|
|
|
SSC Journeyman
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:57 AM
Points: 85,
Visits: 407
|
|
The below query I have been piecing together is really slow. I was wondering if any of you might be able to give me some ideas with regard to optimizing this. My goal is to create a view then leverage the view for an SSIS project. I'm thinking there MUST be a better solution. Thanks
SELECT
'MySource' AS SourceDB, 'MySite' AS 'SiteName', Rtrim(apibh.idvend) AS VendorNumber, Rtrim(apibh.idinvc) AS VoucherNumber, Sum(apibh.amtgrosdst) AS VoucherTotalDomestic, Sum(apibh.amtgrosdst) * ( apibh.exchratehc ) AS VoucherTotalUSD, (SELECT DISTINCT ( Sum(p.amtpaym) ) FROM aptcr r WITH(NOLOCK) INNER JOIN aptcp p ON r.btchtype = p.batchtype AND r.cntbtch = p.cntbtch AND r.cntentr = p.cntrmit INNER JOIN apibh H ON p.idvend = h.idvend AND p.idinvc = H.idinvc WHERE H.idinvc = apibh.idinvc GROUP BY H.idinvc) AS PayAmt, (Sum(apibh.amtgrosdst) - (SELECT DISTINCT ( Sum(p.amtpaym) ) FROM aptcr r WITH(NOLOCK) INNER JOIN aptcp p ON r.btchtype = p.batchtype AND r.cntbtch = p.cntbtch AND r.cntentr = p.cntrmit INNER JOIN apibh H ON p.idvend = h.idvend AND p.idinvc = H.idinvc WHERE H.idinvc = apibh.idinvc GROUP BY H.idinvc) ) AS OpenAmountDomestic, (Sum(apibh.amtgrosdst) - ((SELECT DISTINCT ( Sum(p.amtpaym) ) FROM aptcr r WITH(NOLOCK) INNER JOIN aptcp p ON r.btchtype = p.batchtype AND r.cntbtch = p.cntbtch AND r.cntentr = p.cntrmit INNER JOIN apibh H ON p.idvend = h.idvend AND p.idinvc = H.idinvc WHERE H.idinvc = apibh.idinvc GROUP BY H.idinvc) ) * ( apibh.exchratehc )) AS OpenAmountUSD, ( Select DATEDIFF(day,(SELECT DISTINCT ( Max(dbo.Udf_convert_int_date(r.datermit)) ) FROM aptcr r WITH(NOLOCK) INNER JOIN aptcp p ON r.btchtype = p.batchtype AND r.cntbtch = p.cntbtch AND r.cntentr = p.cntrmit INNER JOIN apibh H ON p.idvend = h.idvend AND p.idinvc = H.idinvc WHERE H.idinvc = apibh.idinvc GROUP BY H.idinvc),GETDATE()))AS DueDays, '' As AgeDays , (SELECT DISTINCT ( Max(dbo.Udf_convert_int_date(r.datermit)) ) FROM aptcr r WITH(NOLOCK) INNER JOIN aptcp p ON r.btchtype = p.batchtype AND r.cntbtch = p.cntbtch AND r.cntentr = p.cntrmit INNER JOIN apibh H ON p.idvend = h.idvend AND p.idinvc = H.idinvc WHERE H.idinvc = apibh.idinvc GROUP BY H.idinvc) AS PaidDate, dbo.Udf_convert_int_date(apibh.datebus) AS PostedDate, dbo.Udf_convert_int_date(apibh.datebus) AS AppliedDate, dbo.Udf_convert_int_date(apibh.dateinvc) AS AgingDate, dbo.Udf_convert_int_date(apibh.datedue) AS DueDate, dbo.Udf_convert_int_date(apibh.dateinvc) AS DocumentDate, NULL AS ReceivedDate, CASE WHEN ( apibh.datedisc ) = 0 THEN NULL ELSE dbo.Udf_convert_int_date(apibh.datedisc) END AS DiscountDate, apibh.codecurn AS CurrencyCode, apibh.exchratehc AS EffectiveExchangeRate FROM apibh AS APIBH WITH(NOLOCK) WHERE 1 = 1 --AND APIBH.IDINVC = '22036' --AND APIBH.IDVEND = 'ABE129' GROUP BY ( apibh.idvend ), ( apibh.idinvc ), ( apibh.amtgrosdst ), ( apibh.amtgrosdst - Isnull(apibh.amtgrosdst, 0) - apibh.amtdiscavl ), ( ( apibh.amtgrosdst * apibh.exchratehc ) - Isnull(apibh.amtgrosdst, 0) * apibh.exchratehc ) - ( apibh.amtdiscavl * apibh.exchratehc ), ( apibh.datebus ), apibh.datebus, apibh.dateinvc, apibh.datedue, CASE WHEN ( apibh.datedisc ) = 0 THEN NULL ELSE dbo.Udf_convert_int_date(apibh.datedisc) END, apibh.amtdiscavl, apibh.codecurn, apibh.exchratehc, apibh.idtrx, Isnull(apibh.amtgrosdst, 0), apibh.amttotdist
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Addicted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:00 AM
Points: 444,
Visits: 807
|
|
Without knowing much details, It would be all guess work. Please post DDL of the tables, some data and the required output to get better help.
But seeing your code I think two things I do not understand
1. AGRREGATION (SUM, MAX etc) with DISTINCT 2. GROUPING ON COLUMNS WHICH ARE AGGREGATED
So look into these, as they could be addding more processing than actually needed.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Dedicated
           
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:37 PM
Points: 37,741,
Visits: 30,017
|
|
Please post table definitions, index definitions and execution plan, as per http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/SQLServerCentral/66909/
You can start fixing the query by removing the nolock, unless you don't mind the query returning incorrect data (and no, I don't just mean dirty reads). See - http://blogs.msdn.com/b/davidlean/archive/2009/04/06/sql-server-nolock-hint-other-poor-ideas.aspx Mixing distinct with aggregate... Are those distincts really necessary? Several scalar UDFs, if those do data access, that's going to be horridly slow. http://sqlinthewild.co.za/index.php/2009/04/29/functions-io-statistics-and-the-execution-plan/ Correlated subqueries, not automatically slow, but since you're accessing the same table multiple times that means that SQL will read the table multiple times.
I suggest a redesign. Start with what you need from the aptcr table, write a single query that gets all the sums, max, etc. Use that as a derived table (subquery in the from clause)
Gail Shaw Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
We walk in the dark places no others will enter We stand on the bridge and no one may pass
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Dedicated
           
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:24 PM
Points: 32,913,
Visits: 26,806
|
|
To add to what Usman and Gail have recommended, the Udf_convert_int_date is likely a scalar function (according to the way you used it). That's going to make life slower to begin with. Using it in a GROUP BY is only going to be another performance problem because of that and the fact that you can GROUP BY the raw integer date even if it's not in the YYYYMMDD format and still end up with the same result but faster.
I especially agree with Gails recommendation to Divide'n'Conquer this problem through the use of interim results stored in a Temp Table. Aggregate/manipulate first, then display. It will allow you to avoid several of the sum calculations and most of the repeated queries and their related joins. Don't try to do it all in a single query especially since it seems that you may have some accidental many-to-many joins that require the use of DISTINCT.
--Jeff Moden "RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for "Row-By-Agonizing-Row".
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code: Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column."
For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, click on the following... http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/
For better answers on performance questions, click on the following... http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/SQLServerCentral/66909/
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Dedicated
           
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:37 PM
Points: 37,741,
Visits: 30,017
|
|
Personally I don't think there's anything there that requires distinct, I suspect that distinct is there out of habit, probably the same for the nolocks.
Gail Shaw Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
We walk in the dark places no others will enter We stand on the bridge and no one may pass
|
|
|
|