How costly would SELECT One, Two, Three be compared to SELECT One, Two, Three, ..... N-Column
If you have a sql query that has two or three tables joined together and is retrieving 100 rows of data, does performance have anything to say whether I should be selecting only the number of columns I need? Or should I write a query that just yanks all the columns..
If possible, could you help me understand what aspects of a query would be relatively costly compared to one another? Is it the joins? is it the large number of records pulled? is it the number of columns in the select statement?
Would 1 record vs 10 record vs 100 record matter?
As an extremely generalized version of ranking those factors you mention in terms of performance penalty and occurrence in the queries you write, I would say:
Joins - Especially when joining on tables with no indexes for the fields you're joining on and/or with tables that have a very large amount of data.
# of Rows / Amount of Data - Again, indexes mitigate this quite a bit, just make sure you have the right ones.
# of Fields - I would say the # of fields in the SELECT clause impact performance the least in most situations.
I would say any performance-driving property is always coupled with how much data you have - sure a join might be fast when your tables have 100 rows each, but when millions of rows are in the tables, you have to start thinking about more efficient design.
Several things impact the cost of a query.
First, are there appropriate indexes for it to use. Fields that are used in a join should almost always be indexed and foreign keys are not indexed by default, the designer of the database must create them. Fields used inthe the where clasues often need indexes as well.
Next, is the where clause sargable, in other words can it use the indexes even if you have the correct ones? A bad where clause can hurt a query far more than joins or extra columns. You can't get anything but a table scan if you use syntax that prevents the use of an index such as:
LIKE '%test'
Next, are you returning more data than you need? You should never return more columns than you need and you should not be using select * in production code as it has additional work to look up the columns as well as being very fragile and subject to create bad bugs as the structure changes with time.
Are you joining to tables you don't need to be joining to? If a table returns no columns in the select, is not used in the where and doesn't filter out any records if the join is removed, then you have an unnecessary join and it can be eliminated. Unnecessary joins are particularly prevalant when you use a lot of views, especially if you make the mistake of calling views from other views (which is a buig performance killer for may reasons) Sometimes if you trace through these views that call other views, you will see the same table joined to multiple times when it would not have been necessary if the query was written from scratch instead of using a view.
Not only does returning more data than you need cause the SQL Server to work harder, it causes the query to use up more of the network resources and more of the memory of the web server if you are holding the results in memory. It is an all arouns poor choice.
Finally are you using known poorly performing techniques when a better one is available. This would include the use of cursors when a set-based alternative is better, the use of correlated subqueries when a join would be better, the use of scalar User-defined functions, the use of views that call other views (especially if you nest more than one level. Most of these poor techniques involve processing row-by-agonizing-row which is generally the worst choice in a database. To properly query datbases you need to think in terms of data sets, not processing one row at a time.
There are plenty more things that affect performance of queries and the datbase, to truly get a grip onthis subject you need to read some books onthe subject. This is too complex a subject to fully discuss in a message board.
Or should I write a query that just yanks all the columns..
No. Just today there was another question about that.
If possible, could you help me understand what aspects of a query would be relatively costly compared to one another? Is it the joins? is it the large number of records pulled? is it the number of columns in the select statement?
Any useless join or data retrieval costs you time and should be avoided. Retrieving rows from a datastore is costly. Joins can be more or less costly depending on the context, amount of indexes defined... you can examine the query plan of each query to see the estimated cost for each step.
Selecting more columns/rows will have some performance impacts, but honestly why would you want to select more data than you are going to use anyway?
If possible, could you help me
understand what aspects of a query
would be relatively costly compared to
one another?
Build the query you need, THEN worry about optimizing it if the performance doesn't meet your expectations. You are putting the horse before the cart.
To answer the following:
How costly would SELECT One, Two,
Three be compared to SELECT One, Two,
Three, ..... N-Column
This is not a matter of the select performance but the amount of time it takes to fetch the data. Select * from Table and Select ID from Table preform the same but the fetch of the data will take longer. This goes hand in hand with the number of rows returned from a query.
As for understanding preformance here is a good link
http://www.dotnetheaven.com/UploadFile/skrishnasamy/SQLPerformanceTunning03112005044423AM/SQLPerformanceTunning.aspx
Or google tsql Performance
Joins have the potential to be expensive. In the worst case scenario, when no indexes can be used, they require O(M*N) time, where M and N are the number of records in the tables. To speed things up, you can CREATE INDEX on columns that are part of the join condition.
The number of columns has little effect on the time required to find rows, but slows things down by requiring more data to be sent.
What others are saying is all true.
But typically, if you are working with tables that already have good indexes, what's most important for performance is what goes into the WHERE statement. There you have to worry more about using a field that has no index or using a statement that can't me optimized.
The difference between SELECT One, Two, Three FROM ... and SELECT One,...,N FROM ... could be like the difference between day and night. To understand the problem, you need to understand the concept of a covering index:
A covering index is a special case
where the index itself contains the
required data field(s) and can return
the data.
As you add more unnecessary columns to the projection list you are forcing the query optimizer to lookup the newly added columns in the 'table' (really in the clustered index or in the heap). This can change an execution plan from an efficient narrow index range scan or seek into a bloated clustered index scan, which can result in differences of times from sub-second to +hours, depending on your data. So projecting unnecessary columns is often the most impacting factor of a query.
The number of records pulled is a more subtle issue. With a large number, a query can hit the index tipping point and choose, again, a clustered index scan over narrower index range scan and lookup. Now the fact that lookups into the clustered index are necessary to start with means the narrow index is not covering, which ultimately may be caused by projecting unnecessary column.
And finally, joins. The question here is joins, as opposed to what else? If a join is required, there is no alternative, and that's all there is to say about this.
Ultimately, query performance is driven by one factor alone: amount of IO. And the amount of IO is driven ultimately by the access paths available to satisfy the query. In other words, by the indexing of your data. It is impossible to write efficient queries on bad indexes. It is possible to write bad queries on good indexes, but more often than not the optimizer can compensate and come up with a good plan. You should spend all your effort in better understanding index design:
Designing Indexes
SQL Server Optimization
Short answer: Dont select more fields then you need - Search for "*" in both your sourcecode and your stored procedures ;)
You allways have to consider what parts of the query will cause which costs.
If you have a good DB design, joining a few tables is usually not expensive. (Make sure you have correct indices).
The main issue with "select *" is that it will cause unpredictable behavior in your results. If you write a query like that, AND access the fields with the columnindex, you will be locked into the DB-Schema forever.
Another thing to consider is the amount of data you have to consider. You might think its trivial, but the Version2.0 of your application suddenly adds a ProfilePicture to the User table. And now the query that will select 100 Users will suddenly use up several Megabyte of bandwith.
The second thing you should consider is the number of rows you return. SQL is very powerfull at sorting and grouping, so let SQL do his job, and dont move it to the client. Limit the amount of records you return. In most applications it makes no sense to return more then 100 rows to a user at once. You might let the user choose to load more, but make it a choice he has to make.
Finally, monitor your SQL Server. Run a profiler against it, and try to find your worst queries. A SQL Query should not take longer then half a second, if it does, something is most likely messed up (Yes... there are operation that can take much longer, but those should have a reason)
Edit:
Once you found the slow query, look at the execution plan... You will see which parts of the query are expensive, and which parts work well... The Optimizer is also a tool that can be used.
I suggest you consider your queries in terms of I/O first. Disk I/O on my SATA II system is 6Gb/sec. My DDR3 memory bandwidth is 12GB/sec. I can move items in memory 16 times faster than I can retrieve from disk. (Ref Wikipedia and Tom's hardware)
The difference between getting a few columns and all the columns for your 100 rows could be the dfference in getting a single 8K page from disk to getting two or more pages from disk. When the pages are finally in memory moving two columns or all columns to a hash table is faster than any measuring tool I have.
I value the advice of the others on this topic related to database design. The design of narrow indexes, using included columns to make covering indexes, avoiding table or index scans in favor of seeks by using an appropiate WHERE clause, narrow primary keys, etc is the diffenence between having a DBA title and being a DBA.
Related
I recently answered this question based on my experience:
Counting rows before proceeding to actual searching
but I'm not 100% satisfied with the answer I gave.
The question is basically this: Can I get a performance improvement by running a COUNT over a particular query before deciding to run the query that brings back the actual rows?
My intuition is this: you will only save the I/O and wire time associated with retrieving the data instead of the count because to count the data, you need to actually find the rows. The possible exception to this is when the query is a simple function of the indexes.
My question then is this: Is this always true? What other exception cases are there? From a pure performance perspective, in what cases would one want to do a COUNT before running the full query?
First, the answer to your question is highly dependent on the database.
I cannot think of a situation when doing a COUNT() before a query will shorten the overall time for both the query and the count().
In general, doing a count will pre-load tables and indexes into the page cache. Assuming the data fits in memory, this will make the subsequent query run faster (although not much faster if you have fast I/O and the database does read-ahead page reading). However, you have just shifted the time frame to the COUNT(), rather than reducing overall time.
To shorten the overall time (including the run time of the COUNT()) would require changing the execution plan. Here are two ways this could theoretically happen:
A database could update statistics as a table is read in, and these statistics, in turn, change the query plan for the main query.
A database could change the execution plan based on whether tables/indexes are already in the page cache.
Although theoretically possible, I am not aware of any database that does either of these.
You could imagine that intermediate results could be stored, but this would violate the dynamic nature of SQL databases. That is, updates/inserts could occur on the tables between the COUNT() and the query. A database engine could not maintain integrity and maintain such intermediate results.
Doing a COUNT() has disadvantages, relative to speeding up the subsequent query. The query plan for the COUNT() might be quite different from the query plan for the main query. Your example with indexes is one case. Another case would be in a columnar database, where different vertical partitions of the data do not need to be read.
Yet another case would be a query such as:
select t.*, r.val
from table t left outer join
ref r
on t.refID = r.refID
and refID is a unique index on the ref table. This join can be eliminated for a count, since there are not duplicates and all records in t are used. However, the join is clearly needed for this query. Once again, whether a SQL optimizer recognizes and acts on this situation is entirely the decision of the writers of the database. However, the join could theoretically be optimized away for the COUNT().
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Does the order of columns in a WHERE clause matter?
These are the basics SQL Function and Keywords.
Is there any tips or trick to speed up your SQL ?
For example; I have a query with a lot of keywords. (AND, GROUP BY, ORDER BY, IN, BETWEEN, LIKE... etc.)
Which Keyword should be on top in my query?
How can i decide it?
Example;
Where NUMBER IN (156, 646)
AND DATE BETWEEN '01/01/2011' AND '01/02/2011'
OR
Where DATE BETWEEN '01/01/2011' AND '01/02/2011'
AND NUMBER IN (156, 646)
Which one is faster? Depends of what?
Don't use functions in the where clause. Because the query engine must execute the function for every single row.
There are no "tricks".
Given the competition between the database vendors about which one is "faster", any "trick" that is always true would be implemented in the database itself. (The tricks are implemented in the part of the database called "optimizer").
There are only things to be aware of, but they typically can't be reduced into:
Use feature X
Avoid feature Y
Model like this
Never model like that
Look at all the raging questions/discussions about indexes, index types, index strategies, clustering, single column keys, compound keys, referential integrity, access paths, joins, join mechanisms, storage engines, optimizer behaviour, datatypes, normalization, query transformations, denormalization, procedures, buffer cache, resultset cache, application cache, modeling, aggregation, functions, views, indexed views, set processing, procedural processing and the list goes on.
All of them was invented to attack a specific problem area. Variations on that problem make the "trick" more or less suitable. Very often the tricks have zero effect, and sometimes sometimes flat out horrible. Why? Because when we don't understand why something works, we are basically just throwing features at the problem until it goes away.
The key point here is that there is a reason why something makes a query go faster, and the understanding of what that something is, is crucial to the process of understanding why a different unrelated query is slow, and how to deal with it. And it is never a trick, nor magic.
We (humans) are lazy, and we want to be thrown that fish when what we really need is to learn how to catch it.
Now, what specific fish do YOU want to catch?
Edited for comments:
The placement of your predicates in the where clause makes no difference since the order in which they are processed is determined by the database. Some of the things which will affect that order (for your example) are :
Whether or not the query can be rewritten against an indexed view
What indexes are available that covers one or both of columns NUMBER and DATE and in what order they exist in that index
The estimated selectivity of your predicates, which basically mean the estimated percentage of rows matched by your predicate. The lower % the more likely the optimizer is to use your index efficiently.
The clustering factor (or whatever the name is in SQL Server) if SQL Server factors that into the query cost. This has to do with how the order of the index entries aligns with the physical order of the table rows. Better alignment = reduces cost for higher % of rows fetched via that index.
Now, if the only values you have in column NUMBER are 156, 646 and they are pretty much evenly spread, an index would be useless. A full scan would be a better alternative.
On the other hand, if those are unique order numbers (backed by a unique index), the optimizer will pick that index and drive the query from there. Similarily, if the rows having a DATE between the first and second of January 2011 make up a small enough % of the rows, an index leading with DATE will be considered.
Or if you include order by NUMBER, DATE another parameter comes into the equation; the cost of sorting. An index on (NUMBER, DATE) will now seem more attractive to the optimizer, because even though it might not be the most efficient way of aquiring the rows, the sorting (which is expensive) can be skipped.
Or, if your query included a join to another table (say customer) on customer_id and you also had a filter on customer.ssn, again the equation changes, because (since you did a good job with foreign keys and a backing index) you will now have a very efficient access path into your first table, without using the indexes in NUMBER or DATE. Unless you only have one customer and all of the 10 million orders where his...
Read about sargable queries (ones which can use the index vice ones which can't). Avoid correlated subqueries, functions in where clauses, cursors and while loops. Don't use select * especially if you have joins, never return more than the data you need.
Actually there are whole books written on performance tuning, get one and read it for the datbase you are using as the techniques vary from database to database.
Learn to use indexes properly.
http://Use-The-Index-Luke.com/
I want to know optimization techniques for databases that has nearly 80,000 records,
list of possibilities for optimizing
i am using for my mobile project in android platform
i use sqlite,i takes lot of time to retreive the data
Thanks
Well, with only 80,000 records and assuming your database is well designed and normalized, just adding indexes on the columns that you frequently use in your WHERE or ORDER BY clauses should be sufficient.
There are other more sophisticated techniques you can use (such as denormalizing certain tables, partitioning, etc.) but those normally only start to come into play when you have millions of records to deal with.
ETA:
I see you updated the question to mention that this is on a mobile platform - that could change things a bit.
Assuming you can't pare down the data set at all, one thing you might be able to do would be to try to partition the database a bit. The idea here is to take your one large table and split it into several smaller identical tables that each hold a subset of the data.
Which of those tables a given row would go into would depend on how you choose to partition it. For example, if you had a "customer_id" field that could range from 0 to 10,000 you might put customers 0 - 2500 in table1, 2,500 - 5,000 in table2, etc. splitting the one large table into 4 smaller ones. You would then have logic in your app that would figure out which table (or tables) to query to retrieve a given record.
You would want to partition your data in such a way that you generally only need to query one of the partitions at a time. Exactly how you would partition the data would depend on what fields you have and how you are using them, but the general idea is the same.
Create indexes
Delete indexes
Normalize
DeNormalize
80k rows isn't many rows these days. Clever index(es) with queries that utlise these indexes will serve you right.
Learn how to display query execution maps, then learn to understand what they mean, then optimize your indices, tables, queries accordingly.
Such a wide topic, which does depend on what you want to optimise for. But the basics:
indexes. A good indexing strategy is important, indexing the right columns that are frequently queried on/ordered by is important. However, the more indexes you add, the slower your INSERTs and UPDATEs will be so there is a trade-off.
maintenance. Keep indexes defragged and statistics up to date
optimised queries. Identify queries that are slow (using profiler/built-in information available from SQL 2005 onwards) and see if they could be written more efficiently (e.g. avoid CURSORs, used set-based operations where possible
parameterisation/SPs. Use parameterised SQL to query the db instead of adhoc SQL with hardcoded search values. This will allow better execution plan caching and reuse.
start with a normalised database schema, and then de-normalise if appropriate to improve performance
80,000 records is not much so I'll stop there (large dbs, with millions of data rows, I'd have suggested partitioning the data)
You really have to be more specific with respect to what you want to do. What is your mix of operations? What is your table structure? The generic advice is to use indices as appropriate but you aren't going to get much help with such a generic question.
Also, 80,000 records is nothing. It is a moderate-sized table and should not make any decent database break a sweat.
First of all, indexes are really a necessity if you want a well-performing database.
Besides that, though, the techniques depend on what you need to optimize for: Size, speed, memory, etc?
One thing that is worth knowing is that using a function in the where statement on the indexed field will cause the index not to be used.
Example (Oracle):
SELECT indexed_text FROM your_table WHERE upper(indexed_text) = 'UPPERCASE TEXT';
What are the patterns you use to determine the frequent queries?
How do you select the optimization factors?
What are the types of changes one can make?
This is a nice question, if rather broad (and none the worse for that).
If I understand you, then you're asking how to attack the problem of optimisation starting from scratch.
The first question to ask is: "is there a performance problem?"
If there is no problem, then you're done. This is often the case. Nice.
On the other hand...
Determine Frequent Queries
Logging will get you your frequent queries.
If you're using some kind of data access layer, then it might be simple to add code to log all queries.
It is also a good idea to log when the query was executed and how long each query takes. This can give you an idea of where the problems are.
Also, ask the users which bits annoy them. If a slow response doesn't annoy the user, then it doesn't matter.
Select the optimization factors?
(I may be misunderstanding this part of the question)
You're looking for any patterns in the queries / response times.
These will typically be queries over large tables or queries which join many tables in a single query. ... but if you log response times, you can be guided by those.
Types of changes one can make?
You're specifically asking about optimising tables.
Here are some of the things you can look for:
Denormalisation. This brings several tables together into one wider table, so in stead of your query joining several tables together, you can just read one table. This is a very common and powerful technique. NB. I advise keeping the original normalised tables and building the denormalised table in addition - this way, you're not throwing anything away. How you keep it up to date is another question. You might use triggers on the underlying tables, or run a refresh process periodically.
Normalisation. This is not often considered to be an optimisation process, but it is in 2 cases:
updates. Normalisation makes updates much faster because each update is the smallest it can be (you are updating the smallest - in terms of columns and rows - possible table. This is almost the very definition of normalisation.
Querying a denormalised table to get information which exists on a much smaller (fewer rows) table may be causing a problem. In this case, store the normalised table as well as the denormalised one (see above).
Horizontal partitionning. This means making tables smaller by putting some rows in another, identical table. A common use case is to have all of this month's rows in table ThisMonthSales, and all older rows in table OldSales, where both tables have an identical schema. If most queries are for recent data, this strategy can mean that 99% of all queries are only looking at 1% of the data - a huge performance win.
Vertical partitionning. This is Chopping fields off a table and putting them in a new table which is joinned back to the main table by the primary key. This can be useful for very wide tables (e.g. with dozens of fields), and may possibly help if tables are sparsely populated.
Indeces. I'm not sure if your quesion covers these, but there are plenty of other answers on SO concerning the use of indeces. A good way to find a case for an index is: find a slow query. look at the query plan and find a table scan. Index fields on that table so as to remove the table scan. I can write more on this if required - leave a comment.
You might also like my post on this.
That's difficult to answer without knowing which system you're talking about.
In Oracle, for example, the Enterprise Manager lets you see which queries took up the most time, lets you compare different execution profiles, and lets you analyze queries over a block of time so that you don't add an index that's going to help one query at the expense of every other one you run.
Your question is a bit vague. Which DB platform?
If we are talking about SQL Server:
Use the Dynamic Management Views. Use SQL Profiler. Install the SP2 and the performance dashboard reports.
After determining the most costly queries (i.e. number of times run x cost one one query), examine their execution plans, and look at the sizes of the tables involved, and whether they are predominately Read or Write, or a mixture of both.
If the system is under your full control (apps. and DB) you can often re-write queries that are badly formed (quite a common occurrance), such as deep correlated sub-queries which can often be re-written as derived table joins with a little thought. Otherwise, you options are to create covering non-clustered indexes and ensure that statistics are kept up to date.
For MySQL there is a feature called log slow queries
The rest is based on what kind of data you have and how it is setup.
In SQL server you can use trace to find out how your query is performing. Use ctrl + k or l
For example if u see full table scan happening in a table with large number of records then it probably is not a good query.
A more specific question will definitely fetch you better answers.
If your table is predominantly read, place a clustered index on the table.
My experience is with mainly DB2 and a smattering of Oracle in the early days.
If your DBMS is any good, it will have the ability to collect stats on specific queries and explain the plan it used for extracting the data.
For example, if you have a table (x) with two columns (date and diskusage) and only have an index on date, the query:
select diskusage from x where date = '2008-01-01'
will be very efficient since it can use the index. On the other hand, the query
select date from x where diskusage > 90
would not be so efficient. In the former case, the "explain plan" would tell you that it could use the index. In the latter, it would have said that it had to do a table scan to get the rows (that's basically looking at every row to see if it matches).
Really intelligent DBMS' may also explain what you should do to improve the performance (add an index on diskusage in this case).
As to how to see what queries are being run, you can either collect that from the DBMS (if it allows it) or force everyone to do their queries through stored procedures so that the DBA control what the queries are - that's their job, keeping the DB running efficiently.
indices on PKs and FKs and one thing that always helps PARTITIONING...
1. What are the patterns you use to determine the frequent queries?
Depends on what level you are dealing with the database. If you're a DBA or a have access to the tools, db's like Oracle allow you to run jobs and generate stats/reports over a specified period of time. If you're a developer writing an application against a db, you can just do performance profiling within your app.
2. How do you select the optimization factors?
I try and get a general feel for how the table is being used and the data it contains. I go about with the following questions.
Is it going to be updated a ton and on what fields do updates occur?
Does it have columns with low cardinality?
Is it worth indexing? (tables that are very small can be slowed down if accessed by an index)
How much maintenance/headache is it worth to have it run faster?
Ratio of updates/inserts vs queries?
etc.
3. What are the types of changes one can make?
-- If using Oracle, keep statistics up to date! =)
-- Normalization/De-Normalization either one can improve performance depending on the usage of the table. I almost always normalize and then only if I can in no other practical way make the query faster will de-normalize. A nice way to denormalize for queries and when your situation allows it is to keep the real tables normalized and create a denormalized "table" with a materialized view.
-- Index judiciously. Too many can be bad on many levels. BitMap indexes are great in Oracle as long as you're not updating the column frequently and that column has a low cardinality.
-- Using Index organized tables.
-- Partitioned and sub-partitioned tables and indexes
-- Use stored procedures to reduce round trips by applications, increase security, and enable query optimization without affecting users.
-- Pin tables in memory if appropriate (accessed a lot and fairly small)
-- Device partitioning between index and table database files.
..... the list goes on. =)
Hope this is helpful for you.
What techniques can be applied effectively to improve the performance of SQL queries? Are there any general rules that apply?
Use primary keys
Avoid select *
Be as specific as you can when building your conditional statements
De-normalisation can often be more efficient
Table variables and temporary tables (where available) will often be better than using a large source table
Partitioned views
Employ indices and constraints
Learn what's really going on under the hood - you should be able to understand the following concepts in detail:
Indexes (not just what they are but actually how they work).
Clustered indexes vs heap allocated tables.
Text and binary lookups and when they can be in-lined.
Fill factor.
How records are ghosted for update/delete.
When page splits happen and why.
Statistics, and how they effect various query speeds.
The query planner, and how it works for your specific database (for instance on some systems "select *" is slow, on modern MS-Sql DBs the planner can handle it).
The biggest thing you can do is to look for table scans in sql server query analyzer (make sure you turn on "show execution plan"). Otherwise there are a myriad of articles at MSDN and elsewhere that will give good advice.
As an aside, when I started learning to optimize queries I ran sql server query profiler against a trace, looked at the generated SQL, and tried to figure out why that was an improvement. Query profiler is far from optimal, but it's a decent start.
There are a couple of things you can look at to optimize your query performance.
Ensure that you just have the minimum of data. Make sure you select only the columns you need. Reduce field sizes to a minimum.
Consider de-normalising your database to reduce joins
Avoid loops (i.e. fetch cursors), stick to set operations.
Implement the query as a stored procedure as this is pre-compiled and will execute faster.
Make sure that you have the correct indexes set up. If your database is used mostly for searching then consider more indexes.
Use the execution plan to see how the processing is done. What you want to avoid is a table scan as this is costly.
Make sure that the Auto Statistics is set to on. SQL needs this to help decide the optimal execution. See Mike Gunderloy's great post for more info. Basics of Statistics in SQL Server 2005
Make sure your indexes are not fragmented. Reducing SQL Server Index Fragmentation
Make sure your tables are not fragmented. How to Detect Table Fragmentation in SQL Server 2000 and 2005
Use a with statment to handle query filtering.
Limit each subquery to the minimum number of rows possible.
then join the subqueries.
WITH
master AS
(
SELECT SSN, FIRST_NAME, LAST_NAME
FROM MASTER_SSN
WHERE STATE = 'PA' AND
GENDER = 'M'
),
taxReturns AS
(
SELECT SSN, RETURN_ID, GROSS_PAY
FROM MASTER_RETURNS
WHERE YEAR < 2003 AND
YEAR > 2000
)
SELECT *
FROM master,
taxReturns
WHERE master.ssn = taxReturns.ssn
A subqueries within a with statement may end up as being the same as inline views,
or automatically generated temp tables. I find in the work I do, retail data, that about 70-80% of the time, there is a performance benefit.
100% of the time, there is a maintenance benefit.
I think using SQL query analyzer would be a good start.
In Oracle you can look at the explain plan to compare variations on your query
Make sure that you have the right indexes on the table. if you frequently use a column as a way to order or limit your dataset an index can make a big difference. I saw in a recent article that select distinct can really slow down a query, especially if you have no index.
The obvious optimization for SELECT queries is ensuring you have indexes on columns used for joins or in WHERE clauses.
Since adding indexes can slow down data writes you do need to monitor performance to ensure you don't kill the DB's write performance, but that's where using a good query analysis tool can help you balanace things accordingly.
Indexes
Statistics
on microsoft stack, Database Engine Tuning Advisor
Some other points (Mine are based on SQL server, since each db backend has it's own implementations they may or may not hold true for all databases):
Avoid correlated subqueries in the select part of a statement, they are essentially cursors.
Design your tables to use the correct datatypes to avoid having to apply functions on them to get the data out. It is far harder to do date math when you store your data as varchar for instance.
If you find that you are frequently doing joins that have functions in them, then you need to think about redesigning your tables.
If your WHERE or JOIN conditions include OR statements (which are slower) you may get better speed using a UNION statement.
UNION ALL is faster than UNION if (And only if) the two statments are mutually exclusive and return the same results either way.
NOT EXISTS is usually faster than NOT IN or using a left join with a WHERE clause of ID = null
In an UPDATE query add a WHERE condition to make sure you are not updating values that are already equal. The difference between updating 10,000,000 records and 4 can be quite significant!
Consider pre-calculating some values if you will be querying them frequently or for large reports. A sum of the values in an order only needs to be done when the order is made or adjusted, rather than when you are summarizing the results of 10,000,000 million orders in a report. Pre-calculations should be done in triggers so that they are always up-to-date is the underlying data changes. And it doesn't have to be just numbers either, we havea calculated field that concatenates names that we use in reports.
Be wary of scalar UDFs, they can be slower than putting the code in line.
Temp table tend to be faster for large data set and table variables faster for small ones. In addition you can index temp tables.
Formatting is usually faster in the user interface than in SQL.
Do not return more data than you actually need.
This one seems obvious but you would not believe how often I end up fixing this. Do not join to tables that you are not using to filter the records or actually calling one of the fields in the select part of the statement. Unnecessary joins can be very expensive.
It is an very bad idea to create views that call other views that call other views. You may find you are joining to the same table 6 times when you only need to once and creating 100,000,00 records in an underlying view in order to get the 6 that are in your final result.
In designing a database, think about reporting not just the user interface to enter data. Data is useless if it is not used, so think about how it will be used after it is in the database and how that data will be maintained or audited. That will often change the design. (This is one reason why it is a poor idea to let an ORM design your tables, it is only thinking about one use case for the data.) The most complex queries affecting the most data are in reporting, so designing changes to help reporting can speed up queries (and simplify them) considerably.
Database-specific implementations of features can be faster than using standard SQL (That's one of the ways they sell their product), so get to know your database features and find out which are faster.
And because it can't be said too often, use indexes correctly, not too many or too few. And make your WHERE clauses sargable (Able to use indexes).