TSQL Faster In Cursor Loop - tsql

Building up a query.
The single query is shown below and runs in 7.0 seconds. It does return the correct answer. Need to count rows based on certain conditions and then get the maximum count. My problem is performance of this stand along query. That same query wrapped in a cursor is 0.15 seconds. In the cursor the query plan is much different. How can I make the stand alone query run faster?
Using hints was able to get the stand alone to plan to look like the cursor plan and that fixed the speed problem.
Fixed query: (not all the way fixed as OPTION fails)
select max(list.match) as 'max'
from
(
SELECT
count(*) as 'match'
FROM [docSVenum1] with (nolock)
INNER LOOP JOIN [FTSindexWordOnce] as w1 with (NOLOCK, FORCESEEK)
ON [docSVenum1].sID = w1.[sID] and [docSVenum1].[enumID] = '142'
INNER HASH JOIN [FTSindexWordOnce] as w2 with (NOLOCK)
ON w1.wordID = w2.wordID and w2.[sID] = '2'
GROUP BY W1.[sID]
-- OPTION (HASH GROUP)
) as list;
problem query:
select getdate();
go
select max(list.match) as 'max'
from
(
SELECT
count(*) as 'match'
FROM [FTSindexWordOnce] as w1 with (nolock)
INNER JOIN [docSVenum1] with (nolock)
ON [docSVenum1].sID = w1.[sID] and [docSVenum1].[enumID] = '142'
INNER JOIN [FTSindexWordOnce] as w2 with (nolock)
ON w1.wordID = w2.wordID AND w2.[sID] = '2'
GROUP BY W1.[sID]
) as list;
go
select getdate(); -- 7.0 seconds
I also need to run that single query against multiple values and put it in a cursor with a loop. I know cursor is bad but I could not figure out how to do it without a cursor.
The query stand alone and inside the loop both return the same correct answer.
My surprise is the exact same query inside a cursor loop is 40 times faster.
DECLARE #sid int
DECLARE sID_cursor CURSOR FOR
SELECT top 80 sID
FROM docSVsys
WHERE sID = '2' -- actually I want to not have this and let it loop through all
-- when i built the loop i saw performance improvement
ORDER BY sID
OPEN sID_cursor
FETCH NEXT FROM sID_cursor
INTO #sID
WHILE ##FETCH_STATUS = 0
BEGIN
PRINT #sID
select max(list.match) as 'max'
from
(
SELECT
count(*) as 'match'
FROM [FTSindexWordOnce] as w1 with (nolock)
INNER JOIN [docSVenum1] with (nolock)
ON [docSVenum1].sID = w1.[sID] and [docSVenum1].[enumID] = '142'
INNER JOIN [FTSindexWordOnce] as w2 with (nolock)
ON w1.wordID = w2.wordID AND w2.[sID] = #sID
GROUP BY W1.[sID]
) as list
FETCH NEXT FROM sID_cursor
INTO #sID
END
CLOSE sID_cursor;
DEALLOCATE sID_cursor;
go
select getdate(); -- 0.15 seconds

Using hints was able to get the stand alone to plan to look like the cursor plan and that fixed the speed problem.
Fixed query: (not all the way fixed as OPTION fails)
select max(list.match) as 'max'
from
(
SELECT
count(*) as 'match'
FROM [docSVenum1] with (nolock)
INNER LOOP JOIN [FTSindexWordOnce] as w1 with (NOLOCK, FORCESEEK)
ON [docSVenum1].sID = w1.[sID] and [docSVenum1].[enumID] = '142'
INNER HASH JOIN [FTSindexWordOnce] as w2 with (NOLOCK)
ON w1.wordID = w2.wordID and w2.[sID] = '2'
GROUP BY W1.[sID]
-- OPTION (HASH GROUP)
) as list;

Related

Strange Behaviour on Postgresql query

We created a view in Postgres and I am getting strange result.
View Name: event_puchase_product_overview
When I try to get records with *, I get the correct result. but when I try to get specific fields, I get wrong values.
I hope the screens attached here can explain the problem well.
select *
from event_purchase_product_overview
where id = 15065;
select id, departure_id
from event_puchase_product_overview
where id = 15065;
VIEW definition:
CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW public.event_puchase_product_overview AS
SELECT row_number() OVER () AS id,
e.id AS departure_id,
e.type AS event_type,
e.name,
p.id AS product_id,
pc.name AS product_type,
product_date.attribute AS option,
p.upcomming_date AS supply_date,
pr.date_end AS bid_deadline,
CASE
WHEN (pt.categ_id IN ( SELECT unnest(tt.category_ids) AS unnest
FROM ( SELECT string_to_array(btrim(ir_config_parameter.value, '[]'::text), ', '::text)::integer[] AS category_ids
FROM ir_config_parameter
WHERE ir_config_parameter.key::text = 'trip_product_flight.product_category_hotel'::text) tt)) THEN e.maximum_rooms
WHEN (pt.categ_id IN ( SELECT unnest(tt.category_ids) AS unnest
FROM ( SELECT string_to_array(btrim(ir_config_parameter.value, '[]'::text), ', '::text)::integer[] AS category_ids
FROM ir_config_parameter
WHERE ir_config_parameter.key::text = 'trip_product_flight.product_category_flight'::text) tt)) THEN e.maximum_seats
WHEN (pt.categ_id IN ( SELECT unnest(tt.category_ids) AS unnest
FROM ( SELECT string_to_array(btrim(ir_config_parameter.value, '[]'::text), ', '::text)::integer[] AS category_ids
FROM ir_config_parameter
WHERE ir_config_parameter.key::text = 'trip_product_flight.product_category_bike'::text) tt)) THEN e.maximum_bikes
ELSE e.maximum_seats
END AS departure_qty,
CASE
WHEN now()::date > pr.date_end AND po.state::text = 'draft'::text THEN true
ELSE false
END AS is_deadline,
pl.product_qty::integer AS purchased_qty,
pl.comments,
pl.price_unit AS unit_price,
rp.id AS supplier,
po.id AS po_ref,
po.state AS po_state,
po.date_order AS po_date,
po.user_id AS operator,
pl.po_state_line AS line_status
FROM event_event e
LEFT JOIN product_product p ON p.related_departure = e.id
LEFT JOIN product_template pt ON pt.id = p.product_tmpl_id
LEFT JOIN product_category pc ON pc.id = pt.categ_id
LEFT JOIN purchase_order_line pl ON pl.product_id = p.id
LEFT JOIN purchase_order po ON po.id = pl.order_id
LEFT JOIN purchase_order_purchase_requisition_rel prr ON prr.purchase_order_id = po.id
LEFT JOIN purchase_requisition pr ON pr.id = prr.purchase_requisition_id
LEFT JOIN res_partner rp ON rp.id = po.partner_id
LEFT JOIN ( SELECT p_1.id AS product_id,
pav.name AS attribute
FROM product_product p_1
LEFT JOIN product_attribute_value_product_product_rel pa ON pa.prod_id = p_1.id
LEFT JOIN product_attribute_value pav ON pav.id = pa.att_id
LEFT JOIN product_attribute pat ON pat.id = pav.attribute_id
WHERE pat.name::text <> ALL (ARRAY['Date'::character varying, 'Departure'::character varying]::text[])) product_date ON product_date.product_id = p.id
WHERE (p.id IN ( SELECT DISTINCT mrp_bom_line.product_id
FROM mrp_bom_line)) AND p.active
ORDER BY e.id, pt.categ_id, p.id;
If I add new event_event or new product_product I'll get a new definition of row_number in my view, then the column ID of my view is not stable.
at least you can't use row_number as Id of the view,
If you insist to use row_number, you can use the Order By "creation DATE" by this way all new records will be as last lines in the view and this will not change the correspondency between ID (row_number) and other columns.
Hope that helps !
Very likely the execution plan of your query depends on the columns you select. Compare the execution plans!
Your id is generated using the row_number window function. Now window functions are executed before the ORDER BY clause, so the order will depend on the execution plan and hence on the columns you select.
Using row_number without an explicit ordering doesn't make any sense.
To fix that, don't use
row_number() OVER ()
but
row_number() OVER (ORDER BY e.id, pt.categ_id, p.id)
so that you have a reliable ordering.
In addition, you should omit the ORDER BY clause at the end.

JOIN tables inside a subquery in DB2

I'm having trouble with paginating with joined tables in DB2. I want to return rows 10-30 of a query that contains an INNER JOIN.
This works:
SELECT *
FROM (
SELECT row_number() OVER (ORDER BY U4SLSMN.SLNAME) AS ID,
U4SLSMN.SLNO, U4SLSMN.SLNAME, U4SLSMN.SLLC
FROM U4SLSMN) AS P
WHERE P.ID BETWEEN 10 AND 30
This does not work:
SELECT *
FROM (
SELECT row_number() OVER (ORDER BY U4SLSMN.SLNAME) AS ID,
U4SLSMN.SLNO, U4SLSMN.SLNAME, U4SLSMN.SLLC, U4CONST.C4NAME
FROM U4SLSMN INNER JOIN U4CONST ON U4SLSMN.SLNO = U4CONST.C4NAME
) AS P
WHERE P.ID BETWEEN 10 AND 30
The error I get is:
Selection error involving field *N.
Note that the JOIN query works correctly by itself, just not when it's run as a subquery.
How do I perform a join inside a subquery in DB2?
Works fine for me on v7.1 TR9
Here's what I actually ran:
select *
from ( select rownumber() over (order by vvname) as ID, idescr, vvname
from olsdta.ioritemmst
inner join olsdta.vorvendmst on ivndno = vvndno
) as P
where p.id between 10 and 30;
I much prefer the CTE version however:
with p as
( select rownumber() over (order by vvname) as ID, idescr, vvname
from olsdta.ioritemmst
inner join olsdta.vorvendmst on ivndno = vvndno
)
select *
from p
where p.id between 10 and 30;
Finally, note that at 7.1 TR11 (7.2 TR3), IBM added support of the LIMIT and OFFSET clauses. Your query could be re-done as follows:
SELECT
U4SLSMN.SLNO, U4SLSMN.SLNAME, U4SLSMN.SLLC, U4CONST.C4NAME
FROM U4SLSMN INNER JOIN U4CONST ON U4SLSMN.SLNO = U4CONST.C4NAME
ORDER BY U4SLSMN.SLNAME
LIMIT 20 OFFSET 9;
However, note that the LIMIT & OFFSET clauses are only supported in prepared or embedded SQL. You can't use them in STRSQL or STRQMQRY. I believe the "Run SQL Scripts" GUI interface does support them. Here's an article about LIMIT & OFFSET

sql, group a query with no aggregations and multiple tables

I need to group the query below by dda.LA and need to display all the columns listed in the select but almost none of them are aggregated. i don't know what the syntax to get around this is and i can not find a post that shows this syntax (most examples only have one table, two at tops).
Select dda.a,
dda.b,
dda.c,
dda.d,
dda.e,
dda.f,
dda.g,
dda.h,
dda.i,
dda.j,
dda.k,
dda.l,
dda.m,
dda.n,
dda.o,
dda.p,
dda.r,
dda.u,
dda.LA,
dd.aa,
coalesce(apn.apn,Pt.z) as abc,
coalesce(apn.v,Pt.y) as def,
'RFN' RowFocusIndicator ,
'SRI' SelectRowIndicator ,
'Y' Expanded ,
Convert(Int, Null) SortColumn
From dda (NoLock)
Inner Join dd (NoLock) On dda.d = dd.q and dda.e = dd.e
Left Outer Join apn (nolock) on dda.r = apn.r
Left Outer Join Pt (nolock) on dda.s = Pt.t
Where 1 = 1
And dda.u = (Select Min(c.w)
From c (NoLock)
Where c.x = dda.s)
Thanks!
Just add this to any column that you want to aggregate by:
AggregatedColumnName = Aggregation(fieldToAggregate) Over (Partition By dda.LA)
ex.
aCount = Count(dda.a) Over (Partition By dda.LA)

Left Join Is Not Doing What I expect

Totally confused and I have been working at this for 2 hours
I thought restriction on the left side of the join are honored
On this query I am getting [docSVsys].[visibility] 1 and <> 1
I thought this would restrict [docSVsys].[visibility] to 1
select top 1000
[docSVsys].[sID], [docSVsys].[visibility]
,[Table].[sID],[Table].[enumID],[Table].[valueID]
from [docSVsys] with (nolock)
left Join [DocMVenum1] as [Table] with (nolock)
on [docSVsys].[visibility] in (1)
and [Table].[sID] = [docSVsys].[sID]
and [Table].[enumID] = '140'
and [Table].[valueID] in (1,7)
This works
select top 1000
[docSVsys].[sID], [docSVsys].[visibility]
,[Table].[sID],[Table].[enumID],[Table].[valueID]
from [docSVsys] with (nolock)
left Join [DocMVenum1] as [Table] with (nolock)
on [Table].[sID] = [docSVsys].[sID]
and [Table].[enumID] = '140'
and [Table].[valueID] in (1,7)
where [docSVsys].[visibility] in (1)
I am just having a really off day as I had it in my mind the left side honored the join
SELECT *
FROM A
LEFT JOIN B ON Condition
is equivalent to
SELECT *
FROM A
CROSS JOIN B
WHERE Condition
UNION ALL
SELECT A.*, NULL AS B
FROM A
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM B WHERE Condition)
Some rough pseudo-code...
Note, that all rows from A get through. It's just that the columns from B can be NULL if the join fails for some particular row of A.
Put the filter on docSVsys into the WHERE clause.
LEFT JOINs preserve all rows from the left (first) table, no matter what. The condition in the ON clause is only for matching which rows from the right/second table should be paired with rows from the left/first table.
If you want to exclude some rows from the firs table, use the WHERE clause:
select top 1000
[docSVsys].[sID], [docSVsys].[visibility]
,[Table].[sID],[Table].[enumID],[Table].[valueID]
from [docSVsys] with (nolock)
left Join [DocMVenum1] as [Table] with (nolock)
on [Table].[sID] = [docSVsys].[sID]
and [Table].[enumID] = '140'
and [Table].[valueID] in (1,7)
where [docSVsys].[visibility] in (1)

Postgres join not respecting outer where clause

In SQL Server, I know for sure that the following query;
SELECT things.*
FROM things
LEFT OUTER JOIN (
SELECT thingreadings.thingid, reading
FROM thingreadings
INNER JOIN things on thingreadings.thingid = things.id
ORDER BY reading DESC LIMIT 1) AS readings
ON things.id = readings.thingid
WHERE things.id = '1'
Would join against thingreadings only once the WHERE id = 1 had restricted the record set down. It left joins against just one row. However in order for performance to be acceptable in postgres, I have to add the WHERE id= 1 to the INNER JOIN things on thingreadings.thingid = things.id line too.
This isn't ideal; is it possible to force postgres to know that what I am joining against is only one row without explicitly adding the WHERE clauses everywhere?
An example of this problem can be seen here;
I am trying to recreate the following query in a more efficient way;
SELECT things.id, things.name,
(SELECT thingreadings.id FROM thingreadings WHERE thingid = things.id ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 1),
(SELECT thingreadings.reading FROM thingreadings WHERE thingid = things.id ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 1)
FROM things
WHERE id IN (1,2)
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!15/a172c/2
Not really sure why you did all that work. Isn't the inner query enough?
SELECT t.*
FROM thingreadings tr
INNER JOIN things t on tr.thingid = t.id AND t.id = '1'
ORDER BY tr.reading DESC
LIMIT 1;
sqlfiddle demo
When you want to select the latest value for each thingID, you can do:
SELECT t.*,a.reading
FROM things t
INNER JOIN (
SELECT t1.*
FROM thingreadings t1
LEFT JOIN thingreadings t2
ON (t1.thingid = t2.thingid AND t1.reading < t2.reading)
WHERE t2.thingid IS NULL
) a ON a.thingid = t.id
sqlfiddle demo
The derived table gets you the record with the most recent reading, then the JOIN gets you the information from things table for that record.
The where clause in SQL applies to the result set you're requesting, NOT to the join.
What your code is NOT saying: "do this join only for the ID of 1"...
What your code IS saying: "do this join, then pull records out of it where the ID is 1"...
This is why you need the inner where clause. Incidentally, I also think Filipe is right about the unnecessary code.