|
|
|
SSC-Addicted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 6:05 AM
Points: 492,
Visits: 329
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum 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
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Dedicated
           
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:51 PM
Points: 32,910,
Visits: 26,800
|
|
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."
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/
|
|
|
|
|
SSChampion
        
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 5:10 PM
Points: 10,989,
Visits: 10,535
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Addicted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 6:05 AM
Points: 492,
Visits: 329
|
|
Hi Varun.C,
Well spotted!
I have made the correction.
Many thanks, Ben
|
|
|
|
|
Valued 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Old Hand
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, October 29, 2012 9:49 AM
Points: 313,
Visits: 61
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Veteran
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:57 AM
Points: 288,
Visits: 1,903
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Ten Centuries
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:15 PM
Points: 1,409,
Visits: 4,509
|
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Addicted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 6:05 AM
Points: 492,
Visits: 329
|
|
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
|
|
|
|