I was having a chat with a chap over lunch today and he asked if I knew of any performance issues when doing unions in stored procedures. I couldn't think of anything but he seemed sure there was.
Is there such an issue I've missed?
Mike
I have two tables one with current data and a second with the same design that holds purged history.
I was going to create view and then jsut use a where clause to filter both tables but I figured it would be faster if the where clause was passed into each query as opposed to the whoel view having to load and then be filtered.
Select PatientName, MemberId
FROM CLAIMS
WHERE MemberID = @MemberID
UNION
Select PatientName, MemberId
FROM CLAIMSHistory
WHERE MemberID = @MemberID
But it appears that if there are no records in the first statement that the whole thing fails. I tried the union all operator with out any luck either.
Now if had a view like this;
Create view vAllClaims as
Select PatientName, MemberId
FROM CLAIMS
UNION
Select PatientName, MemberId
FROM CLAIMSHistory
And said select * from vAllClaims where memberid = 12345 would the query optimizer put the build the where statement onto each subquery or pull all the data first and query it?
I know the answer must be somewhere, but for the moment every place I look ...
How many tables can be unioned together (I think I remember that 6.5 had a limit of 16) in SQL7?
Thanks,
Judith
hi
I have MSSQL query that performs multiple UNION ,but I would like to perform a GROUPBY on the whole result set.
How Can i do this?
plz help...
bono
Hi everyone. I was wondering if I could get some pointers in creating a union between two tables. This is the sproc I currently have:
CREATE Procedure spGetReturnCheckForCriteria
@SearchCriteria VARCHAR(8000),
@SortOrder VARCHAR(8000),
@PageSize INT
AS
-- Declare vars
DECLARE @SQLStatement NVARCHAR(4000)
DECLARE @bldSQLStatement VARCHAR(8000)
DECLARE @retValue INT
-- Initialize vars
SET @SQLStatement = ''
SET @bldSQLStatement = ''
SET @retValue = -1
-- Sanity Check(s)
IF (@PageSize IS NULL OR @PageSize < 1)
-- Paging Size can not be Null, nor less than One
BEGIN
SET @RetValue = -30 -- "Must have a valid Paging Size for pagination: Error (-30)
RETURN
END
-- Build the Paging SQL Statement
SET @bldSQLStatement = 'SELECT TOP '
-- Add the Page Size
SET @bldSQLStatement = @bldSQLStatement + CAST(@PageSize AS VARCHAR)
-- Add Columns/Tables/Relationships
SET @bldSQLStatement = @bldSQLStatement + '
ReturnCheck.ReturnCheckID AS ReturnCheckID,
ReturnCheck.FiscalNumber AS FiscalNumber,
ReturnCheck.ReturnedDate AS ReturnedDate,
ReturnCheck.CheckNumber AS CheckNumber,
ReturnCheck.AssessPenaltyIndicator AS AssessPenaltyIndicator,
ReturnCheck.ReturnCheckCollectionStatusCode AS ReturnCheckCollectionStatusCode,
ReturnCheck.ReturnCheckReasonCode AS ReturnCheckReasonCode,
ReturnCheck.CentralCollectionsID AS CentralCollectionsReferralNumber,
TaxPayment.PaymentID AS PaymentID,
TaxPayment.DocumentLocatorNumber AS DocumentLocatorNumber,
TaxPayment.PaymentEffectiveDate AS PaymentEffectiveDate,
TaxPayment.PaymentAmount AS PaymentAmount,
TaxPayment.PaymentQuarter AS PaymentQuarter,
TaxPayment.PaymentYear AS PaymentYear,
TaxPayment.InternalReferenceNumber AS InternalReferenceNumber,
TaxPayment.PaymentTypeCode AS PaymentTypeCode,
TaxPayment.PaymentOriginCode AS PaymentOriginCode,
TaxPayment.VoucherNumber AS VoucherNumber,
TaxPayment.ReversedIndicator AS ReversedIndicator,
TaxPayment.PaymentDate AS PaymentDate,
CAST(NULL AS DATETIME) AS CCReferralDate,
DistributionPoint.UIDPrime AS UIDPrime,
DistributionPoint.UIDCheck AS UIDCheck,
DistributionPoint.UIDDistPoint AS UIDDistPoint,
CASE
WHEN ReturnCheck.UpdatedDate IS NULL THEN ReturnCheck.CreatedDate
ELSE ReturnCheck.UpdatedDate
END AS ReturnCheckTimeStamp
FROM TaxPayment
INNER JOIN DistributionPoint
ON (TaxPayment.DistributionPointID = DistributionPoint.DistributionPointID)
INNER JOIN ReturnCheck
ON (TaxPayment.PaymentID = ReturnCheck.PaymentID)
'
-- Add Search Criteria
If (@SearchCriteria IS NOT NULL)
SET @bldSQLStatement = @bldSQLStatement + ' WHERE ' + @SearchCriteria
-- Add Sort Order
IF (@SortOrder IS NOT NULL)
SET @bldSQLStatement = @bldSQLStatement + ' ' + @SortOrder
-- Set the SQLStatement
SET @SQLStatement = @bldSQLStatement
-- Execute the Paging Query
EXECUTE @retValue = sp_executeSQL @SQLStatement
GO
Look at the SQL build where I'm doing an INNER JOIN between TaxPayment and RefundCheck. Instead of this INNER JOIN, I'd like to do a union instead. If I can get any help on this I'd greatly appreciate it. Cheers.
I doing a union of two select queries, and I keep getting
the following error:
syntax error converting the nvarchar value 'foo' to a column of data type int.
I've tried using CAST and CONVERT in the select statement, but it doesn't change the outcome.
The table it's complaining about (the one containing the value 'foo'), is of data type nVarChar, so I don't have any idea why SQL server would try to convert it to an integer.
Is this a common problem? I'd love to know what I'm doing wrong.
I doing a union of two select queries, and I keep getting
the following error:
syntax error converting the nvarchar value 'foo' to a column of data type int.
I've tried using CAST and CONVERT in the select statement, but it doesn't change the outcome.
The table it's complaining about (the one containing the value 'foo'), is of data type nVarChar, so I don't have any idea why SQL server would try to convert it to an integer.
Is this a common problem? I'd love to know what I'm doing wrong.
Why does this not work? When I run this query in Query Analyzer, I get the error "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'UNION'." This seems simple enough...
SELECT * FROM SalesLead WHERE Age = '50' ORDER BY FirstName
UNION ALL
SELECT * FROM SalesLead WHERE Age = '60' ORDER BY FirstName
Thanks for any advice
Aaron
I'm creating a program that allows users to submit a report on equipment at regular intervals. If a piece of equipment has a problem, it is given a job entry that refers back to the report for various information.
However, there will be times when a problem is noticed, and someone wants to submit it immediately; these are made into extra jobs.
To this end, I have three tables:
Reports
Jobs
ExtraJobs
Because ExtraJobs cannot be associated with a report, they have their own table, which holds information that would otherwise be grabbed from both Reports and Jobs. While there are seperate submission forms for regular jobs and extra jobs, I would like them to appear on the same query result when a user looks at submitted jobs or reports.
What I'm currently trying to do is this:
Code:
SELECT*
FROMReports LEFT JOIN Jobs
ON Reports.reportID = Jobs.reportID
UNION ALL
SELECT ExtraJobs.*
FROM ExtraJobs
This won't work because the first half of the union has an extra column (reportID) that the second half does not. Is there any way to add in a value for that non-existant column (say, ExtraJobs.reportID = -1) to make sure that both sides have an equal number of columns?
If worst comes to worst, I could add a reportID column to ExtraJobs and have it set to -1 for everything, but I'd like to keep from adding fat, if at all possible.
How do I do this? I have two queries that create temp tables. I need to union them together and create one temp table. Anyone done this with success?
View 4 Replies View RelatedI have 4 archive tables and 1 active table that are created the same, but contain different data based on the date. I need to get results that have three columns: AuthorName, Month, Total. This is currently working, but through my research I can't find how to start going about dealing with the fact that each Author has some of his results from one month in one table and some in another table and how to add those together into one row. Example:
(What I'm Getting)
AuthorName Month Total
Test, Fred 3 43
Test, Fred 3 12
Test, Fred 2 56
Test, Fred 5 35
[code]....
I created a view V1 that uses an outer join with a table and calls a sub-view VS1 (ds_proj_report_date) which uses an inner join) and does an inner join with VS1. I also created another view V2 that uses inner join but does not call the sub-view VS1.
When I run the two views as below it works fine
Select * from V1
Union
Select * from V2
I then created another view V3 of the above union as
Create view V3
As
Select * from V1
Union
Select * from V2
Now when I run select * from V3, I get the following error.
Joined tables cannot be specified in a query containing outer join operators. View or function 'ds_proj_report_date' contains joined tables
Basically I'm running a number of selects, using unions to write out each select query as a distinct line in the output. Each line needs to be multiplied by -1 in order to create an offset balance (yes this is balance sheet related stuff) for each line. Each select will have a different piece of criteria.
Although I have it working, I'm thinking there's a much better or cleaner way to do it (I use the word better loosely)
Example:
SELECT 'Asset', 'House', TotalPrice * -1
FROM Accounts
WHERE AvgAmount > 0
UNION
SELECT 'Balance', 'Cover', TotalPrice
FROM Accounts
WHERE AvgAmount > 0
What gets messy here is having to write a similar set of queries where the amount is < 0 or = 0
I'm thinking something along the lines of building a table function contains all the descriptive text returning the relative values based on the AvgAmount I pass to it.
I have to queries I need to combine with a left join and I am having trouble figuring out the syntax. I need to join the first query with a query that contains Unions. The queries need to by joined on File_NBR which is contained in vw_SBC_Employee_Info, vw_ADPFile and SBC_Best_Scores.
Query 1
SELECT
e1.File_NBR,
e1.Division,
e1.Department,
e1.Program,
e1.UNIT,
(e6.Mngr_FName + ' ' + e6.Mngr_LName) AS President,
[Code] .....
Query 2
SELECT
'Skill Rating' as Assessment_Type,
bs.File_NBR as ID,
bs.Skill_NBR,
bs.Best_Score as Score,
bs.Assesment_RND
[Code] .....
1. Use mssql server agent service to take the schedule
2. Use a .NET windows service with timers to call SqlClientConnection
above, which way would be faster and get a better performance?
Hello Everyone,I have a very complex performance issue with our production database.Here's the scenario. We have a production webserver server and adevelopment web server. Both are running SQL Server 2000.I encounted various performance issues with the production server with aparticular query. It would take approximately 22 seconds to return 100rows, thats about 0.22 seconds per row. Note: I ran the query in singleuser mode. So I tested the query on the Development server by taking abackup (.dmp) of the database and moving it onto the dev server. I ranthe same query and found that it ran in less than a second.I took a look at the query execution plan and I found that they we'rethe exact same in both cases.Then I took a look at the various index's, and again I found nodifferences in the table indices.If both databases are identical, I'm assumeing that the issue is relatedto some external hardware issue like: disk space, memory etc. Or couldit be OS software related issues, like service packs, SQL Serverconfiguations etc.Here's what I've done to rule out some obvious hardware issues on theprod server:1. Moved all extraneous files to a secondary harddrive to free up spaceon the primary harddrive. There is 55gb's of free space on the disk.2. Applied SQL Server SP4 service packs3. Defragmented the primary harddrive4. Applied all Windows Server 2003 updatesHere is the prod servers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.67GHZTotal Physical Memory 2GB, Available Physical Memory 815MBWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1Here is the dev serers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.80GHz2GB DDR2-SDRAMWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1I'm not sure what else to do, the query performance is an order ofmagnitude difference and I can't explain it. To me its is a hardware oroperating system related issue.Any Ideas would help me greatly!Thanks,Brian T*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
View 2 Replies View RelatedHello Everyone,I have a very complex performance issue with our production database.Here's the scenario. We have a production webserver server and adevelopment web server. Both are running SQL Server 2000.I encounted various performance issues with the production server witha particular query. It would take approximately 22 seconds to return100 rows, thats about 0.22 seconds per row. Note: I ran the query insingle user mode. So I tested the query on the Development server bytaking a backup (.dmp) of the database and moving it onto the devserver. I ran the same query and found that it ran in less than asecond.I took a look at the query execution plan and I found that they we'rethe exact same in both cases.Then I took a look at the various index's, and again I found nodifferences in the table indices.If both databases are identical, I'm assumeing that the issue isrelated to some external hardware issue like: disk space, memory etc.Or could it be OS software related issues, like service packs, SQLServer configuations etc.Here's what I've done to rule out some obvious hardware issues on theprod server:1. Moved all extraneous files to a secondary harddrive to free up spaceon the primary harddrive. There is 55gb's of free space on the disk.2. Applied SQL Server SP4 service packs3. Defragmented the primary harddrive4. Applied all Windows Server 2003 updatesHere is the prod servers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.67GHZTotal Physical Memory 2GB, Available Physical Memory 815MBWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1Here is the dev serers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.80GHz2GB DDR2-SDRAMWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1I'm not sure what else to do, the query performance is an order ofmagnitude difference and I can't explain it. To me its is a hardware oroperating systemrelated issue.Any Ideas would help me greatly!Thanks,Brian T
View 2 Replies View RelatedWe have the same application installed on a few different environments with similar servers and similar hardward. The only difference is the versions of SQL and the colations.
Is SQL 2005 a lot faster that SQL 2000? Could colation type make a big effect on performance?
ScAndal
HiI want to insert 1000s of records into SQL Server 2005 Database with some manipulation. So that i put into the For Loop and inserting record.Inside the loop i am opening the connection and closing after use. The sample code is belowfor(int i=0;i<1000;i++){ sqlCmd.CommandText = "ProcName"; sqlCmd.Connection = sqlCon; sqlCmd.Connection.Open(): sqlCmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); sqlCmd.Connection.Close(); } What my Question is.. How is the Performance of this Code..?? Will is take time to get the Connection and Close the Connection in every itration?Or Shall I Open the Connection in Begining of the outside loop and close the connection at end of the Loop? will it increase the Performace?Please clarify me these question.. Thanks in advance.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have a following problem with SQL performance:
this line 'select * from [viewUserLatestFee]' executes instantly (in Query Analiser)
this line 'select * from [viewUserLatestFee] where orgID = 1' takes up to 30 seconds for 1000 rows (still in Query analiser)
can anyone please help - I seem to have ran out of ideas
I have a feeling people might be curious about the view so here it is:
SELECT dbo.viewUserPosition.id, dbo.viewUserPosition.username, dbo.viewUserPosition.password, dbo.viewUserPosition.title,
dbo.viewUserPosition.firstName, dbo.viewUserPosition.lastName, dbo.viewUserPosition.email, dbo.viewUserPosition.address1,
dbo.viewUserPosition.address2, dbo.viewUserPosition.suburb, dbo.viewUserPosition.postcode, dbo.viewUserPosition.country,
dbo.viewUserPosition.state, dbo.viewUserPosition.mailAddress1, dbo.viewUserPosition.mailAddress2, dbo.viewUserPosition.mailSuburb,
dbo.viewUserPosition.mailPostcode, dbo.viewUserPosition.mailCountry, dbo.viewUserPosition.mailState, dbo.viewUserPosition.birthDate,
dbo.viewUserPosition.joinDate, dbo.viewUserPosition.lastUpdated, dbo.viewUserPosition.orgID, dbo.viewUserPosition.positionID,
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.feeID, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.mshipID, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.name, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.[desc],
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.terms, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.period, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.periodType, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.fee,
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.startDate, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.endDate, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.deleted, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.feePaidID,
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.paidDate, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.effectiveDate, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.approved, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.optionID,
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.paidAmount, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.feePaidEndDate
FROM dbo.viewUserPosition LEFT OUTER JOIN
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee ON dbo.viewUserPosition.id = dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.userID
Here is viewUserPosition:
SELECT dbo.tblUser.id, dbo.tblUser.username, dbo.tblUser.password, dbo.tblUser.title, dbo.tblUser.firstName, dbo.tblUser.lastName, dbo.tblUser.email,
dbo.tblUser.address1, dbo.tblUser.address2, dbo.tblUser.suburb, dbo.tblUser.postcode, dbo.tblUser.country, dbo.tblUser.state,
dbo.tblUser.mailAddress1, dbo.tblUser.mailAddress2, dbo.tblUser.mailSuburb, dbo.tblUser.mailPostcode, dbo.tblUser.mailCountry,
dbo.tblUser.mailState, dbo.tblUser.birthDate, dbo.tblUser.joinDate, dbo.tblUser.lastUpdated, dbo.tblRelPosition.orgID,
dbo.tblRelPosition.positionID
FROM dbo.tblUser INNER JOIN
dbo.tblRelPosition ON dbo.tblUser.id = dbo.tblRelPosition.userID
and viewLatestPaidFee:
SELECT dbo.tblMshipFee.id AS feeID, dbo.tblMshipFee.mshipID, dbo.tblMshipFee.name, dbo.tblMshipFee.[desc], dbo.tblMshipFee.terms,
dbo.tblMshipFee.period, dbo.tblMshipFee.periodType, dbo.tblMshipFee.fee, dbo.tblMshipFee.startDate, dbo.tblMshipFee.endDate,
dbo.tblMshipFee.deleted, fp.id AS feePaidID, fp.paidDate, fp.effectiveDate, fp.approved, fp.optionID, fp.paidAmount, fp.endDate AS feePaidEndDate,
fp.userID
FROM dbo.tblRelMshipFeePaid fp INNER JOIN
dbo.tblMshipFee ON dbo.tblMshipFee.id = fp.feeID AND fp.endDate =
(SELECT MAX(fp2.[endDate])
FROM [dbo].[tblRelMshipFeePaid] fp2
WHERE fp2.[userID] = fp.[userID])
We used a stored proc to pull totals from a database. Everything was fine until the table grew and started to time out. So we created a temp table to populate with a range of data and then pull the totals from there. Everything was fine until the table grew and started to time out. Any suggestion?
View 3 Replies View RelatedHi,
I am newly joined as SQL DBA. I want to check the Physical disk Performance. we have RAID 5 with 5+1 disks. I calculated NO Of IO's Per Disk. But how do we know what is actual limit of IO's per disk.
Thanks
Praveen
What's my best bet in getting better performance out of one of my database servers? Currently we have 1 set of Raid5 disks partitioned into 2 drives. This houses everything (system, database, and logs) If that server has 2 slots left for drives I was thinking of putting 2 mirrored drives and getting the logs off the main database space? (Make sense?) This is a vendored application so working with new indexes etc. isn't something I should do wo/ the vendor's interaction. Will what I describe above help?
Thanks
hi,
i am using to move data from oracle to oracle.
i have used stored procedure in oracle for the update/insert .
the dts calls the stored procedure for each record, due to this the performance has gone down. how do i increase the speed of data xfer.
has any one done any thing similar ?
Tushar
We have SQL Server running on a dual processor Pentium 500mhz server. Our database is hit by about 300 users. 200 of those users are doing constant searches though a client table of about 250,000 records, which in turn is linked to a history table containing over 5,000,000 records. This is only the tip of the iceberg, we have many triggers, procedures, updates, etc. going in the background. The database has over 500 tables.
Keep in mind, these searches that are taking place can involve all kinds of fields: phone number, company name, fax number, first name, last name, status, wildcard searches, etc. So as you can imagine, the database is being hit with all kinds of funky requests to find records. I will be the first to admit that our developers (vendor) are not the best code writers, and we have a tough time getting them to optimize something they do not even understand themselves.
As I speak, our processor utilization is maxing out between 95 to 100 percent. I've done a lot of performance tuning and all of the problems lie in the searching. We've built, tested, rebuilt, re-tested each and every index. I even used the Profiler to filter what I could. It has improved, but our database is growing at a rate of 10 megs a day (already close to 3 gigs, not that huge). I think I've optimized my indexes as best as I can considering all the fields and possibilities available to users to search for records.
For a database that requires all of these different search criteria, what would be a more optimal server? We are looking to purchase something ASAP. I could really use help from someone in a similar situation. It seems odd, in mind, that a company of 300 people would need to rely on a quad server (four processor capability.).
Thanks. JT
HI
I have 700 to 900 mb of production database , 2 gb of ram , 30 gb hard disk,
My production machine is runnng very slow , i have check everything memory,
page/sec, catch hit ratin , dbcc dbreindex but still it performance is not up to the mark.
If i stop SQL SERVER & restart for few days machine works fine but after that
again same thing it work very slow, what could be the reason
if any one had any solution please suggest.
Thanks
Nil
Hi friends,
My company has aution web site, it is written in Java and all sql statements generated dynamically. No stored procedures used. If 30 users uses this site it is OK but if around 300 users uses then the site becomes very slow(almost dead) and developers saying that database is the bottle neck. Please help me in this problem how can I check and overcome this problem.
Thanks
dindu
I am running a SQL 7.0 server on a two processor machine. We are having some performance issues.
one of the processor is always above 90% utilization but the second is barely at 50%.
Will adding another processor help or are the processes locked to one processor.
The server is a dedicated sql server. nothing else is running on it.
Thanks for any info you can provide.
Pierre
Hi,
What I have to do to determine which is the capacity (transactions / sec) of MS SQL Server 7.0 on a specific hardware configuration?
Thank you,
Sebastian Bologescu
We have recently upgraded to SQL 7.0 on NT 4.0/sp6 box which has got 4 PIII 700 processors, 1GB RAM, and 70GB HDD on RAID 1 and RAID 5. We feel that the application performance is not great as expected in SS7. (The application was running in 6.5 smoothly and performance was good)
Is there any option needs to set to improve performance? Now, SS 7 using all the 4 processors and dynamically allocated memory, etc. Any thoughts greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance
Jaya
I'm running MS SQL Server on a 1.4 GHz AMD Athlon Processor with 750 MB or RAM and ample disk space. I have a table with 14 columns; 2 datetime, 8 int and the rest are varchar of various sizes less than 13.
I run a java process on another machine that connects to the database and insert records. It takes about 6 minutes to insert 100,000 records.
I run the xp performance monitor and only about 25% of the SQL Server machine's cpu is being used. I run top on the Linux box running java and I see about the same results. Neither machine is kept busy processing. Why don't I get better performance? Could my local area network be that slow? How many inserts per minutes is good performance?
Thanks for your input.
Does anyone know the performance differences between returning data from SQL Server as XML vs. as a record set? We are about to dive into the For XML world full force, but we wanted to make sure that we are not heading for a performance nightmare.
Thanks for any insight on this. I'll try to look for white papers and do some testing in the meantime.
I ave the following Code in my Stored procedure.
Declare Cursor for table A
WHILE @@FETCH_STATUS = 0
Get values from other function based on some business logic.
INSERT Into another table B
(or)
UPDATE to another table B
END
I have to insert/update values to table B, one by one row. So, it is taking more time.
Is there any way to collect the values into a temporary storage and Insert/update or Move the values to table B.