I am passing in a comma-delimited list of values that I need to compare to the database
Here is an example of the values I'm passing in:
#orgList = "1123, 223%, 54%"
To use the wildcard I think I have to do LIKE but the query runs a long time and only returns 14 rows (the results are correct, but it's just taking forever, probably because I'm using the join incorrectly)
Can I make it better?
This is what I do now:
declare #tempTable Table (SearchOrg nvarchar(max) )
insert into #tempTable
select * from dbo.udf_split(#orgList) as split
-- this splits the values at the comma and puts them in a temp table
-- then I do a join on the main table and the temp table to do a like on it....
-- but I think it's not right because it's too long.
select something
from maintable gt
join #tempTable tt on gt.org like tt.SearchOrg
where
AYEAR= ISNULL(#year, ayear)
and (AYEAR >= ISNULL(#yearR1, ayear) and ayear <= ISNULL(#yearr2, ayear))
and adate = ISNULL(#Date, adate)
and (adate >= ISNULL(#dateR1, adate) and adate <= ISNULL(#DateR2 , adate))
The final result would be all rows where the maintable.org is 1123, or starts with 223 or starts with 554
The reason for my date craziness is because sometimes the stored procedure only checks for a year, sometimes for a year range, sometimes for a specific date and sometimes for a date range... everything that's not used in passed in as null.
Maybe the problem is there?
Try something like this:
Declare #tempTable Table
(
-- Since the column is a varchar(10), you don't want to use nvarchar here.
SearchOrg varchar(20)
);
INSERT INTO #tempTable
SELECT * FROM dbo.udf_split(#orgList);
SELECT
something
FROM
maintable gt
WHERE
some where statements go here
And
Exists
(
SELECT 1
FROM #tempTable tt
WHERE gt.org Like tt.SearchOrg
)
Such a dynamic query with optional filters and LIKE driven by a table (!) are very hard to optimize because almost nothing is statically known. The optimizer has to create a very general plan.
You can do two things to speed this up by orders of magnitute:
Play with OPTION (RECOMPILE). If the compile times are acceptable this will at least deal with all the optional filters (but not with the LIKE table).
Do code generation and EXEC sp_executesql the code. Build a query with all LIKE clauses inlined into the SQL so that it looks like this: WHERE a LIKE #like0 OR a LIKE #like1 ... (not sure if you need OR or AND). This allows the optimizer to get rid of the join and just execute a normal predicate).
Your query may be difficult to optimize. Part of the question is what is in the where clause. You probably want to filter these first, and then do the join using like. Or, you can try to make the join faster, and then do a full table scan on the results.
SQL Server should optimize a like statement of the form 'abc%' -- that is, where the wildcard is at the end. (See here, for example.) So, you can start with an index on maintable.org. Fortunately, your examples meet this criteria. However, if you have '%abc' -- the wildcard comes first -- then the optimization won't work.
For the index to work best, it might also need to take into account the conditions in the where clause. In other words, adding the index is suggestive, but the rest of the query may preclude the use of the index.
And, let me add, the best solution for these types of searches is to use the full text search capability in SQL Server (see here).
Related
I have developed a SQL query in SSMS-2017 like this:
DECLARE #property NVARCHAR(MAX) = #p;
SET #property = REPLACE(#property, '''', '');
DECLARE #propList TABLE (hproperty NUMERIC(18, 0));
IF CHARINDEX('SELECT', #property) > 0 OR CHARINDEX('select', #property) > 0
BEGIN
INSERT INTO #propList
EXECUTE sp_executesql #property;
END;
ELSE
BEGIN
DECLARE #x TABLE (val NUMERIC(18, 0));
INSERT INTO #x
SELECT CONVERT(NUMERIC(18, 0), strval)
FROM dbo.StringSplit(#property, ',');
INSERT INTO #propList
SELECT val
FROM #x;
END;
SELECT ...columns...
FROM ...tables and joins...
WHERE ...filters...
AND HMY IN (SELECT hproperty FROM #propList)
The issue is, it is possible that the value of the parameter #p can be a list of IDs (Example: 1,2,3,4) or a direct select query (Example: Select ID from mytable where code='A123').
The code is working well as shown above. However it causes a problem in our system (as we use Yardi7-Voyager), and we need to leave only the select statement as a query. To manage it, I was planning to create a function and use it in the where clause like:
WHERE HMY IN (SELECT myFunction(#p))
However I could not manage it as I see I cannot execute a dynamic query in an SQL Function. Then I am stacked. Any idea at this point to handle this issue will be so appreciated.
Others have pointed out that the best fix for this would be a design change, and I agree with them. However, I'd also like to treat your question as academic and answer it in case any future readers ever have the same question in a use case where a design change wouldn't be possible/desirable.
I can think of two ways you might be able to do what you're attempting in a single select, as long as there are no other restrictions on what you can do that you haven't mentioned yet. To keep this brief, I'm just going to give you psuedo-code that can be adapted to your situation as well as those of future readers:
OPENQUERY (or OPENROWSET)
You can incorporate your code above into a stored procedure instead of a function, since stored procedures DO allow dynamic sql, unlike functions. Then the SELECT query in your app would be a SELECT from OPENQUERY(Execute Your Stored Prodedure).
UNION ALL possibilities.
I'm about 99% sure no one would ever want to use this, but I'm mentioning it to be as academically complete as I know how to be.
The second possibility would only work if there are a limited, known, number of possible queries that might be supported by your application. For instance, you can only get your Properties from either TableA, filtered by column1, or from TableB, filtered by Column2 and/or Column3.
Could be more than these possibilities, but it has to be a limited, known quantity, and the more possibilities, the more complex and lengthy the code will get.
But if that's the case, you can simply SELECT from a UNION ALL of every possible scenario, and make it so that only one of the SELECTs in the UNION ALL will return results.
For example:
SELECT ... FROM TableA WHERE Column1=fnGetValue(#p, 'Column1')
AND CHARINDEX('SELECT', #property) > 0
AND CHARINDEX('TableA', #property) > 0
AND CHARINDEX('Column1', #property) > 0
AND (Whatever other filters are needed to uniquely identify this case)
UNION ALL
SELECT
...
Note that fnGetValue() isn't a built-in function. You'd have to write it. It would parse the string in #p, find the location of 'Column1=', and return whatever value comes after it.
At the end of your UNION ALL, you'd need to add a last UNION ALL to a query that will handle the case where the user passed a comma-separated string instead of a query, but that's easy, because all the steps in your code where you populated table variables are unnecessary. You can simply do the final query like this:
WHERE NOT CHARINDEX('SELECT', #p) > 0
AND HMY IN (SELECT strval FROM dbo.StringSplit(#p, ','))
I'm pretty sure this possibility is way more work than its worth, but it is an example of how, in general, dynamic SQL can be replaced with regular SQL that simply covers every possible option you wanted the dynamic sql to be able to handle.
I have a procedure with arguments but its calling takes a very long time. I decided to check what is wrong with my query and came to the conclusion that the problem is Column In (SELECT [...]).
Both queries return 1500 rows.
First query: time 45 second
Second query: time 0 second
1.
declare #FILTER_OPTION int
declare #ID_DISTRIBUTOR type_int_value
declare #ID_DATA_TYPE type_bigint_value
declare #ID_AGGREGATION_TYPE type_int_value
set #FILTER_OPTION = 8
insert into #ID_DISTRIBUTOR values (19)
insert into #ID_DATA_TYPE values (30025)
insert into #ID_AGGREGATION_TYPE values (10)
SELECT * FROM dbo.[DATA] WHERE
[ID_DISTRIBUTOR] IN (select [VALUE] from #ID_DISTRIBUTOR)
AND [ID_DATA_TYPE] IN (select [VALUE] from #ID_DATA_TYPE)
AND [ID_AGGREGATION_TYPE] IN (select [VALUE] from #ID_AGGREGATION_TYPE)
2.
select * FROM dbo.[DATA] WHERE
[ID_DISTRIBUTOR] IN (19)
AND [ID_DATA_TYPE] IN (30025)
AND [ID_AGGREGATION_TYPE] IN (10)
Why this is happening?
How should I create a stored procedure that takes an array of arguments to use it quickly?
Edit:
Maybe it's a problem with indexes? indexes are created on these three columns.
For such a large performance difference, I would guess that you have one or more indexes. In particular, if you have an index on (ID_DISTRIBUTOR, ID_DATA_TYPE, ID_AGGREGATION_TYPE), then the second query can make use of the index. SQL Server can recognize that the IN is really = and the query is a simple lookup.
In the first case, SQL Server doesn't "know" that the subqueries really have only one row in them. That requires a different set of optimizations. In particular, the above index cannot be used, because the IN generally optimizes differently from =.
As for what to do. First, look at the execution plans so you can see the different between the two versions. Then, test the second version with more than one value in the IN lists.
If you can live with just one value for each comparison, then use = rather than IN.
First I apologize for the poor formatting here.
Second I should say up front that changing the table schema is not an option.
So I have a table defined as follows:
Pin varchar
OfferCode varchar
Pin will contain data such as:
abc,
abc123
OfferCode will contain data such as:
123
123~124~125
I need a query to check for a count of a Pin/OfferCode combination and when I say OfferCode, I mean an individual item delimited by the tilde.
For example if there is one row that looks like abc, 123 and another that looks like abc,123~124, and I search for a count of Pin=abc,OfferCode=123 I wand to get a count = 2.
Obviously I can do a similar query to this:
SELECT count(1) from MyTable (nolock) where OfferCode like '%' + #OfferCode + '%' and Pin = #Pin
using like here is very expensive and I'm hoping there may be a more efficient way.
I'm also looking into using a split string solution. I have a Table-valued function SplitString(string,delim) that will return table OutParam, but I'm not quite sure how to apply this to a table column vs a string. Would this even be worth wile pursuing? It seems like it would be much more expensive, but I'm unable to get a working solution to compare to the like solution.
Your like/% solution is open to a bug if you had offer codes other than 3 digits (if there was offer code 123 and 1234, searching for like '%123%' would return both, which is wrong). You can use your string function this way:
SELECT Pin, count(1)
FROM MyTable (nolock)
CROSS APPLY SplitString(OfferCode,'~') OutParam
WHERE OutParam.Value = #OfferCode and Pin = #Pin
GROUP BY Pin
If you have a relatively small table you can probably get away with this. If you are working with a large number of rows or encountering performance problems, it would be more effective to normalize it as RedFilter suggested.
using like here is very expensive and I'm hoping there may be a more efficient way
The efficient way is to normalize the schema and put each OfferCode in its own row.
Then your query is more like (although you may need to use an intersection table depending on your schema):
select count(*)
from MyTable
where OfferCode = #OfferCode
and Pin = #Pin
Here is one way to use like for this problem, which is standard for getting exact matches when searching delimited strings while avoiding the '%123%' matches '123' and '1234' problem:
-- Create some test data
declare #table table (
Pin varchar(10) not null
, OfferCode varchar(100) not null
)
insert into #table select 'abc', '123'
insert into #table select 'abc', '123~124'
-- Mock some proc params
declare #Pin varchar(10) = 'abc'
declare #OfferCode varchar(10) = '123'
-- Run the actual query
select count(*) as Matches
from #table
where Pin = #Pin
-- Append delimiters to find exact matches
and '~' + OfferCode + '~' like '%~' + #OfferCode + '~%'
As you can see, we're adding the delimiters to the searched string, and also the search string in order to find matches, thus avoiding the bugs mentioned by other answers.
I highly doubt that a string splitting function will yield better performance over like, but it may be worth a test or two using some of the more recently suggested methods. If you still have unacceptable performance, you have a few options:
Updated:
Try an index on OfferCode (or on a computed persisted column of '~' + OfferCode + '~'). Contrary to the myth that SQL Server won't use an index with like and wildcards, this might actually help.
Check out full text search.
Create a normalized version of this table using a string splitter. Use this table to run your counts. Update this table according to some schedule or event (trigger, etc.).
If you have some standard search terms, pre-calculate the counts for these and store them on some regular basis.
Actually, the LIKE condition is going to have much less cost than doing any sort of string manipulation and comparison.
http://www.simple-talk.com/sql/performance/the-seven-sins-against-tsql-performance/
I have an SQL query that takes these parameters:
#SearchFor nvarchar(200) = null
,#SearchInLat Decimal(18,15) = null
,#SearchInLng Decimal(18,15) = null
,#SearchActivity int = null
,#SearchOffers bit = null
,#StartRow int
,#EndRow int
The variables #SearchFor, #SearchActivity, #SearchOffers can be either null or not null. #SearchInLat and #SearchInLng must both null, or both have values.
I'm not going to post the whole query as its boring and hard to read, but the WHERE clause is shaped like this:
( -- filter by activity --
(#SearchActivity IS NULL)
OR (#SearchActivity = Activities.ActivityID)
)
AND ( -- filter by Location --
(#SearchInLat is NULL AND #SearchInLng is NULL)
OR ( ... )
)
AND ( -- filter by activity --
#SearchActivity is NULL
OR ( ... )
)
AND ( -- filter by has offers --
#SearchOffers is NULL
OR ( ... )
)
AND (
... -- more stuff
)
I have read that this is a bad way to structure a query - that SqlServer has trouble working out an efficient execution plan with lots of clauses like this, so I'm looking for other ways to do it.
I see two ways of doing this:
Construct the query as a string in my client application, so that the WHERE clause only contains filters for the relevant parameters. The problem with this is it means not accessing the database through stored procedures, as everything else is at the moment.
Change the stored procedure so that it examines which arguments are null, and executes child procedures depending on which arguments it is passed. The problem here is that it would mean repeating myself a lot in the definition of the procs, and thus be harder to maintain.
What should I do? Or should I just keep on as I am currently doing? I have OPTION (RECOMPILE) set for the procedures, but I've heard that this doesn't work right in Server 2005. Also, I plan to add more parameters to this proc, so I want to make sure whatever solution I have is fairly scaleable.
The answer is to use DynamicSQL (be it in the client, or in an SP using sp_executesql), but the reason why is long, so here's a link...
Dynamic Search Conditions in T-SQL
A very short version is that one-size does not fit all. And as the optimiser creates one plan for one query, it's slow. So the solution is to continue using parameterised queries (for execution plan caching), but to have many queries, for the different types of search that can happen.
Perhaps an alternative might be to perform several separate select statements?
e.g.
( -- filter by activity --
if #SearchActivity is not null
insert into tmpTable (<columns>)
select *
from myTable
where (#SearchActivity = Activities.ActivityID)
)
( -- filter by Location --
if #SearchInLat is not null and #SearchInLng is not null
insert into tmpTable (<columns>)
select *
from myTable
where (latCol = #SearchInLat AND lngCol = #SearchInLng)
etc...
then select the temp table to return the final result set.
I'm not sure how this would work with respect to the optimiser and the query plans, but each individual select would be very straightforward and could utilise the indexes that you would have created on each column which should make them very quick.
Depending on your requirements it also may make sense to create a primary key on the temp table to allow you to join to it on each select (to avoid duplicates).
Look at the performance first, like others have said.
If possible, you can use IF clauses to simplify the queries based on what parameters are provided.
You could also use functions or views to encapsulate some of the code if you find you are repeating it often.
The DBA here at work is trying to turn my straightforward stored procs into a dynamic sql monstrosity. Admittedly, my stored procedure might not be as fast as they'd like, but I can't help but believe there's an adequate way to do what is basically a conditional join.
Here's an example of my stored proc:
SELECT
*
FROM
table
WHERE
(
#Filter IS NULL OR table.FilterField IN
(SELECT Value FROM dbo.udfGetTableFromStringList(#Filter, ','))
)
The UDF turns a comma delimited list of filters (for example, bank names) into a table.
Obviously, having the filter condition in the where clause isn't ideal. Any suggestions of a better way to conditionally join based on a stored proc parameter are welcome. Outside of that, does anyone have any suggestions for or against the dynamic sql approach?
Thanks
You could INNER JOIN on the table returned from the UDF instead of using it in an IN clause
Your UDF might be something like
CREATE FUNCTION [dbo].[csl_to_table] (#list varchar(8000) )
RETURNS #list_table TABLE ([id] INT)
AS
BEGIN
DECLARE #index INT,
#start_index INT,
#id INT
SELECT #index = 1
SELECT #start_index = 1
WHILE #index <= DATALENGTH(#list)
BEGIN
IF SUBSTRING(#list,#index,1) = ','
BEGIN
SELECT #id = CAST(SUBSTRING(#list, #start_index, #index - #start_index ) AS INT)
INSERT #list_table ([id]) VALUES (#id)
SELECT #start_index = #index + 1
END
SELECT #index = #index + 1
END
SELECT #id = CAST(SUBSTRING(#list, #start_index, #index - #start_index ) AS INT)
INSERT #list_table ([id]) VALUES (#id)
RETURN
END
and then INNER JOIN on the ids in the returned table. This UDF assumes that you're passing in INTs in your comma separated list
EDIT:
In order to handle a null or no value being passed in for #filter, the most straightforward way that I can see would be to execute a different query within the sproc based on the #filter value. I'm not certain how this affects the cached execution plan (will update if someone can confirm) or if the end result would be faster than your original sproc, I think that the answer here would lie in testing.
Looks like the rewrite of the code is being addressed in another answer, but a good argument against dynamic SQL in a stored procedure is that it breaks the ownership chain.
That is, when you call a stored procedure normally, it executes under the permissions of the stored procedure owner EXCEPT when executing dynamic SQL with the execute command,for the context of the dynamic SQL it reverts back to the permissions of the caller, which may be undesirable depending on your security model.
In the end, you are probably better off compromising and rewriting it to address the concerns of the DBA while avoiding dynamic SQL.
I am not sure I understand your aversion to dynamic SQL. Perhaps it is that your UDF has nicely abstracted away some of the messyness of the problem, and you feel dynamic SQL will bring that back. Well, consider that most if not all DAL or ORM tools will rely extensively on dynamic SQL, and I think your problem could be restated as "how can I nicely abstract away the messyness of dynamic SQL".
For my part, dynamic SQL gives me exactly the query I want, and subsequently the performance and behavior I am looking for.
I don't see anything wrong with your approach. Rewriting it to use dynamic SQL to execute two different queries based on whether #Filter is null seems silly to me, honestly.
The only potential downside I can see of what you have is that it could cause some difficulty in determining a good execution plan. But if the performance is good enough as it is, there's no reason to change it.
No matter what you do (and the answers here all have good points), be sure to compare the performance and execution plans of each option.
Sometimes, hand optimization is simply pointless if it impacts your code maintainability and really produces no difference in how the code executes.
I would first simply look at changing the IN to a simple LEFT JOIN with NULL check (this doesn't get rid of your udf, but it should only get called once):
SELECT *
FROM table
LEFT JOIN dbo.udfGetTableFromStringList(#Filter, ',') AS filter
ON table.FilterField = filter.Value
WHERE #Filter IS NULL
OR filter.Value IS NOT NULL
It appears that you are trying to write a a single query to deal with two scenarios:
1. #filter = "x,y,z"
2. #filter IS NULL
To optimise scenario 2, I would INNER JOIN on the UDF, rather than use an IN clause...
SELECT * FROM table
INNER JOIN dbo.udfGetTableFromStringList(#Filter, ',') AS filter
ON table.FilterField = filter.Value
To optimise for scenario 2, I would NOT try to adapt the existing query, instead I would deliberately keep those cases separate, either an IF statement or a UNION and simulate the IF with a WHERE clause...
TSQL IF
IF (#filter IS NULL)
SELECT * FROM table
ELSE
SELECT * FROM table
INNER JOIN dbo.udfGetTableFromStringList(#Filter, ',') AS filter
ON table.FilterField = filter.Value
UNION to Simulate IF
SELECT * FROM table
INNER JOIN dbo.udfGetTableFromStringList(#Filter, ',') AS filter
ON table.FilterField = filter.Value
UNION ALL
SELECT * FROM table WHERE #filter IS NULL
The advantage of such designs is that each case is simple, and determining which is simple is it self simple. Combining the two into a single query, however, leads to compromises such as LEFT JOINs and so introduces significant performance loss to each.