Using Bitwise Operators to Boost Performance

Question

Using Bitwise Operators to Boost Performance

Herve Roggero

Ten Centuries

Points: 1230
More actions
September 3, 2002 at 12:00 am

#151734

Comments posted to this topic are about the content posted at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/hroggero/usingbitmaskoperators.asp
Herve Roggero
hroggero@pynlogic.com
MCDBA, MCSE, MCSD
SQL Server Database Proxy/Firewall and Auditing

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

danpep SSC Journeyman Points: 94 More actions · Answer 1

Thanks for raising another interesting topic. I had never considered the performance benefits of doing things this way, but have used the method for other reasons (sometimes you simply don't need a reference data table).

Anyway, using your example schema, I just thought I'd highlight the fact that the "traditional" result set of all errors for a/all users can also be generated using the bitwise method.

Cheers,

Daniel

***************************************

DECLARE @user-id int

SET @UserId = 3

-- return all errors for a user using the bitwise method in a join

SELECT U.*, E.*

FROM Users U

JOIN Errors E

ON E.ErrorFlag & U.UserErrorFlag = E.ErrorFlag

WHERE U.Userid = @UserId

-- return all errors for a user using a join to the many-to-many intermediate table

SELECT U.*, E.*

FROM Users U

JOIN UserErrors UE

ON UE.UserId = U.UserId

JOIN Errors E

ON E.ErrorId = UE.ErrorId

WHERE U.UserId = @UserId

Herve Roggero Ten Centuries Points: 1230 More actions · Answer 2

Daniel, thanks for your input and your feedback.

I agree with you. Actually, I have seen cases where so many locks exist on small and static tables that the application layer was really slowing down.

I guess the only danger of not using referenced tables would be data integrity. I usually enforce integrity with the reference table, but use bitwise operators to get to the data, when it makes sense.

Herve

Herve Roggero
hroggero@pynlogic.com
MCDBA, MCSE, MCSD
SQL Server Database Proxy/Firewall and Auditing

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004600 More actions · Answer 3

Nice article... you really put some thought into the proofs and which graphics to use. Good idea, as well.

--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.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

Oblio Leitch SSCrazy Points: 2137 More actions · Answer 4

It's interesting you did not point out the possibility of a "double unknown" of using this method. That is, it's possible for the error field to be either 0 or NULL. Both values would have, essentially, the same meaning. It's possible to make use of this fact, say 0 is success and NULL is the program has reported back yet.

But, I would really love to know more, specifically, how large your dictionary can be? This is complicated by the fact that MS stores your larger values signed. For example, a TINYINT is unsigned and can store 7 concurrent values in addition to NULL and 0. But in order to expand beyond that using SMALLINT, you have to divide the value between positive and negative, -2^15 (-32,768) to 2^15-1 (32,767). This gives you 14 concurrent values on the positive side (with 0) and 15 on the negative (without). If SMALLINT were unsigned, you would have 15 with 0 and NULL. INT gives you 30, and BIGINT gives you 62. Essentially, that means that this is only a viable alternative if you need to assign fewer than 62 matches. Or, perhaps the NUMERIC data type can be used for bigger numbers?

Using Bitwise Operators to Boost Performance

Cookies on SQLServerCentral