In an ad-hoc query using Select ColumnName is better, but does it matter in a Stored Procedure after it's saved in the plan guide?
Always explicitly state the columns, even in a stored procedure. SELECT * is considered bad practice.
For instance you don't know the column order that will be returned, some applications may be relying on a specific column order.
I.e. the application code may look something like:
Id = Column[0]; // bad design
If you've used SELECT * ID may no longer be the first column and cause the application to crash. Also, if the database is modified and an additional 5 fields have been added you are returning additional fields that may not be relevant.
These topics always elicit blanket statements like ALWAYS do this or NEVER do that, but the reality is, like with most things it depends on the situation. I'll concede that it's typically good practice to list out columns, but whether or not it's bad practice to use SELECT * depends on the situation.
Consider a variety of tables that all have a common field or two, for example we have a number of tables that have different layouts, but they all have 'access_dt' and 'host_ip'. These tables aren't typically used together, but there are instances when suspicious activity prompts a full report of all activity. These aren't common, and they are manually reviewed, as such, they are well served by a stored procedure that generates a report by looping through every log table and using SELECT * leveraging the common fields between all tables.
It would be a waste of time to list out fields in this situation.
Again, I agree that it's typically good practice to list out fields, but it's not always bad practice to use SELECT *.
Edit: Tried to clarify example a bit.
It's a best practice in general but if you actually do need all the column, you'd better use the quickly read "SELECT *".
The important thing is to avoid retreiving data you don't need.
It is considered bad practice in situations like stored procedures when you are querying large datasets with table scans. You want to avoid using table scans because it causes a hit to the performance of the query. It's also a matter of readability.
SOme other food for thought. If your query has any joins at all you are returning data you don't need because the data in the join columns is the same. Further if the table is later changed to add some things you don't need (such as columns for audit purposes) you may be returning data to the user that they should not be seeing.
Nobody has mentioned the case when you need ALL columns from a table, even if the columns change, e.g. when archiving table rows as XML. I agree one should not use "SELECT *" as a replacement for "I need all the columns that currently exist in the table," just out of laziness or for readability. There needs to be a valid reason. It could be essential when one needs "all the columns that could exist in the table."
Also, how about when creating "wrapper" views for tables?
I've heard that SELECT * is generally bad practice to use when writing SQL commands because it is more efficient to SELECT columns you specifically need.
If I need to SELECT every column in a table, should I use
SELECT * FROM TABLE
or
SELECT column1, colum2, column3, etc. FROM TABLE
Does the efficiency really matter in this case? I'd think SELECT * would be more optimal internally if you really need all of the data, but I'm saying this with no real understanding of database.
I'm curious to know what the best practice is in this case.
UPDATE: I probably should specify that the only situation where I would really want to do a SELECT * is when I'm selecting data from one table where I know all columns will always need to be retrieved, even when new columns are added.
Given the responses I've seen however, this still seems like a bad idea and SELECT * should never be used for a lot more technical reasons that I ever though about.
One reason that selecting specific columns is better is that it raises the probability that SQL Server can access the data from indexes rather than querying the table data.
Here's a post I wrote about it: The real reason select queries are bad index coverage
It's also less fragile to change, since any code that consumes the data will be getting the same data structure regardless of changes you make to the table schema in the future.
Given your specification that you are selecting all columns, there is little difference at this time. Realize, however, that database schemas do change. If you use SELECT * you are going to get any new columns added to the table, even though in all likelihood, your code is not prepared to use or present that new data. This means that you are exposing your system to unexpected performance and functionality changes.
You may be willing to dismiss this as a minor cost, but realize that columns that you don't need still must be:
Read from database
Sent across the network
Marshalled into your process
(for ADO-type technologies) Saved in a data-table in-memory
Ignored and discarded / garbage-collected
Item #1 has many hidden costs including eliminating some potential covering index, causing data-page loads (and server cache thrashing), incurring row / page / table locks that might be otherwise avoided.
Balance this against the potential savings of specifying the columns versus an * and the only potential savings are:
Programmer doesn't need to revisit the SQL to add columns
The network-transport of the SQL is smaller / faster
SQL Server query parse / validation time
SQL Server query plan cache
For item 1, the reality is that you're going to add / change code to use any new column you might add anyway, so it is a wash.
For item 2, the difference is rarely enough to push you into a different packet-size or number of network packets. If you get to the point where SQL statement transmission time is the predominant issue, you probably need to reduce the rate of statements first.
For item 3, there is NO savings as the expansion of the * has to happen anyway, which means consulting the table(s) schema anyway. Realistically, listing the columns will incur the same cost because they have to be validated against the schema. In other words this is a complete wash.
For item 4, when you specify specific columns, your query plan cache could get larger but only if you are dealing with different sets of columns (which is not what you've specified). In this case, you do want different cache entries because you want different plans as needed.
So, this all comes down, because of the way you specified the question, to the issue resiliency in the face of eventual schema modifications. If you're burning this schema into ROM (it happens), then an * is perfectly acceptable.
However, my general guideline is that you should only select the columns you need, which means that sometimes it will look like you are asking for all of them, but DBAs and schema evolution mean that some new columns might appear that could greatly affect the query.
My advice is that you should ALWAYS SELECT specific columns. Remember that you get good at what you do over and over, so just get in the habit of doing it right.
If you are wondering why a schema might change without code changing, think in terms of audit logging, effective/expiration dates and other similar things that get added by DBAs for systemically for compliance issues. Another source of underhanded changes is denormalizations for performance elsewhere in the system or user-defined fields.
You should only select the columns that you need. Even if you need all columns it's still better to list column names so that the sql server does not have to query system table for columns.
Also, your application might break if someone adds columns to the table. Your program will get columns it didn't expect too and it might not know how to process them.
Apart from this if the table has a binary column then the query will be much more slower and use more network resources.
There are four big reasons that select * is a bad thing:
The most significant practical reason is that it forces the user to magically know the order in which columns will be returned. It's better to be explicit, which also protects you against the table changing, which segues nicely into...
If a column name you're using changes, it's better to catch it early (at the point of the SQL call) rather than when you're trying to use the column that no longer exists (or has had its name changed, etc.)
Listing the column names makes your code far more self-documented, and so probably more readable.
If you're transferring over a network (or even if you aren't), columns you don't need are just waste.
Specifying the column list is usually the best option because your application won't be affected if someone adds/inserts a column to the table.
Specifying column names is definitely faster - for the server. But if
performance is not a big issue (for example, this is a website content database with hundreds, maybe thousands - but not millions - of rows in each table); AND
your job is to create many small, similar applications (e.g. public-facing content-managed websites) using a common framework, rather than creating a complex one-off application; AND
flexibility is important (lots of customization of the db schema for each site);
then you're better off sticking with SELECT *. In our framework, heavy use of SELECT * allows us to introduce a new website managed content field to a table, giving it all of the benefits of the CMS (versioning, workflow/approvals, etc.), while only touching the code at a couple of points, instead of a couple dozen points.
I know the DB gurus are going to hate me for this - go ahead, vote me down - but in my world, developer time is scarce and CPU cycles are abundant, so I adjust accordingly what I conserve and what I waste.
SELECT * is a bad practice even if the query is not sent over a network.
Selecting more data than you need makes the query less efficient - the server has to read and transfer extra data, so it takes time and creates unnecessary load on the system (not only the network, as others mentioned, but also disk, CPU etc.). Additionally, the server is unable to optimize the query as well as it might (for example, use covering index for the query).
After some time your table structure might change, so SELECT * will return a different set of columns. So, your application might get a dataset of unexpected structure and break somewhere downstream. Explicitly stating the columns guarantees that you either get a dataset of known structure, or get a clear error on the database level (like 'column not found').
Of course, all this doesn't matter much for a small and simple system.
Lots of good reasons answered here so far, here's another one that hasn't been mentioned.
Explicitly naming the columns will help you with maintenance down the road. At some point you're going to be making changes or troubleshooting, and find yourself asking "where the heck is that column used".
If you've got the names listed explicitly, then finding every reference to that column -- through all your stored procedures, views, etc -- is simple. Just dump a CREATE script for your DB schema, and text search through it.
Performance wise, SELECT with specific columns can be faster (no need to read in all the data). If your query really does use ALL the columns, SELECT with explicit parameters is still preferred. Any speed difference will be basically unnoticeable and near constant-time. One day your schema will change, and this is good insurance to prevent problems due to this.
definitely defining the columns, because SQL Server will not have to do a lookup on the columns to pull them. If you define the columns, then SQL can skip that step.
It's always better to specify the columns you need, if you think about it one time, SQL doesn't have to think "wtf is *" every time you query. On top of that, someone later may add columns to the table that you actually do not need in your query and you'll be better off in that case by specifying all of your columns.
The problem with "select *" is the possibility of bringing data you don't really need. During the actual database query, the selected columns don't really add to the computation. What's really "heavy" is the data transport back to your client, and any column that you don't really need is just wasting network bandwidth and adding to the time you're waiting for you query to return.
Even if you do use all the columns brought from a "select *...", that's just for now. If in the future you change the table/view layout and add more columns, you'll start bring those in your selects even if you don't need them.
Another point in which a "select *" statement is bad is on view creation. If you create a view using "select *" and later add columns to your table, the view definition and the data returned won't match, and you'll need to recompile your views in order for them to work again.
I know that writing a "select *" is tempting, 'cause I really don't like to manually specify all the fields on my queries, but when your system start to evolve, you'll see that it's worth to spend this extra time/effort in specifying the fields rather than spending much more time and effort removing bugs on your views or optimizing your app.
While explicitly listing columns is good for performance, don't get crazy.
So if you use all the data, try SELECT * for simplicity (imagine having many columns and doing a JOIN... query may get awful). Then - measure. Compare with query with column names listed explicitly.
Don't speculate about performance, measure it!
Explicit listing helps most when you have some column containing big data (like body of a post or article), and don't need it in given query. Then by not returning it in your answer DB server can save time, bandwidth, and disk throughput. Your query result will also be smaller, which is good for any query cache.
You should really be selecting only the fields you need, and only the required number, i.e.
SELECT Field1, Field2 FROM SomeTable WHERE --(constraints)
Outside of the database, dynamic queries run the risk of injection attacks and malformed data. Typically you get round this using stored procedures or parameterised queries. Also (although not really that much of a problem) the server has to generate an execution plan each time a dynamic query is executed.
It is NOT faster to use explicit field names versus *, if and only if, you need to get the data for all fields.
Your client software shouldn't depend on the order of the fields returned, so that's a nonsense too.
And it's possible (though unlikely) that you need to get all fields using * because you don't yet know what fields exist (think very dynamic database structure).
Another disadvantage of using explicit field names is that if there are many of them and they're long then it makes reading the code and/or the query log more difficult.
So the rule should be: if you need all the fields, use *, if you need only a subset, name them explicitly.
The result is too huge. It is slow to generate and send the result from the SQL engine to the client.
The client side, being a generic programming environment, is not and should not be designed to filter and process the results (e.g. the WHERE clause, ORDER clause), as the number of rows can be huge (e.g. tens of millions of rows).
Naming each column you expect to get in your application also ensures your application won't break if someone alters the table, as long as your columns are still present (in any order).
Performance wise I have seen comments that both are equal. but usability aspect there are some +'s and -'s
When you use a (select *) in a query and if some one alter the table and add new fields which do not need for the previous query it is an unnecessary overhead. And what if the newly added field is a blob or an image field??? your query response time is going to be really slow then.
In other hand if you use a (select col1,col2,..) and if the table get altered and added new fields and if those fields are needed in the result set, you always need to edit your select query after table alteration.
But I suggest always to use select col1,col2,... in your queries and alter the query if the table get altered later...
This is an old post, but still valid. For reference, I have a very complicated query consisting of:
12 tables
6 Left joins
9 inner joins
108 total columns on all 12 tables
I only need 54 columns
A 4 column Order By clause
When I execute the query using Select *, it takes an average of 2869ms.
When I execute the query using Select , it takes an average of 1513ms.
Total rows returned is 13,949.
There is no doubt selecting column names means faster performance over Select *
Select is equally efficient (in terms of velocity) if you use * or columns.
The difference is about memory, not velocity. When you select several columns SQL Server must allocate memory space to serve you the query, including all data for all the columns that you've requested, even if you're only using one of them.
What does matter in terms of performance is the excecution plan which in turn depends heavily on your WHERE clause and the number of JOIN, OUTER JOIN, etc ...
For your question just use SELECT *. If you need all the columns there's no performance difference.
It depends on the version of your DB server, but modern versions of SQL can cache the plan either way. I'd say go with whatever is most maintainable with your data access code.
One reason it's better practice to spell out exactly which columns you want is because of possible future changes in the table structure.
If you are reading in data manually using an index based approach to populate a data structure with the results of your query, then in the future when you add/remove a column you will have headaches trying to figure out what went wrong.
As to what is faster, I'll defer to others for their expertise.
As with most problems, it depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to create a db grid that will allow all columns in any table, then "Select *" is the answer. However, if you will only need certain columns and adding or deleting columns from the query is done infrequently, then specify them individually.
It also depends on the amount of data you want to transfer from the server. If one of the columns is a defined as memo, graphic, blob, etc. and you don't need that column, you'd better not use "Select *" or you'll get a whole bunch of data you don't want and your performance could suffer.
To add on to what everyone else has said, if all of your columns that you are selecting are included in an index, your result set will be pulled from the index instead of looking up additional data from SQL.
SELECT * is necessary if one wants to obtain metadata such as the number of columns.
Gonna get slammed for this, but I do a select * because almost all my data is retrived from SQL Server Views that precombine needed values from multiple tables into a single easy to access View.
I do then want all the columns from the view which won't change when new fields are added to underlying tables. This has the added benefit of allowing me to change where data comes from. FieldA in the View may at one time be calculated and then I may change it to be static. Either way the View supplies FieldA to me.
The beauty of this is that it allows my data layer to get datasets. It then passes them to my BL which can then create objects from them. My main app only knows and interacts with the objects. I even allow my objects to self-create when passed a datarow.
Of course, I'm the only developer, so that helps too :)
What everyone above said, plus:
If you're striving for readable maintainable code, doing something like:
SELECT foo, bar FROM widgets;
is instantly readable and shows intent. If you make that call you know what you're getting back. If widgets only has foo and bar columns, then selecting * means you still have to think about what you're getting back, confirm the order is mapped correctly, etc. However, if widgets has more columns but you're only interested in foo and bar, then your code gets messy when you query for a wildcard and then only use some of what's returned.
And remember if you have an inner join by definition you do not need all the columns as the data in the join columns is repeated.
It's not like listing columns in SQl server is hard or even time-consuming. You just drag them over from the object browser (you can get all in one go by dragging from the word columns). To put a permanent performance hit on your system (becasue this can reduce the use of indexes and becasue sending unneeded data over the network is costly) and make it more likely that you will have unexpected problems as the database changes (sometimes columns get added that you do not want the user to see for instance) just to save less than a minute of development time is short-sighted and unprofessional.
Absolutely define the columns you want to SELECT every time. There is no reason not to and the performance improvement is well worth it.
They should never have given the option to "SELECT *"
If you need every column then just use SELECT * but remember that the order could potentially change so when you are consuming the results access them by name and not by index.
I would ignore comments about how * needs to go get the list - chances are parsing and validating named columns is equal to the processing time if not more. Don't prematurely optimize ;-)
A similar question has been asked, but since it always depends, I'm asking for my specific situation separately.
I have a web-site page that shows some data that comes from a database, and to generate the data from that database I have to do some fairly complex multiple joins queries.
The data is being updated once a day (nightly).
I would like to pre-generate the data for the said view to speed up the page access.
For that I am creating a table that contains exact data I need.
Question: for my situation, is it reasonable to do complete table wipe followed by insert? or should I do update,insert?
SQL wise seems like DELETE + INSERT will be easier (INSERT part is a single SQL expression).
EDIT: RDBMS: MS SQL Server 2008 Ent
TRUNCATE will be faster than delete, so if you need to empty a table do that instead
You didn't specify your RDBMS vendor but some of them also have MERGE/UPSERT commands This enables you do update the table if the data exists and insert if it doesn't
It partly depends on how the data is accessed. If you have a period of time with no (or very few) users accessing it, then there won't be much impact on the data disappearing (between the DELETE and the completion of the INSERT) for a short while.
Have you considered using a materialized view (MSSQL calls them indexed views) instead of doing it manually? This could also have other performance benefits as an indexed view gives the query optimizer more choices when its constructing execution plans for other queries that reference the table(s) in the view.
It depends on the size of the table and the recovery model on the database. If you are deleting many hundreds of thousands of records and reinstating them vs updating a small batch of a few hundred and inserting tens of rows, it will add an unnecessary size to your transaction logs. However you could use TRUNCATE to get around this as it won't affect the transaction log.
Do you have the option of a MERGE/UPSERT? If you're using MS-SQL you can use CROSS APPLY to do something similar if you don't.
One approach to handling this type of problem is to insert into new table, then do a table Rename. This will insure that all new data is present at the same time.
What if some data that was present yesterdays is not anymore? Delete may be safer or you could end up deleting some records anyway.
And in the end it doesnt really matter which way you go.
Unless on the case #kevinw mentioned
Although I fully agree with SQLMenace's answer I do would like to point out that MERGE does NOT remove unneeded records ! If you're sure that your new data will be a super-set of the existing data, then MERGE is great, otherwise you'll either need to make sure that you delete any superfluous records later on, or use the TRUNCATE + INSERT method ...
(Personally I'm still a fan of the latter as it usually is quite fast, just make sure to drop all indexes/unique constraints upfront and rebuild them one by one. This has the benefit of the INSERT transaction being smaller and the index-adding being done in (smaller) transactions again later on). (**)
(**: yes, this might be tricky on live system, but then again he already mentioned this was done during some kind of overnight anyway, I'm extrapolating there is no user-access at that time)
I recently started working at a company with an enormous "enterprisey" application. At my last job, I designed the database, but here we have a whole Database Architecture department that I'm not part of.
One of the stranger things in their database is that they have a bunch of views which, instead of having the user provide the date ranges they want to see, join with a (global temporary) table "TMP_PARM_RANG" with a start and end date. Every time the main app starts processing a request, the first thing it does it "DELETE FROM TMP_PARM_RANG;" then an insert into it.
This seems like a bizarre way of doing things, and not very safe, but everybody else here seems ok with it. Is this normal, or is my uneasiness valid?
Update I should mention that they use transactions and per-client locks, so it is guarded against most concurrency problems. Also, there are literally dozens if not hundreds of views that all depend on TMP_PARM_RANG.
Do I understand this correctly?
There is a view like this:
SELECT * FROM some_table, tmp_parm_rang
WHERE some_table.date_column BETWEEN tmp_parm_rang.start_date AND tmp_parm_rang.end_date;
Then in some frontend a user inputs a date range, and the application does the following:
Deletes all existing rows from
TMP_PARM_RANG
Inserts a new row into
TMP_PARM_RANG with the user's values
Selects all rows from the view
I wonder if the changes to TMP_PARM_RANG are committed or rolled back, and if so when? Is it a temporary table or a normal table? Basically, depending on the answers to these questions, the process may not be safe for multiple users to execute in parallel. One hopes that if this were the case they would have already discovered that and addressed it, but who knows?
Even if it is done in a thread-safe way, making changes to the database for simple query operations doesn't make a lot of sense. These DELETEs and INSERTs are generating redo/undo (or whatever the equivalent is in a non-Oracle database) which is completely unnecessary.
A simple and more normal way of accomplishing the same goal would be to execute this query, binding the user's inputs to the query parameters:
SELECT * FROM some_table WHERE some_table.date_column BETWEEN ? AND ?;
If the database is oracle, it's possibly a global temporary table; every session sees its own version of the table and inserts/deletes won't affect other users.
There must be some business reason for this table. I've seen views with dates hardcoded that were actually a partioned view and they were using dates as the partioning field. I've also seen joining on a table like when dealing with daylights saving times imagine a view that returned all activity which occured during DST. And none of these things would ever delete and insert into the table...that's just odd
So either there is a deeper reason for this that needs to be dug out, or it's just something that at the time seemed like a good idea but why it was done that way has been lost as tribal knowledge.
Personally, I'm guessing that it would be a pretty strange occurance. And from what you are saying two methods calling the process at the same time could be very interesting.
Typically date ranges are done as filters on a view, and not driven by outside values stored in other tables.
The only justification I could see for this is if there was a multi-step process, that was only executed once at a time and the dates are needed for multiple operations, across multiple stored procedures.
I suppose it would let them support multiple ranges. For example, they can return all dates between 1/1/2008 and 1/1/2009 AND 1/1/2006 and 1/1/2007 to compare 2006 data to 2008 data. You couldn't do that with a single pair of bound parameters. Also, I don't know how Oracle does it's query plan caching for views, but perhaps it has something to do with that? With the date columns being checked as part of the view the server could cache a plan that always assumes the dates will be checked.
Just throwing out some guesses here :)
Also, you wrote:
I should mention that they use
transactions and per-client locks, so
it is guarded against most concurrency
problems.
While that may guard against data consistency problems due to concurrency, it hurts when it comes to performance problems due to concurrency.
Do they also add one -in the application- to generate the next unique value for the primary key?
It seems that the concept of shared state eludes these folks, or the reason for the shared state eludes us.
That sounds like a pretty weird algorithm to me. I wonder how it handles concurrency - is it wrapped in a transaction?
Sounds to me like someone just wasn't sure how to write their WHERE clause.
The views are probably used as temp tables. In SQL Server we can use a table variable or a temp table (# / ##) for this purpose. Although creating views are not recommended by experts, I have created lots of them for my SSRS projects because the tables I am working on do not reference one another (NO FK's, seriously!). I have to workaround deficiencies in the database design; that's why I am using views a lot.
With the global temporary table GTT approach that you comment is being used here, the method is certainly safe with regard to a multiuser system, so no problem there. If this is Oracle then I'd want to check that the system either is using an appropriate level of dynamic sampling so that the GTT is joined appropriately, or that a call to DBMS_STATS is made to supply statistics on the GTT.