DB Engine :: Indexing Strategy For Table With Two Columns In SPs WHERE Clause
Oct 1, 2015
I have an SP which concatenates 2 columns in a where clause - ie WHERE [Column1] + [Column2] = @var. Â This, as far as I'm aware, is not going to access any seek on an index on a table.
My task is to create an index on this table and get the SP to access said index.
Aside from combining the two columns into one column on the table, how I can get an SP to access the newly created index when queried by the SP?
One thought of mine is to firstly index Column1 and allow the SP to access this index by inserting the rows into a temp table. Â Then a search on the temp table to retrieve the records on a search on Column2.
I have a bit of a problem with regards an indexing strategy. Well,basically there is no indexing strategy on a set of data I have atwork. Now, I didn't create the design as I would have allowed for this.OK, so there is primary key (clustered) indexes (mainly compositekeys), but no other indexes on the tables. As you would expect, theperformance leaves a lot to be desired. A hell of a lot. We haveseveral million rows in a lot of the tables. None of the queries seemto be overly complex so we can work through the applications at a laterstage.We have multiple copies (one per client per country) of the samestructure (I may have considered combining these to allow betterperformance). One specific SP that I need to run takes 40+ hourswithout indexes and 5 hours with some (130) basic indexes to get usstarted on a better design. These 130 indexes are the minimum I suspectwe need and from there, we can start to work out which ones we need.Now the test database (our worst performer) doubles in size to 20Gb,but the performance is much much better (as expected). The originalthinking behind the design was for storage concerns (server spacerecently upgraded) and for performance with bulk inserts.We have a lot of bulk inserts, but I suspect that these are not toobad, and the time taken for indexing these is negligable due to theperformance gains. I strongly suspect that we have a considerableamount of table scans going on, but the problem is that people heredon't understand indexing (yet) or have the time (probably because it'sall taken up using the poorly designed system). That's a whole seperateissue for me to address.So, finally getting round to my questions...Is there any good reference explaining in Layman's terms why you needbasic (or advanced) indexing ? Any links would be appreciated. I needthis to help explain to colleagues why a disk space increase andindexing will be far better than spending thousands on a new box anddoing the same (a common problem I suspect).How can I accurately estimate the amount of time taken to update anindex once data is bulk inserted. I don't want to re-index from scratchas this may take too long. Indexing my database first time round takesabout 1 hour 30 minutes.It's all part of an ongoing bit of digging into the system and re-doingit to make it work properly. I'm sure most of you will have been thereat some point or another.ThanksRyan
Im very very new to sql server world..wanted to know what kind of indexes to be created on the below mentioned table columns for making this view run fastly.As of now there are no indexes created on these view definition columns
CREATE View hrinu.Parity as select T1.Matcle as CorpID, T2.Nmpres as Name, T4.DATDEB as LeaveFrom, T4.TEMDEB as PM, T4.DATFIN as LeaveTo, T4.TEMFIN as AM, T10.LIBLON as LeaveType, T8.LIBLON as Location, T12.LIBLON as ParentOrg
from HRINU.zy00 T1, HRINU.zy3y T2, HRINU.zy39 T3, HRINU.zyag T4, HRINU.zy38 T5, HRINU.zy1s T6, HRINU.zd00 T7, HRINU.zd01 T8, HRINU.zd00 T9, HRINU.zd01 T10, HRINU.zd00 T11, HRINU.zd01 T12 where T4.Nudoss = T3.nudoss and T4.Nudoss = T1.Nudoss and T1.Nudoss = T2.nudoss and T3.nudoss = T5.nudoss and T6.nudoss = T1.nudoss AND T7.NUDOSS = T8.NUDOSS AND T9.NUDOSS = T10.NUDOSS AND T11.NUDOSS = T12.NUDOSS AND T3.IDWKLO = T7.CDCODE AND T4.MOTIFA = T9.CDCODE AND T5.IDESTA = T11.CDCODE and T6.stempl = 'A' and t7.cdstco = 'z04' AND T8.CDLANG = 'U' and t9.cdstco = 'DSJ' AND T10.CDLANG= 'U' and t11.cdstco= 'DRE' AND T12.CDLANG= 'U' and T4.DATDEB <= T3.DTEN00 and T4.DATFIN >= T3.DTEF00 and T3.DTEN00 <= T5.DTEN00 and T3.DTEN00 >= T5.DTEF00 and T6.dtef1s <= getdate() and T6.datxxx > getdate()
Also Please suggest me some links where i can get info about the indexes that has to be created on these types of queries where joins are involved on these many tables. Also throw some light on how to analyse the execution plan for further enhancements.
I am trying to update a table and then also use OUTPUT clause to capture some of the columns. The code that I am using is something like the one below
UPDATE s SET Exception_Ind = 1 OUTPUT s.Master_Id, s.TCK_NR INTO #temp2 FROM Master_Summary s INNER JOIN Exception d ON d.Id = LEFT(s.Id, 8) AND d.Barcode_Num = s.TCK_NR WHERE s.Exception_Ind IS NULL
The above code is throwing an error as follows:
Msg 4104, Level 16, State 1, Procedure Process_Step3, Line 113 The multi-part identifier "s.Master_Id" could not be bound. Msg 4104, Level 16, State 1, Procedure Process_Step3, Line 113 The multi-part identifier "s.TCK_NR" could not be bound.
We have recently migrated quite a databases around 20 from SQL 2000 and 2005 to SQL server 2008R2.
I am using Ola's script for index maintenance for those with compatibility level above 80 as i heard it supports that way.
Hence separated in 2 way job where for those with compatibility level 80, we are running job with below query on each database with 80 as compared
USE ABC GO EXEC sp_MSforeachtable @command1="print '?' DBCC DBREINDEX ('?', ' ', 80)" GO EXEC sp_updatestats GO
I am not sure if this is the only way in for those databases, because we are seeing the database getting because of that somewhere using above query.( seems log file filling very rapidly).
But above is not the case with those databases , with compatibility 90 and above.
I'm looking at using full-text indexing for tables to query. I have some smaller fields (varchar(50) that stores names) that I was contemplating using full-text indexing for. I was just curious if it is worth it?
Basically the data that will be there are one-word names, without any spaces or whatnot.
I am facing issue in generating total sum and daily sum from table ThresholdData.
DailyTransactionAmount should be sum of todays amount in the table TransactionAmount should be sum of all amount in the table.
Basically,
1. I don't want to scan ThresholdData table twice. 2. I don't want to create temporary table/table variable/CTE for this. 3. Is there is any way to make it done in single query.
I hope, where criteria is not possible in partition function. I am trying query something as given below,
SELECT  TransactionDate,   TransactionAmount,   ROW_NUMBER() over (order by TransactionDate) AS TransactionCount,   SUM(TransactionAmount) over (partition by id ) AS TransactionAmount,   SUM(TransactionAmount) over (partition by id ,CONVERT (DATE, @TodaysTransactionDate)) AS DailyTransactionAmount  FROM ThresholdData  WHERE id = @id  AND transactiondate >= dateadd(d,-@TransactionDaysLimit,@TodaysTransactionDate)
I am using web developer 2008, while connecting to I wanted to fetch data from Lotus notes database file, for this i used notesql connector, while connectiong to notes database i am fetting error
ERROR [42000] [Lotus][ODBC Lotus Notes]Table reference has to be a table name or an outer join escape clause in a FROM clause
I have already checked that database & table name are correct, please help me out How i can fetch the lotus notes data in my asp.net pages.
I am using web developer 2008, while connecting to I wanted to fetch data from Lotus notes database file, for this i used notesql connector, while connectiong to notes database i am fetting error
ERROR [42000] [Lotus][ODBC Lotus Notes]Table reference has to be a table name or an outer join escape clause in a FROM clause
I have already checked that database & table name are correct, please help me out How i can fetch the lotus notes data in my asp.net pages.
Create Index ind_Item_Name on Item(I_Name); Create Index ind_Item_BC on Item(I_BC); Create Index ind_Item_Company on Item(I_Company); Create Index ind_Item_CompanyFound on Item(I_CompanyFound); create Index ind_Item_i1 on Item(I_Company,I_CompanyFound); create Index ind_Item_i2 on Item(I_CompanyFound,I_Company);
Now this query DOES NOT use index: select I_Name, I_Code, I_MatID, I_BC, I_Company,I_Info1, I_Acquired, I_CompanyFound, 0 as I_Found from Item where (I_Company='102' or I_CompanyFound='102' )
While this one use:
select I_Name, I_Code, I_MatID, I_BC, I_Company,I_Info1, I_Acquired, I_CompanyFound, 0 as I_Found from Item where (I_Company='102' ) UNION select I_Name, I_Code, I_MatID, I_BC, I_Company,I_Info1, I_Acquired, I_CompanyFound, 0 as I_Found from Item where (I_CompanyFound='102' )
Both return the same rows. Is this a bug? I found the following: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/223423
CONTAINSTABLE(ClinicalLiteratureTbl, *, '("body mass index" OR "BMI" OR "Quetelet`s Index" OR "Quetelet Index" OR "Quetelets Index") AND ("myocardial infarction" OR "myocardial infarct" OR "MI" OR "myocardium infarct" OR "myocardium infarction" OR "cardiac infarction" OR "myocardial necrosis" OR "coronary attack" OR "myocardium necrosis" OR "myocardial infarction syndrome" OR "myocardial necrosis syndrome" OR "heart attack" OR "coronary thrombosis" OR "AMI" OR "post-AMI" OR "post AMI" OR "post infarction" OR "post-infarction")') AS KEY_TBL WHERE FT_TBL.ArticleID = KEY_TBL.[KEY] AND FT_TBL.RaterGroupId IN (1,2,3,4) ORDER BY IssueYear DESC
So I have been trying to get mySQL query to work for a large database that I have. I have (lets say) two tables Table_One and Table_Two. Table_One has three columns: Type, Animal and TestID and Table_Two has 2 columns Test_Name and Test_ID. Example with values is below:
In Table_One all types come under one column and the values of all Types (Mammal, Fish, Bird, Reptile) come under another column (Animals). Table_One and Two can be linked by Test_ID
I am trying to create a table such as shown below:
This should be my final table. The approach I am currently using is to make multiple instances of Table_One and using joins to form this final table. So the column Bird, Reptile, Mammal and Fish all come from a different copy of Table_one.
For e.g
Select Test_Name AS 'Test_Name', Table_Bird.Animal AS 'Birds', Table_Mammal.Animal AS 'Mammal', Table_Reptile.Animal AS 'Reptile, Table_Fish.Animal AS 'Fish' From Table_One
[Code] .....
The problem with this query is it only works when all entries for Birds, Mammals, Reptiles and Fish have some value. If one field is empty as for Test_Two or Test_Three, it doesn't return that record. I used Or instead of And in the WHERE clause but that didn't work as well.
I've created a new table and added data to it. Now I want to index a given column. Will simply creating and saving the index index the column or do I need to do something else to create the actual index?
I want to know is a flat file faster than a RDBMS for indexing for example a search engine indexing would a flat file be better in terms of performance, scalability etc than a RDBMS?
OS- Windows server 2012Â SQL - Windows SQL 2012 R2 Sharepoint 2010 SP2 Â Â
SQL has DB restored from earlier server. DB is quiet large in size because used with sharepoint.
Following steps have been followed on this restored DB -Â
Maintenance Plan Rebuild-Reorganize the indexes Update Statistics
After above steps, query on Sharepoint table found performant. But after some delay/idol time(overnight) on server. Query takes much more(20X) time to execute. On running execution plans observed that some warnings are seen on columns which are primary keys.Â
Columns with no statistics 'AllDocs.tp_DocID'
When Update statistics is executed again in SQL management studio above issue is again seen resolved, but came again after some delay.
Is there any SQL logs where can I find activities performed during overnight with SQL which make this issue to happen? This issue was not there on Win2k8 environment.
OK, I imported 680 million records into an unindexed table. That went well.
Then, I went into Enterprise Manager and added a two column non-unique clustered index to that table to speed access.
It's been running for ~36 hours and I have no idea when it will complete. I have deadlines that I'm going to miss and am very nervous; what can I do?
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition (8.00.818 - sp3 + hotfixes) Dual 3Ghz Xeon (two physical CPUs each have HyperThreading enabled) Windows 2000 SP4 4GB RAM (although I just noticed the 3GB OS switch wasn't on) SCSI boot drive tempdb, data, and transaction log are on a FibreChannel RAID SAN
1. [Relshp].[PersonId] to primary key [Person].[PersonId], and 2. [Relshp].[RelatedToPersonId] to primary key [Person].[PersonId].
What kind of index structure would best support those FK constraints?
Would it be:
a) One combined index: CREATE INDEX IX_Relshp ON Relshp (PersonId, RelatedToPersonId) or b) Two indexes: CREATE INDEX IX_RelshpP ON Relshp (PersonId) CREATE INDEX IX_RelshpR ON Relshp (RelatedToPersonId) or c) Two "mirrored" combined indexes: CREATE INDEX IX_RelshpP ON Relshp (PersonId, RelatedToPersonId) CREATE INDEX IX_RelshpR ON Relshp (RelatedToPersonId, PersonId)
I have currently one SQL FT catalog which indices couple of tables in on our server on nightly basis. It does a 'full' indexing of data as originally designed. Now the time it is taking to index all the data is unacceptable to user. I am working on it to make it index 'incrementally'.
But, for a short-term approach I want to find out, can we FT index a 'table A' in two catalogs on same SQL Server?
I am using sql server express edition and when i try to apply full text indexing on the table - the setting is set to "NO" and i am unable to set it to Yes please advise - thanks Jeff
i have a directory database with approx. 80 million records. i am feeding the database with bulk_insert. Indexing one of the fields took about 8 hrs. After indexing when i run queries with the indexed field the response time is under 1 sec. However if i run select queries with like on non-indexed fields it takes more than 2 mins. So i decided to index 4 other fields in the database and it looks like the indexing process is going to run for 2 days. i am a novice in SQL database design and i am not sure if this is the best way to index the table. i am just using create index. Any suggestions / advice welcome.
I am using a multi-statement table-valued function to assemble data from several tables and views for a report. To do this, I INSERT data into the first few columns and then use UPDATEs to put data additional data into each row. Each UPDATE uses a WHERE criteria that identifies a unique row, based on the value of the first few columns.
The problem I'm having is that the UPDATEs are taking forever to execute. I believe the reason is that the temporary table that's created for the function is not indexed, so each row update requires a complete search of several columns.
In other situations I've been able to define one column as a primary key for the temporary table, but in this situation the primary key would have to consist of four columns, which doesn't seem to be allowed in the table definition for the function.
Is there any way to create indexes for the temporary tables that are created for multistatement table-valued functions? I think that would improve the UPDATE performance dramatically.
Right now I have to do something like this and it is time consuming every time I have to query a specific table...
SELECT lots_of_columns FROM table WHERE (column5 = '1' OR column6 = '1' OR column7 = '1' OR column8 = '1' OR column9 = '1' OR column10 = '1' OR column11 = '1' OR column12 = '1') AND other_query_critiera_here
Typing out the OR statement gets long, time consuming and prone to errors because that first where line with all the ORs can sometimes have 20+ ORs in it. As some insight, the columns are text columns, sometimes they have data, sometimes they are NULL. Sometimes they have the same data (i.e., column5 and column6 and column12 could both have '1' as values).
I have a table which has two column like following table and I don't know how can I update theses two column with identity numbers but just the fields which are equal 111.
Hi, I am using SQL SERVER 2005 Express. I am trying to set up Enable a Table for Full-Text Indexing. I am following these instructions: How to: Enable a Table for Full-Text Indexing (SQL Server Management Studio)
The first select is running fine but due to extra values added to the table the list of manual difined columns must be added manualy each time new values occur.
Is it possible to make the PIVOT's IN clause dynamicly as stated in the second script (it is based on the same table #source) when running it prompts the next error;
Msg 156, Level 15, State 1, Line 315 Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'select'. Msg 102, Level 15, State 1, Line 315 Incorrect syntax near ')'.
adding or moving ')' or '(' are not working.......
select * into #temp from #source pivot ( avg(value) for drive in ([C], [D], [E], [F], [G], [H], [T], [U], [V] )) as value select * from #temp order by .........
versus
select * into #temp from #source pivot ( avg(value) for drive in (select distinct(column) from #source)) as value
I would like to know how i can handle multiple columns returned by a subquery via IN clause in case of sql server 2005. I can do that in oracle by using the following statement:
DELETE FROM TEST1 WHERE (ID, ID1) NOT IN (SELECT ID,ID1 FROM TEST2);
The other day we tried online re-indexing feature of SQL 2005 and it€™s performing faster than offline re-indexing. Could you please validate if it€™s supposed to do be this way? I always thought offline should be faster than online.
