I am trying this query:
List<Account> onlyRRCustomer = [SELECT
ac.rr_First_Name__c,
ac.rr_Last_Name__c,
ac.rr_National_Insurance_Number__c,
ac.id,
ac.rr_Date_of_Birth__c
FROM
Account ac
WHERE
ac.rr_National_Insurance_Number__c IN :uniqueNiInputSet
AND RecordTypeId = :recordTypeId];
It gives me an error:
SELECT ac.rr_First_Name__c, ac.rr_Last_Name__c,
ac.rr_National_Insurance_Number__c, ac.id, ac.rr_Date_of_Birth__c FROM
Account ac WHERE (ac.rr_National_Insurance_Number__c = :tmpVar1 AND
RecordTypeId = :tmpVar2) 10:12:05.0
(11489528)|EXCEPTION_THROWN|[49]|System.QueryException: Non-selective
query against large object type (more than 200000 rows). Consider an
indexed filter or contact salesforce.com about custom indexing.
I understand uniqueNiInputSet.size() ~ 50, so, it's not an issue but for that record type, it might contains more records.
So, if i changed the position will that work? Means, first the recordtype and then the NIset in where clause. Is there any order how where clause are selected in SF. So, it will only look for 50 member and then within 50 it will serach for the particular record type?
That just means that the script is taking too long to execute. You may need to move this to a #future method or make execute it using Database.Batchable.
I don't think the order matters in SOQL, I think it's just trying to return too many records.
A non-selective query means you are performing a query against a table that has a large number of records and your query is not specific enough. You can work with Salesforce support to try to resolve this, either through the creation of additional backend indexes or by making the query more selective.
To be honest, your query looks very selective already, you're not using LIKE or IN. You should also put your most selective conditions first (resulting in a more focused query against your records).
I know it should'nt matter, but I would also move your conditions out of the parenthesis.
If there are any other fields you can filter on, that may help. Sometimes, you have to actually create new fields and populate them just to help make your queries more selective.
Also, if rr_National_Insurance_Number__c is a formula field, you will want to change it to a text field and populate workflow or apex instead. Formula fields require additional time on the servers to calculate.
SELECT rr_First_Name__c, rr_Last_Name__c, rr_National_Insurance_Number__c, id, rr_Date_of_Birth__c
FROM Account
WHERE new_custom_field__c = TRUE
AND rr_National_Insurance_Number__c = :tmpVar1
AND RecordTypeId = :tmpVar2
Your query is non-selective. For a standard indexes is 30% for the fist million records and 15% of records over a million up to 1 million records total. For and "AND" query each individual where criteria must itself be selective see this quick reference cheat sheet. In general try making
rr_National_Insurance_Number__c
an external id which will make it an indexed by salesforce by default and retry you query. Record Types are already indexed by default. If the result is still non-selective because of the number of results returned, try limiting the number of results using a field like CreatedDate to limit the scope of the query.
Related
I'm writing a kind of summary page for my FileMaker solution.
For this, I have define a "statistics" table, which uses formula fields with ExecuteSQL to gather info from most tables, such as number of records, recently changed records, etc.
This strangely takes a long time - around 10 seconds when I have a total of about 20k records in about 10 tables. The same SQL on any database system shouldn't take more than some fractions of a second.
What could the reason be, what can I do about it and where can I start debugging to figure out what's causing all this time?
The actual code is, like this:
SQLAusführen ( "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM " & _Stats::Table ; "" ; "" )
SQLAusführen ( "SELECT SUM(\"some_field_name\") FROM " & _Stats::Table ; "" ; "" )
Where "_Stats" is my statistics table, and it has a string field "Table" where I store the name of the other tables.
So each row in this _Stats table should have the stats for the table named in the "Table" field.
Update: I'm not using FileMaker server, this is a standalone client application.
We can definitely talk about why it may be slow. Usually this has mostly to do with the size and complexity of your schema. That is "usually", as you have found.
Can you instead use the DDR ( database design report ) instead? Much will depend on what you are actually doing with this data. Tools like FMPerception also will give you many of the stats you are looking for. Again, depends on what you are doing with it.
Also, can you post your actual calculation? Is the statistic table using unstored calculations? Is the statistics table related to any of the other tables? These are a couple things that will affect how ExecuteSQL performs.
One thing to keep in mind, whether ExecuteSQL, a Perform Find, or relationship, it's all the same basic query under-the-hood. So if it would be slow doing it one way, it's going to likely be slow with any other directly related approach.
Taking these one at a time:
All records count.
Placing an unstored calc in the target table allows you to get the count of the records through the relationship, without triggering a transfer of all records to the client. You can get the value from the first record in the relationship. Super light way to get that info vs using Count which requires FileMaker to touch every record on the other side.
Sum of Records Matching a Value.
using a field on the _Stats table with a relationship to the target table will reduce how much work FileMaker has to do to give you an answer.
Then having a Summary field in the target table so sum the records may prove to be more efficient than using an aggregate function. The summary field will also only sum the records that match the relationship. ( just don't show that field on any of your layouts if you don't need it )
ExecuteSQL is fastest when it can just rely on a simple index lookup. Once you get outside of that, it's primarily about testing to find the sweet-spot. Typically, I will use ExecuteSQL for retrieving either a JSON object from a user table, or verifying a single field value. Once you get into sorting and aggregate functions, you step outside of the optimizations of the function.
Also note, if you have an open record ( that means you as the current user ), FileMaker Server doesn't know what data you have on the client side, and so it sends ALL of the records. That's why I asked if you were using unstored calcs with ExecuteSQL. It can seem slow when you can't control when the calculations fire. Often I will put the updating of that data into a scheduled script.
As a part of reporting I want to get some values from database.
Also I included filtering in report UI, like :
select * from invoice where id in (92)
So I am making the postgres statement dynamically(here 92 is the value getting from UI and assigning dynamically). But I want to return all data without any condition if the user select no option, id in this case (no filtering). So how can I handle the "in" clause to return all data without any filtering in this case.
I am asking for a common term that can be included in 'in' clause, so it retun all rows without filtering.
Thanks!
One method is using logic like:
where (v_id is null) or (id = v_id)
Note: be careful about the use of in. It probably will not do what you intend if you expect multiple values to match.
I am getting my data from denormalized table, where I keep names and actions (apart from other things). I want to create a calculated field that will return sum of workgroup names but only when there are more than five actions present in DB for given workgroup.
Here's how I have done it when I wanted to check if certain action has been registered for workgroup:
WINDOW_SUM(COUNTD(IF [action] = "ADD" THEN [workgroup_name] END))
When I try to do similar thing with count, I am getting "Cannot mix aggregate and non-aggregate arguments":
WINDOW_SUM(COUNTD(IF COUNT([Number of Records]) > 5 THEN [workgroup_name] END))
I know that there's problem with the IF clause, but don't know how to fix it.
How to change the IF to be valid? Maybe there's an easier way to do it, that I am missing?
EDIT:
(after Inox's response)
I know that my problem is mixing aggregate with non-aggregate fields. I can't use filter to do it, because I want to use it later as a part of more complicated view - filtering would destroy the whole idea.
No, the problem is to mix aggregated arguments (e.g., sum, count) with non aggregate ones (e.g., any field directly). And that's what you're doing mixing COUNT([Number of Records]) with [workgroup_name]
If your goal is to know how many workgroup_name (unique) has more than 5 records (seems like that by the idea of your code), I think it's easier to filter then count.
So first you drag workgroup_name to Filter, go to tab conditions, select By field, Number of Records, Count, >, 5
This way you'll filter only the workgroup_name that has more than 5 records.
Now you can go with a simple COUNTD(workgroup_name)
EDIT: After clarification
Okay, than you need to add a marker that is fixed in your database. So table calculations won't help you.
By definition table calculation depends on the fields that are on the worksheet (and how you decide to use those fields to partition or address), and it's only calculated AFTER being called in a sheet. That way, each time you call the function it will recalculate, and for some analysis you may want to do, the fields you need to make the table calculation correct won't be there.
Same thing applies to aggregations (counts, sums,...), the aggregation depends, well, on the level of aggregation you have.
In this case it's better that you manipulate your data prior to connecting it to Tableau. I don't see a direct way (a single calculated field that would solve your problem). What can be done is to generate a db from Tableau (with the aggregation of number of records for each workgroup_name) then export it to csv or mdb and then reconnect it to Tableau. But if you can manipulate your database outside Tableau, it's usually a better solution
I have some performance issue in this case:
Very simplified query:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM Items WHERE ConditionA OR ConditionB OR ConditionC OR ...
Simply I have to determine how many Items the user has access through some complicated conditions.
When there is a large number of records (100,000+) in the Items table and say ~10 complicated conditions concatenated in WHERE clause, I get the result about 2 seconds in my case. The problem is when a very few conditions are met, f.e. when I get only 10 Items from 100,000.
How can I improve the performace in this "Get my items" case?
Additional information:
the query is generated by EF 6.1
MS SQL 2012 Express
SQL Execution Plan
Add an additional table to your schema. Instead of building a long query, insert the value for each condition into this new table, along with a key for that user/session. Then, JOIN the two tables together.
This should perform much better, because it will allow the database engine to make better use of indexes on your Items table.
Additionally, this will position you to eventually pre-define sets of permissions for your users, such that you don't need to insert them right at the moment you do the check. The permission sets will already be in the table, and the new table can also be indexed, which will improve performance further.
I have a SELECT query that yields multiple results and do not have any ORDER BY clause.
If I execute this query multiple times and then iterate through results using DataReader.NextResult(), would I be guaranteed to get the results in the same order?
For e.g. if I execute the following query that return 199 rows:
SELECT * FROM products WHERE productid < 200
would I always get the first result with productid = 1 and so on?
As far as I have observed it always return the results in same order, but I cannot find any documentation for this behavior.
======================================
As per my research:
Check out this blog Conor vs. SQL. I actually wanted to ask if the query-result changes even if the data in table remains the same (i.e no update or delete). But it seems like in case of large table, when SQL server employees parallelism, the order can be different
First of all, to iterate the rows in a DataReader, you should call Read, not NextResult.
Calling NextResult will move to the next result set if your query has multiple SELECT statements.
To answer your question, you must not rely on this.
A query without an ORDER BY clause will return rows in SQL Server's default iteration order.
For small tables, this will usually be the order in which the rows were added, but this is not guaranteed and is liable to change at any time. For example, if the table is indexed or partitioned, the order will be different.
No, DataReader will return the results in the order they come back from SQL. If you don't specify an ORDER BY clause, that will be the order that they exist in the table.
It is possible, perhaps even likely that they will always return in the same order, but this isn't guaranteed. The order is determined by the queryplan (at least in SQL Server) on the database server. If something changes that queryplan, the order could change. You should always use ORDER BY if the order of results is in anyway important to your processing of the data.