Solomon Rutzky (1/4/2011)
Hey Jason. Nice article and one question. In your two main examples the difference is the WHERE condition that constrains the results to 10 rows as opposed to the full 10,000 in the table. Is it fair to compare the query times (and make implications on the differences of the JOIN types) given that they are different queries? One is asked to get 10 rows and the other query gets all 10,000 so naturally they would not take the same amount of time, right? Maybe that is not the point you were trying to get across to begin with, but my initial thought as to the speed increase wasn't that it was due to the different JOIN type but instead to only pulling 10 rows. I wonder if there is a way to show two queries that pull the same amount of rows but are written differently so as to force the different JOIN types (Merge vs Nested Loop).Thanks and take care,
Solomon...
True it is a bit unfair to illustrate it that way (I alluded to that unfairness as well). An important part of that comparison is to show how the query optimizer changes the join operator when fewer records are required. Since an indexed nested loops works better with fewer records, the optimizer will choose that. That was really the main point.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events