I need a couple of computed columns that contain count totals (indexed columns). Do you think it is better to use a computed column in a view or add extra columns to the table that will store the totals? Adding extra columns would probably mean using triggers to keep the count totals correct.
DB is MS SQL 2008 R2.
You can use a indexed view to get the performance of stored columns at no maintenance effort.
It depends.
If the tables change a lot but you rarely need the counts, a view is better. The question "view vs. computed columns" is one of DB design. If you can't change the original table or the DBMS doesn't support computed columns, use a view. If you can change the table definition, computed columns can be better but they also clutter the definition and make select * slower if you don't always need this data.
If the table rarely changes but you need those numbers a lot, use extra columns with triggers to avoid performance problems.
Related
I have some order related tables. Order, OrderLines, OrderWarehouse etc.
The Orders table contains some computed columns (TotalNetPrice, TotalVATPrice etc).
I need them to be persisted columns as I need to include them in some indexes.
My question:
The columns themselves call functions which take the order tables Id field and return the calculated value.
Is there a way of forcing the values to be recalculated when ANY of the Order related tables change (as they all effect the calculations)?
Edit: (...without writing triggers)
I am not sure about persisting the computed column while allowing it to recalculate whenever one of the variables are changed, however I would almost approach this one using a View. when you select from the view it almost acts like a table and it could have your computed columns updated on the fly, however when you need to save new data you would save it to the originating column rather than the view.
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.
I want the computed column to store count totals from another table, how would I do it? (would the following work)
create table sample
(
column1 AS (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM table2) PERSISTED
)
For SQL Server you could potentially do this with an Indexed View.
Those present a host of other restrictions, though, so be sure the value is enough to justify the increased effort in maintenance.
One of the handier aspects of indexed views is that you don't need to query them directly to get the benefits - if the optimizer detects you querying an aggregate that is indexed it'll make use of it "behind the scenes".
Per MSDN:
A computed column is computed from an expression that can use other columns in the same table. The expression can be a noncomputed column name, constant, function, and any combination of these connected by one or more operators. The expression cannot be a subquery.
I'm considering designing a table with a computed column in Microsoft SQL Server 2008. It would be a simple calculation like (ISNULL(colA,(0)) + ISNULL(colB,(0))) - like a total. Our application uses Entity Framework 4.
I'm not completely familiar with computed columns so I'm curious what others have to say about when they are appropriate to be used as opposed to other mechanisms which achieve the same result, such as views, or a computed Entity column.
Are there any reasons why I wouldn't want to use a computed column in a table?
If I do use a computed column, should it be persisted or not? I've read about different performance results using persisted, not persisted, with indexed and non indexed computed columns here. Given that my computation seems simple, I'm inclined to say that it shouldn't be persisted.
In my experience, they're most useful/appropriate when they can be used in other places like an index or a check constraint, which sometimes requires that the column be persisted (physically stored in the table). For further details, see Computed Columns and Creating Indexes on Computed Columns.
If your computed column is not persisted, it will be calculated every time you access it in e.g. a SELECT. If the data it's based on changes frequently, that might be okay.
If the data doesn't change frequently, e.g. if you have a computed column to turn your numeric OrderID INT into a human-readable ORD-0001234 or something like that, then definitely make your computed column persisted - in that case, the value will be computed and physically stored on disk, and any subsequent access to it is like reading any other column on your table - no re-computation over and over again.
We've also come to use (and highly appreciate!) computed columns to extract certain pieces of information from XML columns and surfacing them on the table as separate (persisted) columns. That makes querying against those items just much more efficient than constantly having to poke into the XML with XQuery to retrieve the information. For this use case, I think persisted computed columns are a great way to speed up your queries!
Let's say you have a computed column called ProspectRanking that is the result of the evaluation of the values in several columns: ReadingLevel, AnnualIncome, Gender, OwnsBoat, HasPurchasedPremiumGasolineRecently.
Let's also say that many decentralized departments in your large mega-corporation use this data, and they all have their own programmers on staff, but you want the ProspectRanking algorithms to be managed centrally by IT at corporate headquarters, who maintain close communication with the VP of Marketing. Let's also say that the algorithm is frequently tweaked to reflect some changing conditions, like the interest rate or the rate of inflation.
You'd want the computation to be part of the back-end database engine and not in the client consumers of the data, if managing the front-end clients would be like herding cats.
If you can avoid herding cats, do so.
Make Sure You Are Querying Only Columns You Need
I have found using computed columns to be very useful, even if not persisted, especially in an MVVM model where you are only getting the columns you need for that specific view. So long as you are not putting logic that is less performant in the computed-column-code you should be fine. The bottom line is for those computed (not persisted columns) are going to have to be looked for anyways if you are using that data.
When it Comes to Performance
For performance you narrow your query to the rows and the computed columns. If you were putting an index on the computed column (if that is allowed Checked and it is not allowed) I would be cautious because the execution engine might decide to use that index and hurt performance by computing those columns. Most of the time you are just getting a name or description from a join table so I think this is fine.
Don't Brute Force It
The only time it wouldn't make sense to use a lot of computed columns is if you are using a single view-model class that captures all the data in all columns including those computed. In this case, your performance is going to degrade based on the number of computed columns and number of rows in your database that you are selecting from.
Computed Columns for ORM Works Great.
An object relational mapper such as EntityFramework allow you to query a subset of the columns in your query. This works especially well using LINQ to EntityFramework. By using the computed columns you don't have to clutter your ORM class with mapped views for each of the model types.
var data = from e in db.Employees
select new NarrowEmployeeView { Id, Name };
Only the Id and Name are queried.
var data = from e in db.Employees
select new WiderEmployeeView { Id, Name, DepartmentName };
Assuming the DepartmentName is a computed column you then get your computed executed for the latter query.
Peformance Profiler
If you use a peformance profiler and filter against sql queries you can see that in fact the computed columns are ignored when not in the select statement.
Computed columns can be appropriate if you plan to query by that information.
For instance, if you have a dataset that you are going to present in the UI. Having a computed column will allow you to page the view while still allowing sorting and filtering on the computed column. if that computed column is in code only, then it will be much more difficult to reasonably sort or filter the dataset for display based on that value.
Computed column is a business rule and it's more appropriate to implement it on the client and not in the storage. Database is for storing/retrieving data, not for business rule processing. The fact that it can do something doesn't mean you should do it that way. You too you are free to jump from tour Eiffel but it will be a bad decision :)
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