Odd Construct in a WHERE clause

SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.

Popular Topics

Home

Members

Calendar

Who's On

Home » SQL Server 2005 » T-SQL (SS2K5) » Odd Construct in a WHERE clause

35 posts, Page 2 of 4

««1 2 3 4 »»»

Odd Construct in a WHERE clause

Rate Topic

Display Mode

Topic Options

Author

Message

parackson

Posted Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:18 PM

SSC Journeyman

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, April 05, 2012 9:52 AM
Points: 86, Visits: 103

Couple of things that can help to speed it up....

Declare the GETDATE() as a variable and call it out... Helps with processing time.

Add "WITH (NOLOCK)" to each and every table in your join statments. If you can call out an actual index this can help.

Change this line
LEFT JOIN (SELECT * FROM ORDER_DEAL) od1 ON TITLE.title_no = od1.order_no AND TITLE.company_id = od1.company_id
To
LEFT JOIN ORDER_DEAL AS od1 WITH (NOLOCK) ON TITLE.title_no = od1.order_no AND TITLE.company_id = od1.company_id

Move "OR" query to last part of where clause
AND (TITLE.sub_no = @sub_no OR @sub_no = 0 ) -- all subscrober (0) or one subscriber

New code can be improved
AND TITLE.title_code NOT BETWEEN 123 and 134 -- SAFE products
AND TITLE.title_code NOT BETWEEN 135 and 138 -- SAFE Products *** this was the new code ***
No need for second line just make it
AND TITLE.title_code NOT BETWEEN 123 and 138 -- SAFE products

Is this a large table
(SELECT * FROM ORDER_DEAL WHERE product_id = 'P' AND product_sub_code = 123)

Because you could think about writing this to a temp table and then referencing it in the actual query

Post #563342

GilaMonster

Posted Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:23 PM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:27 AM
Points: 37,648, Visits: 29,900

First thing is that there's absolutely no need for the temp table. Just do the select straight with the order by included.

Which tables is it scanning and what do the indexes on that table look like?

While it's running, look in sysprocesses and see if there's a last wait type. If so, what is it?

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

Post #563344

parackson

Posted Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:24 PM

SSC Journeyman

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, April 05, 2012 9:52 AM
Points: 86, Visits: 103

GilaMonster (9/3/2008)

First thing is that there's absolutely no need for the temp table. Just do the select straight with the order by included.

Good catch, Gila, completly went right over that code.

Post #563348

GilaMonster

Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 2:35 AM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:27 AM
Points: 37,648, Visits: 29,900

parackson (9/3/2008)

Add "WITH (NOLOCK)" to each and every table in your join statments. If you can call out an actual index this can help.

Just bear in mind that NOLOCK means dirty reads, so if the data's changing a lot, you may read something you don't want to. There's also the chance of missing rows completely or reading rows twice under certain circumstances.

Nolock essentially means to SQL "I don't care if my result set is slightly inaccurate."

If the data is not changing a lot, then you are probably not running into lock waits and hence nolock won't help much. Nolock is not a silver bullet to be added to every select statement without careful consideration.

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

Post #563628

Glen Sidelnikov

Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 10:05 AM

Old Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:08 PM
Points: 371, Visits: 794

Can you try changing the order in your WHERE clause to 'WHERE (@num1 = 0 or colOne = @num1)'?

Post #563958

GilaMonster

Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:40 AM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:27 AM
Points: 37,648, Visits: 29,900

Glen Sidelnikov (9/4/2008)

Can you try changing the order in your WHERE clause to 'WHERE (@num1 = 0 or colOne = @num1)'?

Won't make a difference. Order of clauses in the WHERE are unimportant. SQL doesn't do short-circuit evaluation and the optimiser's free to evaluate the order of expressions however it likes, providing the meaning is the same

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

Post #564037

Glen Sidelnikov

Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:53 AM

Old Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:08 PM
Points: 371, Visits: 794

I remember reading in one of the blogs that SQL Server does short-circuit evaluation, but it was not specified under what conditions.

Post #564046

GilaMonster

Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:40 PM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:27 AM
Points: 37,648, Visits: 29,900

It can 'short-circuit' but not on the basis of where the expressions are in the where clause, rather which indexes are used and which expressions those indexes can 'evaluate'

If we say have a query with a where clause
WHERE B > 8 and A=16
and there's a nonclustered index on A that the optimiser chooses to use, then the B > 8 will only be evaluated on the rows that the index returns, ie the rows where A=16

You could call that a form of short-circuit. I prefer not to as the phrase brings to mind what C# and other languages do, which is a position-based short-circuit.

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

Post #564089

Glen Sidelnikov

Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 1:00 PM

Old Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:08 PM
Points: 371, Visits: 794

Gail,

would it be then proper to consider that on a table with search on an unindexed column the

'WHERE @param = something or field = @param" and
"WHERE field = @param or @param = something"

will be returning the same elapsed time and CPU time in server execution times?
I doubt. I can run some tests, but would assume that the second where clause should have CPU time and server execution higher than first.

Post #564106

Richard Fryar

Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 1:14 PM

SSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 4:59 AM
Points: 242, Visits: 879

I have written a brief description of this exact problem here:

OR Condition Performance

I have lost count of the number of times I've seen this, and at first sight it looks like a good idea. But the fact is, it won't use an index, so an alternative like dynamic SQL has got to be considered.

I haven't tried the COALESCE solution. I can feel a test coming on :)

FREE DOWNLOAD
www.sqlcopilot.com

Post #564116

« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

35 posts, Page 2 of 4

««1 2 3 4 »»»

Permissions