resources.
We have seen queries that were performing like dogs (1min + execution time) come down to sub second performance just by changing the order of the join expressions. Please note however that these are queries with 12 to 20 joins and where clauses on several of the tables.
The trick is to set your order to help the query optimiser figure out what makes sense. You can use Force Order but that can be too rigid. Try to make sure that your join order starts with the tables where the will reduce data most through where clauses.
No, the JOIN by order is changed during optimization.
The only caveat is the Option FORCE ORDER which will force joins to happen in the exact order you have them specified.
I have a clear example of inner join affecting performance. It is a simple join between two tables. One had 50+ million records, the other has 2,000. If I select from the smaller table and join the larger it takes 5+ minutes.
If I select from the larger table and join the smaller it takes 2 min 30 seconds.
This is with SQL Server 2012.
To me this is counter intuitive since I am using the largest dataset for the initial query.
Usually not. I'm not 100% this applies verbatim to Sql-Server, but in Postgres the query planner reserves the right to reorder the inner joins as it sees fit. The exception is when you reach a threshold beyond which it's too expensive to investigate changing their order.
JOIN order doesn't matter, the query engine will reorganize their order based on statistics for indexes and other stuff.
For test do the following:
select show actual execution plan and run first query
change JOIN order and now run the query again
compare execution plans
They should be identical as the query engine will reorganize them according to other factors.
As commented on other asnwer, you could use OPTION (FORCE ORDER) to use exactly the order you want but maybe it would not be the most efficient one.
AS a general rule of thumb, JOIN order should be with table of least records on top, and most records last, as some DBMS engines the order can make a difference, as well as if the FORCE ORDER command was used to help limit the results.
Wrong. SQL Server 2005 it definitely matters since you are limiting the dataset from the beginning of the FROM clause. If you start with 2000 records instead of 2 million it makes your query faster.
So really my question is WHY this worked.
Anyway, I had this query that does a few inner joins, has a where clause and does an order by on a nvarchar column. If I run the query WITHOUT order by, the query takes less than a second. If I run the query WITH order by, it takes 12 seconds.
Now I had a great idea and changed all the INNER JOINs to LEFT JOINs. And also included the ORDER BY clause. That took less than a second. So I remembered the difference between LEFT JOINs and INNER JOINs. INNER JOINs check for NULL and LEFT JOINs don't. So I went into the table design and unchecked "Allow Nulls". Now I run the query WITH INNER JOINs and a ORDER BY clause and the query takes less than a second. WHY?
From what I understand, the FROM, JOINS, WHERE, then SELECT clauses should run first and return a result set. Then the ORDER BY clause runs at the very end on the resultant record set. Therefore the query should have taken AT MOST a second, yes, even with the column allowing nulls. So why would the query take less than a second WITHOUT the order by clause, but take 12 seconds WITH order by clause? That doesn't make sense to me.
Query below:
SELECT PlanInfo.PlanId, PlanName, COALESCE(tResponsible, '') AS tResponsible, Processor, CustName, TaskCategoryId, MapId, tEnd,
CASE MapId WHEN 9 THEN 1 ELSE 2 END AS sor
FROM PlanInfo INNER JOIN [orders].dbo.BaanOrders_Ext ON PlanInfo.PlanName = [orders].dbo.BaanOrders_Ext.OrderNo
INNER JOIN [orders].dbo.BaanOrders ON PlanInfo.PlanName = [orders].dbo.BaanOrders.OrderNo
INNER JOIN Tasks ON PlanInfo.PlanId = Tasks.PlanId
INNER JOIN EngSchedToTimingMap ON Tasks.CatId = EngSchedToTimingMap.TaskCategoryId
WHERE (MapId = 9 OR MapId = 11 or MapId = 13 or MapId = 15)
AND([orders].dbo.BaanOrders_Ext.Processor = 'metest' OR tResponsible = 'metest')
ORDER BY PlanInfo.PlanId
I would have to guess that it is due to having an index on PlanInfo.PlanId, on which you are sorting.
SQL Server could streamline collection so that it follows the index and build the rest of the columns along that order. When the field is NULLable, the index cannot be used for sorting, because it will not contain the NULL values, which incidentally come first, so it decides to optimize along a different path.
Showing the Execution Plan always helps. Either paste the images of the plans, or just show the text-mode plans, i.e. add the line above the query, then execute it
SET SHOWPLAN_TEXT ON;
<the query>
When you use the ORDER BY clause, you force the database engine to sort the results. This takes some time (especially if the result contains many rows) - thus it is possible that a query that runs 1 second without an ORDER BY clause runs 12 seconds with it. Note that sorting takes at best O(N*log(N)) time where N is the number of rows.
The reason why NULLs are generally slow is the fact that they must be treated specially. Sorting with NULLs adds more complex comparison conditions and slows the sorting down.
If your question is "Why does the ORDER BY clause cause my query to run longer?" the answer is because sorting the results is added to the query execution plan.
If you use the "Show Estimated Query Execution Plan" tool in SQL Server Studio, it will show you exactly what it thinks the SQL Server engine will do.
I am currently working with a query in in MSSQL that looks like:
SELECT
...
FROM
(SELECT
...
)T1
JOIN
(SELECT
...
)T2
GROUP BY
...
The inner selects are relatively fast, but the outer select aggregates the inner selects and takes an incredibly long time to execute, often timing out. Removing the group by makes it run somewhat faster and changing the join to a LEFT OUTER JOIN speeds things up a bit as well.
Why would doing a group by on a select which aggregates two inner selects cause the query to run so slow? Why does an INNER JOIN run slower than a LEFT OUTER JOIN? What can I do to troubleshoot this further?
EDIT: What makes this even more perplexing is the two inner queries are date limited and the overall query only runs slow when looking at date ranges between the start of July and any other day in July, but if the date ranges are anytime before the the July 1 and Today then it runs fine.
Without some more detail of your query its impossible to offer any hints as to what may speed your query up. A possible guess is the two inner queries are blocking access to any indexes which might have been used to perform the join resulting in large scans but there are probably many other possible reasons.
To check where the time is used in the query check the execution plan, there is a detailed explanation here
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/tips/query_execution_plan_analysis_p1.aspx
The basic run down is run the query, and display the execution plan, then look for any large percentages - they are what is slowing your query down.
Try rewriting your query without the nested SELECTs, which are rarely necessary. When using nested SELECTs - except for trivial cases - the inner SELECT resultsets are not indexed, which makes joining them to anything slow.
As Tetraneutron said, post details of your query -- we may help you rewrite it in a straight-through way.
Have you given a join predicate? Ie join table A ON table.ColA = table.ColB. If you don't give a predicate then SQL may be forced to use nested loops, so if you have a lot of rows in that range it would explain a query slow down.
Have a look at the plan in the SQL studio if you have MS Sql Server to play with.
After your t2 statement add a join condition on t1.joinfield = t2.joinfield
The issue was with fragmented data. After the data was defragmented the query started running within reasonable time constraints.
JOIN = Cartesian Product. All columns from both tables will be joined in numerous permutations. It is slow because the inner queries are querying each of the separate tables, but once they hit the join, it becomes a Cartesian product and is more difficult to manage. This would occur at the outer select statement.
Have a look at INNER JOINs as Tetraneutron recommended.