Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase 123»»»

Optimising “Ends With” searches with REVERSE Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:27 PM
SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:00 AM
Points: 492, Visits: 356
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Optimising “Ends With” searches with REVERSE
Post #846675
Posted Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:52 PM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, October 01, 2012 12:17 AM
Points: 3, Visits: 38
Nice Article.

I think you need to correct this query
from
SELECT NAME FROM TEST_TABLE WHERE NAME LIKE 'DI%'
To
SELECT NAME FROM TEST_TABLE WHERE NAME_REVERSED LIKE 'DI%'


Best,
Varun.C
Post #846708
Posted Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:26 AM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:47 PM
Points: 35,959, Visits: 30,252
Good article and makes a lot of sense... providing that the table doesn't have a lot of inserts where every index counts AGAINST inserts. Most people don't know that INSERTS on heavily indexed tables are one of the primary causes of very high reads. For example and using the given example table, if I run the following code...

--drop table test_table
SELECT object_id, name, system_type_id INTO test_table FROM master.sys.all_parameters

CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX ix_name ON test_table (name ASC)

ALTER TABLE test_table ADD name_REVERSED AS REVERSE(name)


PRINT '========== Insert with no index =========='
SET STATISTICS IO ON
SET STATISTICS TIME ON
INSERT INTO test_table SELECT 1,'Dodah',2
SET STATISTICS TIME OFF
SET STATISTICS IO OFF
GO
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX IX_REVERSED ON TEST_TABLE (NAME_REVERSED ASC) INCLUDE (NAME)
GO
PRINT '========== Insert with index =========='
SET STATISTICS IO ON
SET STATISTICS TIME ON
INSERT INTO test_table SELECT 1,'Dodah',2
SET STATISTICS TIME OFF
SET STATISTICS IO OFF

... then we can see that a single insert after the index is created now takes 11 reads instead of just 3.

(6756 row(s) affected)
========== Insert with no index ==========
SQL Server parse and compile time:
CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.
SQL Server parse and compile time:
CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.
Table 'test_table'. Scan count 0, logical reads 3, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

SQL Server Execution Times:
CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 1 ms.

(1 row(s) affected)
========== Insert with index ==========
SQL Server parse and compile time:
CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.
SQL Server parse and compile time:
CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.
SQL Server parse and compile time:
CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.
Table 'test_table'. Scan count 0, logical reads 11, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

SQL Server Execution Times:
CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 1 ms.

(1 row(s) affected)

If you have an IO bound system, you need to be really careful about adding any indexes to tables that have a high insertion rate. Like everything else, "It Depends" and only a bit of "complete" testing will show you things that you may have not considered.


--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."

"Change is inevitable. Change for the better is not." -- 04 August 2013
(play on words) "Just because you CAN do something in T-SQL, doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T." --22 Aug 2013

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Post #846725
Posted Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:10 AM


SSChampion

SSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampion

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:59 AM
Points: 11,168, Visits: 10,931
Jeff Moden (1/13/2010)
Good article and makes a lot of sense... providing that the table doesn't have a lot of inserts where every index counts AGAINST inserts. Most people don't know that INSERTS on heavily indexed tables are one of the primary causes of very high reads. For example and using the given example table, if I run the following code...

... then we can see that a single insert after the index is created now takes 11 reads instead of just 3.

On my 2008 system, the logical reads change from 3 to 5 (there are 7090 rows).

Jeff Moden (1/13/2010)
If you have an IO bound system, you need to be really careful about adding any indexes to tables that have a high insertion rate. Like everything else, "It Depends" and only a bit of "complete" testing will show you things that you may have not considered.

It is important to consider the impact of index maintenance, for sure, but there's nothing unusual about that. Every new index has to justify itself in terms of the trade off between increased maintenance overhead versus the benefits produced by having the index. Generally, one would expect most useful indexes to involve a net saving in reads; the reduced reads coming from queries that benefit from the index should outweigh the reads added by index maintenance.

Don't get me started on what a poor metric the number of 'logical reads is'

All that aside, I found this to be a good article, and a fine approach for any system that finds itself requiring a lot of 'ends with' searches. It is also well presented and clear - so top marks for style.

Paul




Paul White
SQL Server MVP
SQLblog.com
@SQL_Kiwi
Post #846771
Posted Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:24 AM
SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:00 AM
Points: 492, Visits: 356
Hi Varun.C,

Well spotted!

I have made the correction.

Many thanks,
Ben
Post #846777
Posted Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:56 AM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:20 PM
Points: 63, Visits: 106
I was just about to post the same. Good to know there are people testing these solutions/examples.

Jeff- That is very good advice, I did not know that.
Post #846851
Posted Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:49 AM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 12:08 PM
Points: 315, Visits: 82
When I saw the title of this article, I immediately envisioned replacing:

...WHERE Name LIKE '%son'

with:

WHERE LEFT(REVERSE(Name),3)='nos'

Because to answer the introductory question, "How often do I need to do a search like...?": Not nearly often enough to justify creating a new indexed column solely for that purpose. A pure-SQL solution would be interesting though.



Post #846904
Posted Wednesday, January 13, 2010 8:17 AM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 3:35 AM
Points: 319, Visits: 2,151
Note that indexes can only have a limited width (300 bytes or so , I believe).

Because of this, it makes sense to do a reverse of only the last N characters and limit the length of the search text to match. If your strings have varying lengths between 3 and 250 characters and your search strings are strict enough with 12 characters, add a few extra and use the reverse of the rightmost 16 characters to put the index on and truncate the search string to 16 characters as well.

This saves you a ton of otherwise unneeded duplicate data and keeps the number of page reads to a minimum.

Post #846933
Posted Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:04 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, April 03, 2014 12:46 PM
Points: 1,413, Visits: 4,531
this is great and would be a great replacement for Full Text Indexing for smaller text columns. my biggest gripe about FTI is the blocking caused by inserting large amounts of data if you have change tracking set to auto

https://plus.google.com/100125998302068852885/posts?hl=en
http://twitter.com/alent1234
x-box live gamertag: i am null
[url=http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile[/url]
Post #846977
Posted Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:06 AM
SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:00 AM
Points: 492, Visits: 356
peter-757102 (1/13/2010)
Note that indexes can only have a limited width (300 bytes or so , I believe).

Because of this, it makes sense to do a reverse of only the last N characters and limit the length of the search text to match. If your strings have varying lengths between 3 and 250 characters and your search strings are strict enough with 12 characters, add a few extra and use the reverse of the rightmost 16 characters to put the index on and truncate the search string to 16 characters as well.

This saves you a ton of otherwise unneeded duplicate data and keeps the number of page reads to a minimum.


That's a great idea and a good refinement. I suppose you could also search on the last n characters which would potentially return you a list of primary keys from the table and then do a normal 'forwards' search on the resulting rows to narrow those down to the specifc results you want. The max index key size is 900 bytes BTW. See [url=http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms191241.aspx][/url] for details.

Regards,
Ben
Post #846982
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 123»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse