Related
To preface, I'm aware (as should you!) that using SELECT * in production is bad, but I was maintaining a script written by someone else. And, I'm also aware that this question is low on specifics... But hypothetical scenario.
Let's say I have a script that selects everything from a table of 20 fields. Let's say typical customer information.
Then let's say being the good developer I am, I shorten the SELECT * to a SELECT of the 13 specific fields I'm actually using on the display end.
What type of performance benefit, if any, could I expect by explicitly listing the fields versus SELECT *?
I will say this, both queries take advantage of the same exact indexes. The more specific query does not have access to a covering index that the other query could not use, in case you were wondering.
I'm not expecting miracles, like adding an index that targets the more specific query. I'm just wondering.
It depends on three things: the underlying storage and retrieval mechanism used by your database, the nature of the 7 columns you're leaving out, and the number of rows returned in the result set.
If the 7 (or whatever number) columns you're leaving out are "cheap to retrieve" columns, and the number of rows returned is low, I would expect very little benefit. If the columns are "expensive" (for instance, they're large, or they're BLOBs requiring reference to another file that is never cached) and / or you're retrieving a lot of rows then you could expect a significant improvement. Just how much depends on how expensive it is in your particular database to retrieve that information and assemble in memory.
There are other reasons besides speed, incidentally, to use named columns when retrieving information having to do with knowing absolutely that certain columns are contained in the result set and that the columns are in the desired order that you want to use them in.
The main difference I would expect to see is reduced network traffic. If any of the columns are large, they could take time to transfer, which is of course a complete waste if you're not displaying them.
It's also fairly critical if your database library references columns by index (instead of name), because if the column order changes in the database, it'll break the code.
Coding-style wise, it allows you to see which columns the rest of the code will be using, without having to read it.
Hmm, in one simple experiment, I was surprised at how much difference it made.
I just did a simple query with three variations:
select *
select the field that is the primary key. (It might pull get this directly from the index without actually reading the record)
select a non-key field.
I used a table with a pretty large number of fields -- 72 of them -- including one CLOB. The query was just a select with one condition in the where clause.
Results:
Run * Key Non-key
1 .647 .020 .028
2 .599 .041 .014
3 .321 .019 .027
avg .522 .027 .023
Key vs non-key didn't seem to matter. (Which surprises me.) But retrieving just one field versus select * saved 95% of the runtime!
Of course this is one tiny experiment with one table. There could be many many relevant factors. I'm certainly not claiming that you will always reduce runtime by 95% by not using select *! But it's far more impressive than I expected.
When comparing 13 vs 20 fields, if the 7 fields that are left out are not fields such as CLOB/BLOBs or such, I would expect to see no noticable performance gain.
I/O is main DB bottleneck (most DB systems are I/O bound), so you might think that you would bring execution time to 13/20 of the original query execution time (since you need that much less data), but since normal fields are stored within the same physical structure (usually fields are arranged consecutively) and the file system reads whole blocks, your disk heads will read the same amount of data (assuming all 20 fields are less then block size; situation can change if the size of a record is bigger than a block of your filesystem).
The principle that SELECT * is bad has a different cause - stability of the system.
If you use SELECT * at wrong places then changes to underlying table(s) might break your system unexpectedly (mostly later, and if things break it is usually better if they break sooner). This can especially be intresting if normalize data (move columns from one table to another, while keeping the same name). In such case if you chain SELECT * in views and if you chain your views then you might actually not get any errors, but have (essentially) different end results.
Why don't you try it yourself and let us know?
It's all going to be dependent on how many columns and how wide they are.
Better still, do you have an actual performance problem? Tell us what your actual problem is and show us the code, and then we can suggest potential improvements. Chances are there are other improvements to be made that are much better than worrying about SELECT * vs. SELECT field list.
Select * means the database has to take time to lookup the fields. If you don't need all those fields (and anytime you have have an inner join you don't as the join field is repeated!) then you are wasting but server resources to get the data and network resources to transport the data. You may also be wasting memory to hold the recordset to work with it. And while the performance improvement may be tiny for one query, how many times is that query run? And people who use this abysmally poor technique tend to use it everywhere, so fixing all of them can be a major imporvement for not that much effort. And how hard is it to specify the fields? I don't know about every database, but in SQL Server I can drag and drop what I want from the object browser in seconds. So using select * is trading less than a minute of development time for a worse performance every single time the query is run and creating code that is fragile and subject to very bad problems as the schema changes. I see no reason to ever use select * in production code.
Why is SELECT * bad practice? Wouldn't it mean less code to change if you added a new column you wanted?
I understand that SELECT COUNT(*) is a performance problem on some DBs, but what if you really wanted every column?
There are really three major reasons:
Inefficiency in moving data to the consumer. When you SELECT *, you're often retrieving more columns from the database than your application really needs to function. This causes more data to move from the database server to the client, slowing access and increasing load on your machines, as well as taking more time to travel across the network. This is especially true when someone adds new columns to underlying tables that didn't exist and weren't needed when the original consumers coded their data access.
Indexing issues. Consider a scenario where you want to tune a query to a high level of performance. If you were to use *, and it returned more columns than you actually needed, the server would often have to perform more expensive methods to retrieve your data than it otherwise might. For example, you wouldn't be able to create an index which simply covered the columns in your SELECT list, and even if you did (including all columns [shudder]), the next guy who came around and added a column to the underlying table would cause the optimizer to ignore your optimized covering index, and you'd likely find that the performance of your query would drop substantially for no readily apparent reason.
Binding Problems. When you SELECT *, it's possible to retrieve two columns of the same name from two different tables. This can often crash your data consumer. Imagine a query that joins two tables, both of which contain a column called "ID". How would a consumer know which was which? SELECT * can also confuse views (at least in some versions SQL Server) when underlying table structures change -- the view is not rebuilt, and the data which comes back can be nonsense. And the worst part of it is that you can take care to name your columns whatever you want, but the next guy who comes along might have no way of knowing that he has to worry about adding a column which will collide with your already-developed names.
But it's not all bad for SELECT *. I use it liberally for these use cases:
Ad-hoc queries. When trying to debug something, especially off a narrow table I might not be familiar with, SELECT * is often my best friend. It helps me just see what's going on without having to do a boatload of research as to what the underlying column names are. This gets to be a bigger "plus" the longer the column names get.
When * means "a row". In the following use cases, SELECT * is just fine, and rumors that it's a performance killer are just urban legends which may have had some validity many years ago, but don't now:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM table;
in this case, * means "count the rows". If you were to use a column name instead of * , it would count the rows where that column's value was not null. COUNT(*), to me, really drives home the concept that you're counting rows, and you avoid strange edge-cases caused by NULLs being eliminated from your aggregates.
Same goes with this type of query:
SELECT a.ID FROM TableA a
WHERE EXISTS (
SELECT *
FROM TableB b
WHERE b.ID = a.B_ID);
in any database worth its salt, * just means "a row". It doesn't matter what you put in the subquery. Some people use b's ID in the SELECT list, or they'll use the number 1, but IMO those conventions are pretty much nonsensical. What you mean is "count the row", and that's what * signifies. Most query optimizers out there are smart enough to know this. (Though to be honest, I only know this to be true with SQL Server and Oracle.)
The asterisk character, "*", in the SELECT statement is shorthand for all the columns in the table(s) involved in the query.
Performance
The * shorthand can be slower because:
Not all the fields are indexed, forcing a full table scan - less efficient
What you save to send SELECT * over the wire risks a full table scan
Returning more data than is needed
Returning trailing columns using variable length data type can result in search overhead
Maintenance
When using SELECT *:
Someone unfamiliar with the codebase would be forced to consult documentation to know what columns are being returned before being able to make competent changes. Making code more readable, minimizing the ambiguity and work necessary for people unfamiliar with the code saves more time and effort in the long run.
If code depends on column order, SELECT * will hide an error waiting to happen if a table had its column order changed.
Even if you need every column at the time the query is written, that might not be the case in the future
the usage complicates profiling
Design
SELECT * is an anti-pattern:
The purpose of the query is less obvious; the columns used by the application is opaque
It breaks the modularity rule about using strict typing whenever possible. Explicit is almost universally better.
When Should "SELECT *" Be Used?
It's acceptable to use SELECT * when there's the explicit need for every column in the table(s) involved, as opposed to every column that existed when the query was written. The database will internally expand the * into the complete list of columns - there's no performance difference.
Otherwise, explicitly list every column that is to be used in the query - preferably while using a table alias.
Even if you wanted to select every column now, you might not want to select every column after someone adds one or more new columns. If you write the query with SELECT * you are taking the risk that at some point someone might add a column of text which makes your query run more slowly even though you don't actually need that column.
Wouldn't it mean less code to change if you added a new column you wanted?
The chances are that if you actually want to use the new column then you will have to make quite a lot other changes to your code anyway. You're only saving , new_column - just a few characters of typing.
If you really want every column, I haven't seen a performance difference between select (*) and naming the columns. The driver to name the columns might be simply to be explicit about what columns you expect to see in your code.
Often though, you don't want every column and the select(*) can result in unnecessary work for the database server and unnecessary information having to be passed over the network. It's unlikely to cause a noticeable problem unless the system is heavily utilised or the network connectivity is slow.
If you name the columns in a SELECT statement, they will be returned in the order specified, and may thus safely be referenced by numerical index. If you use "SELECT *", you may end up receiving the columns in arbitrary sequence, and thus can only safely use the columns by name. Unless you know in advance what you'll be wanting to do with any new column that gets added to the database, the most probable correct action is to ignore it. If you're going to be ignoring any new columns that get added to the database, there is no benefit whatsoever to retrieving them.
In a lot of situations, SELECT * will cause errors at run time in your application, rather than at design time. It hides the knowledge of column changes, or bad references in your applications.
Think of it as reducing the coupling between the app and the database.
To summarize the 'code smell' aspect:
SELECT * creates a dynamic dependency between the app and the schema. Restricting its use is one way of making the dependency more defined, otherwise a change to the database has a greater likelihood of crashing your application.
If you add fields to the table, they will automatically be included in all your queries where you use select *. This may seem convenient, but it will make your application slower as you are fetching more data than you need, and it will actually crash your application at some point.
There is a limit for how much data you can fetch in each row of a result. If you add fields to your tables so that a result ends up being over that limit, you get an error message when you try to run the query.
This is the kind of errors that are hard to find. You make a change in one place, and it blows up in some other place that doesn't actually use the new data at all. It may even be a less frequently used query so that it takes a while before someone uses it, which makes it even harder to connect the error to the change.
If you specify which fields you want in the result, you are safe from this kind of overhead overflow.
I don't think that there can really be a blanket rule for this. In many cases, I have avoided SELECT *, but I have also worked with data frameworks where SELECT * was very beneficial.
As with all things, there are benefits and costs. I think that part of the benefit vs. cost equation is just how much control you have over the datastructures. In cases where the SELECT * worked well, the data structures were tightly controlled (it was retail software), so there wasn't much risk that someone was going to sneek a huge BLOB field into a table.
Reference taken from this article.
Never go with "SELECT *",
I have found only one reason to use "SELECT *"
If you have special requirements and created dynamic environment when add or delete column automatically handle by application code. In this special case you don’t require to change application and database code and this will automatically affect on production environment. In this case you can use “SELECT *”.
Generally you have to fit the results of your SELECT * ... into data structures of various types. Without specifying which order the results are arriving in, it can be tricky to line everything up properly (and more obscure fields are much easier to miss).
This way you can add fields to your tables (even in the middle of them) for various reasons without breaking sql access code all over the application.
Using SELECT * when you only need a couple of columns means a lot more data transferred than you need. This adds processing on the database, and increase latency on getting the data to the client. Add on to this that it will use more memory when loaded, in some cases significantly more, such as large BLOB files, it's mostly about efficiency.
In addition to this, however, it's easier to see when looking at the query what columns are being loaded, without having to look up what's in the table.
Yes, if you do add an extra column, it would be faster, but in most cases, you'd want/need to change your code using the query to accept the new columns anyways, and there's the potential that getting ones you don't want/expect can cause issues. For example, if you grab all the columns, then rely on the order in a loop to assign variables, then adding one in, or if the column orders change (seen it happen when restoring from a backup) it can throw everything off.
This is also the same sort of reasoning why if you're doing an INSERT you should always specify the columns.
Selecting with column name raises the probability that database engine can access the data from indexes rather than querying the table data.
SELECT * exposes your system to unexpected performance and functionality changes in the case when your database schema changes because you are going to get any new columns added to the table, even though, your code is not prepared to use or present that new data.
There is also more pragmatic reason: money. When you use cloud database and you have to pay for data processed there is no explanation to read data that you will immediately discard.
For example: BigQuery:
Query pricing
Query pricing refers to the cost of running your SQL commands and user-defined functions. BigQuery charges for queries by using one metric: the number of bytes processed.
and Control projection - Avoid SELECT *:
Best practice: Control projection - Query only the columns that you need.
Projection refers to the number of columns that are read by your query. Projecting excess columns incurs additional (wasted) I/O and materialization (writing results).
Using SELECT * is the most expensive way to query data. When you use SELECT *, BigQuery does a full scan of every column in the table.
Understand your requirements prior to designing the schema (if possible).
Learn about the data,
1)indexing
2)type of storage used,
3)vendor engine or features; ie...caching, in-memory capabilities
4)datatypes
5)size of table
6)frequency of query
7)related workloads if the resource is shared
8)Test
A) Requirements will vary. If the hardware can not support the expected workload, you should re-evaluate how to provide the requirements in the workload. Regarding the addition column to the table. If the database supports views, you can create an indexed(?) view of the specific data with the specific named columns (vs. select '*'). Periodically review your data and schema to ensure you never run into the "Garbage-in" -> "Garbage-out" syndrome.
Assuming there is no other solution; you can take the following into account. There are always multiple solutions to a problem.
1) Indexing: The select * will execute a tablescan. Depending on various factors, this may involve a disk seek and/or contention with other queries. If the table is multi-purpose, ensure all queries are performant and execute below you're target times. If there is a large amount of data, and your network or other resource isn't tuned; you need to take this into account. The database is a shared environment.
2) type of storage. Ie: if you're using SSD's, disk, or memory. I/O times and the load on the system/cpu will vary.
3) Can the DBA tune the database/tables for higher performance? Assumming for whatever reason, the teams have decided the select '*' is the best solution to the problem; can the DB or table be loaded into memory. (Or other method...maybe the response was designed to respond with a 2-3 second delay? --- while an advertisement plays to earn the company revenue...)
4) Start at the baseline. Understand your data types, and how results will be presented. Smaller datatypes, number of fields reduces the amount of data returned in the result set. This leaves resources available for other system needs. The system resources are usually have a limit; 'always' work below these limits to ensure stability, and predictable behaviour.
5) size of table/data. select '*' is common with tiny tables. They typically fit in memory, and response times are quick. Again....review your requirements. Plan for feature creep; always plan for the current and possible future needs.
6) Frequency of query / queries. Be aware of other workloads on the system. If this query fires off every second, and the table is tiny. The result set can be designed to stay in cache/memory. However, if the query is a frequent batch process with Gigabytes/Terabytes of data...you may be better off to dedicate additional resources to ensure other workloads aren't affected.
7) Related workloads. Understand how the resources are used. Is the network/system/database/table/application dedicated, or shared? Who are the stakeholders? Is this for production, development, or QA? Is this a temporary "quick fix". Have you tested the scenario? You'll be surprised how many problems can exist on current hardware today. (Yes, performance is fast...but the design/performance is still degraded.) Does the system need to performance 10K queries per second vs. 5-10 queries per second. Is the database server dedicated, or do other applications, monitoring execute on the shared resource. Some applications/languages; O/S's will consume 100% of the memory causing various symptoms/problems.
8) Test: Test out your theories, and understand as much as you can about. Your select '*' issue may be a big deal, or it may be something you don't even need to worry about.
There's an important distinction here that I think most answers are missing.
SELECT * isn't an issue. Returning the results of SELECT * is the issue.
An OK example, in my opinion:
WITH data_from_several_tables AS (
SELECT * FROM table1_2020
UNION ALL
SELECT * FROM table1_2021
...
)
SELECT id, name, ...
FROM data_from_several_tables
WHERE ...
GROUP BY ...
...
This avoids all the "problems" of using SELECT * mentioned in most answers:
Reading more data than expected? Optimisers in modern databases will be aware that you don't actually need all columns
Column ordering of the source tables affects output? We still select and
return data explicitly.
Consumers can't see what columns they receive from the SQL? The columns you're acting on are explicit in code.
Indexes may not be used? Again, modern optimisers should handle this the same as if we didn't SELECT *
There's a readability/refactorability win here - no need to duplicate long lists of columns or other common query clauses such as filters. I'd be surprised if there are any differences in the query plan when using SELECT * like this compared with SELECT <columns> (in the vast majority of cases - obviously always profile running code if it's critical).
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 ;-)
I am working on someone else's PHP code and seeing this pattern over and over:
(pseudocode)
result = SELECT blah1, blah2, foreign_key FROM foo WHERE key=bar
if foreign_key > 0
other_result = SELECT something FROM foo2 WHERE key=foreign_key
end
The code needs to branch if there is no related row in the other table, but couldn't this be done better by doing a LEFT JOIN in a single SELECT statement? Am I missing some performance benefit? Portability issue? Or am I just nitpicking?
This is definitely wrong. You are going over the wire a second time for no reason. DBs are very fast at their problem space. Joining tables is one of those and you'll see more of a performance degradation from the second query then the join. Unless your tablespace is hundreds of millions of records, this is not a good idea.
There is not enough information to really answer the question. I've worked on applications where decreasing the query count for one reason and increasing the query count for another reason both gave performance improvements. In the same application!
For certain combinations of table size, database configuration and how often the foreign table would be queried, doing the two queries can be much faster than a LEFT JOIN. But experience and testing is the only thing that will tell you that. MySQL with moderately large tables seems to be susceptable to this, IME. Performing three queries on one table can often be much faster than one query JOINing the three. I've seen speedups of an order of magnitude.
I'm with you - a single SQL would be better
There's a danger of treating your SQL DBMS as if it was a ISAM file system, selecting from a single table at a time. It might be cleaner to use a single SELECT with the outer join. On the other hand, detecting null in the application code and deciding what to do based on null vs non-null is also not completely clean.
One advantage of a single statement - you have fewer round trips to the server - especially if the SQL is prepared dynamically each time the other result is needed.
On average, then, a single SELECT statement is better. It gives the optimizer something to do and saves it getting too bored as well.
It seems to me that what you're saying is fairly valid - why fire off two calls to the database when one will do - unless both records are needed independently as objects(?)
Of course while it might not be as simple code wise to pull it all back in one call from the database and separate out the fields into the two separate objects, it does mean that you're only dependent on the database for one call rather than two...
This would be nicer to read as a query:
Select a.blah1, a.blah2, b.something From foo a Left Join foo2 b On a.foreign_key = b.key Where a.Key = bar;
And this way you can check you got a result in one go and have the database do all the heavy lifting in one query rather than two...
Yeah, I think it seems like what you're saying is correct.
The most likely explanation is that the developer simply doesn't know how outer joins work. This is very common, even among developers who are quite experienced in their own specialty.
There's also a widespread myth that "queries with joins are slow." So many developers blindly avoid joins at all costs, even to the extreme of running multiple queries where one would be better.
The myth of avoiding joins is like saying we should avoid writing loops in our application code, because running a line of code multiple times is obviously slower than running it once. To say nothing of the "overhead" of ++i and testing i<20 during every iteration!
You are completely correct that the single query is the way to go. To add some value to the other answers offered let me add this axiom: "Use the right tool for the job, the Database server should handle the querying work, the code should handle the procedural work."
The key idea behind this concept is that the compiler/query optimizers can do a better job if they know the entire problem domain instead of half of it.
Considering that in one database hit you have all the data you need having one single SQL statement would be better performance 99% of the time. Not sure if the connections is being creating dynamically in this case or not but if so doing so is expensive. Even if the process if reusing existing connections the DBMS is not getting optimize the queries be best way and not really making use of the relationships.
The only way I could ever see doing the calls like this for performance reasons is if the data being retrieved by the foreign key is a large amount and it is only needed in some cases. But in the sample you describe it just grabs it if it exists so this is not the case and therefore not gaining any performance.
The only "gotcha" to all of this is if the result set to work with contains a lot of joins, or even nested joins.
I've had two or three instances now where the original query I was inheriting consisted of a single query that had so a lot of joins in it and it would take the SQL a good minute to prepare the statement.
I went back into the procedure, leveraged some table variables (or temporary tables) and broke the query down into a lot of the smaller single select type statements and constructed the final result set in this manner.
This update dramatically fixed the response time, down to a few seconds, because it was easier to do a lot of simple "one shots" to retrieve the necessary data.
I'm not trying to object for objections sake here, but just to point out that the code may have been broken down to such a granular level to address a similar issue.
A single SQL query would lead in more performance as the SQL server (Which sometimes doesn't share the same location) just needs to handle one request, if you would use multiple SQL queries then you introduce a lot of overhead:
Executing more CPU instructions,
sending a second query to the server,
create a second thread on the server,
execute possible more CPU instructions
on the sever, destroy a second thread
on the server, send the second results
back.
There might be exceptional cases where the performance could be better, but for simple things you can't reach better performance by doing a bit more work.
Doing a simple two table join is usually the best way to go after this problem domain, however depending on the state of the tables and indexing, there are certain cases where it may be better to do the two select statements, but typically I haven't run into this problem until I started approaching 3-5 joined tables, not just 2.
Just make sure you have covering indexes on both tables to ensure you aren't scanning the disk for all records, that is the biggest performance hit a database gets (in my limited experience)
You should always try to minimize the number of query to the database when you can. Your example is perfect for only 1 query. This way you will be able later to cache more easily or to handle more request in same time because instead of always using 2-3 query that require a connexion, you will have only 1 each time.
There are many cases that will require different solutions and it isn't possible to explain all together.
Join scans both the tables and loops to match the first table record in second table. Simple select query will work faster in many cases as It only take cares for the primary/unique key(if exists) to search the data internally.
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.