Category Archives: T-SQL

Cautionary tale about triggers, version store and fragmentation

A while ago triggers were slow. Very slow. In the versions prior to SQL Server 2005, triggers scanned transaction log in order to build internal inserted and deleted tables. That approach has been changed in SQL Server 2005 when triggers started to use version store – similarly to what optimistic locking is using. That helps with performance but same time introduces a few interesting issues. Let’s take a look.

First of all, let’s create a table and populate it with some data. I would like to point that I’m using tempdb in that example mainly to show that this behavior is completely independent from transaction isolation levels and optimistic locking database options.

Now let’s take a look at what we have in the index (click on the image to open it in the different tab)

As you can see, we have 65 bytes rows without any fragmentation. So far so good. Now let’s update Value column.

We updated fixed-width column. Row size has not changed. No fragmentation here. As the next step let’s create a trigger.

As you see, trigger itself is empty – we don’t even access inserted/deleted tables there. Now let’s update our table again

Still the same thing. But if we look at performance monitor counters – we can see that update now generates version store activity.

As the next step I’d like to add LOB column to the table. I’m using varchar(max) but you can replace it with nvarchar, binary, xml or clr data type. It would be the same.

Column is nullable so alteration here is pure metadata operation. And now let’s run the update statement.

Oops – now we have 14 bytes version store pointer added to the row. That introduces heavy fragmentation (new versions are larger so they don’t fit into the pages) and double our storage space. Well, a little bit unexpected development. Generally speaking this is very similar problem with what we have with data modifications when we use optimistic isolation levels.

OK, it happens with LOB columns. Now let’s check the case when ROW OVERFLOW is possible. Let’s drop LOB column and add to varchar(5000) columns here.

Again, we rebuilt the index – 14 bytes pointers are went away. Now let’s run update statement again.

Same thing – extra 14 bytes and fragmentation.

And let’s prove that trigger is the problem. First, let’s drop the trigger and rebuild the index

And next – run update again.

As you can there are no 14 bytes version store pointer nor fragmentation.

At last, let’s take a look at the very interesting thing – let’s see what happens when we have ON DELETE trigger. Generally speaking, when we delete the row, only thing that SQL Server initially does is mark row as the “ghost” row. Just the change in the header. But with the trigger the situation could be different.

You can see, that in our case we ended up with page split on delete!

This behavior adds extra arguments to the discussion why triggers are bad in general. Triggers add extra load to tempdb. And in case if you have the possibility of row overflow or LOB allocations, you’d end up with 14 bytes version store pointer and extra fragmentation.

Source code is available for download

P.S. I’d like to thank Paul White for his help with that post.

Locking in Microsoft SQL Server (Part 14) – Deadlocks during DDL operations (alteration, partition switch, etc)

Today I’d like us to talk about one practical problem related with the locking – how to deal with deadlocks during DDL operations. For example, table and partition functions alteration, partition switch and others. This problem is very common in OLTP environment when table is constantly querying by the multiple sessions. One of the common examples there is sliding window pattern when the table has been partitioned based on some time interval (daily, weekly, monthly, etc) and data has been purged on the regular basis by switching partition to the temporary table. Let’s try to understand why we have deadlocks here and what we can do to solve the problem.

First of all, as the pre-requirement, let’s assume that we implemented our partitioning correctly. Most important factor is that our operation does not require any data movement nor scans. For example, we don’t split ranges in partition function in the way that requires  physically move the data to another partition (e.g. we are pre-allocating empty partition rather than splitting the range with the value at the middle of the partition that has some data). In that case partition operations are purely metadata operations and only schema locks are involved.

Another thing to avoid is mixing DML and DDL statements in one transaction. Let’s think about following example (let’s ignore page locks and schema stability (SCH-S) locks for simplicity sake):

  1. Session 1 starts transaction and updates 1 row in the table. E.g. at this stage we will have (X) lock on the row and (IX) lock on the table
  2. Session 2 is trying to select data from the table and being blocked by Session 1. So now we have Session 2 waiting for (S) lock on the row and also have (IS) lock acquired on the table
  3. Now session 1 is trying to implement partition switch. For that operation (SCH-M) lock needs to be acquired on the table and it would be blocked by (IS) lock from the Session 2.

Classic deadlock. But let’s assume that this is not the case. What happens when we have multiple locks on the same object? Generally speaking, lock requests would be serialized. In some cases existing locks could be even re-used. Let’s see that. First, let’s create a table and add a few records there.  Next, let’s have session 1 to read one row in repeatable read mode. As we remember it would hold (S) lock on the resource. Again, for simplicity sake let’s look at the row (key) level locks only

Now let’s try to update the row in another session. This session will try to acquire (X) lock on the resource and would be blocked because (X) lock is not compatible with (S) lock.

Now let’s try to read the same row in read committed mode from the 3rd session. As we can see everything works without blocking.

Let’s try to look at what locks were acquired using SQL Profiler.

As you see session acquired intent (IS) locks but did not acquire shared (S) lock. There is (S) lock from the session 1 already which guarantees that row has not been modified by uncommitted transactions. No reasons to acquire another (S) lock because in read committed isolation level (S) locks on the rows have been released immediately.

But what will happen if we try to read the row in repeatable read mode again? In that isolation level session needs to keep the (S) lock until end of transaction and it’s a reason why it’s trying to acquire the lock.

As you can see – it’s being blocked because there is (X) lock in the queue. So in order to be granted lock needs to be compatible with the all locks on that resource – does not matter granted or now.

It’s worth to mention that the first scenario, when session 3 ran in read committed mode and did not acquire the lock on the resource, can be considered as internal optimization. In some cases SQL Server still acquires another shared (S) lock there even if there is another shared (S) lock held. In such case the query would be blocked similarly to repeatable read transaction isolation level.

Keeping all this in mind we can ask – why would we have deadlocks if locks are serialized? Would not the session with schema modification (sch-m) lock wait till other locks are released and proceed from there? Yes and no. Let’s put one other thing to the mix – lock partitioning. This is quite confusing term and does not have anything to do with table partitioning. In nutshells when server has 16 or more CPUs (think about dual quad-core with hyperthreading enabled) SQL Server starts to partition intent (IS, IX, IU) and schema stability (SCH-S) object locks on per-cpu basis. Those (intent and schema-stability) locks would be acquired and stored within 1 (or a few) lock partitions only. And when another session needs to acquire S, X, U or SCH-M locks on the object, those locks would have to be acquired across all lock partitions. As I mentioned, this behavior is on when system has 16 or more CPUs and cannot be
disabled. So let’s take a look at one of the scenarios:

  1. Session 1 executes the complex query that acquired (IS) and/or (SCH-S) lock on the lock partition = 5. (just an example)
  2. Session 2 tries to alter the table and starts to acquire (SCH-M) locks on each individual lock partition. It successfully acquired locks on partitions 1-4 and blocked on partition 5 by (IS) or (SCH-S) lock held by Session 1
  3. Session 1 tries to acquire another (IS) and/or (SCH-S) lock on lock partition = 2. It’s blocked by (SCH-M) lock held by Session 2.

Classic deadlock again.

Unfortunately there is very little we can do about it. Lock partitioning cannot be disabled with documented approaches. There is the undocumented trace flag T1229 that does the trick although using undocumented trace flags are dangerous and not recommended in production.

In case if you have dedicated data access tier (which is always the great idea) the good option would be serializing access to the table via application locks. Main idea of this method is that any code that accessing the object is acquiring application locks. DDL code acquires exclusive lock and DML code acquires shared lock. Locks would not be partitioned and as result requests would be serialized. Let’s take a look. First – let’s define the stored procedure that alter the metadata.

This is just an example. Obviously you need to think about timeouts, exception handling, retry logic and other things – but hopefully it would give you an idea.

Now let’s try to create the stored procedure that reads the data from the table. But first, we need to define what should we do in case if we are blocked and have timeouts. Of course, we can return the error code to the client but another method that can be useful in some cases is to return empty result set. In order to do that let’s create another (empty) table of the same structure with original one.

Now let’s define the stored procedure.

As you can see, if SP cannot obtain application lock within 3 seconds, it reads data from the empty table and basically returns empty result set to the client. Otherwise it would read the main table. Obviously the biggest “downside” of this method – it would not work well in the case if there is no dedicated data access tier in place and object accessed from the various places. Well, in such case old classic approach with try/catch and retry logic is your friend. And, of course, we can use SET DEADLOCK_PRIORITY to reduce the chance that the session with DDL statement would be chosen as the deadlock victim.

Source code is available for download 

Next: When Transaction Start

Table of content

Statement level recompilation with OPTION (RECOMPILE)

Today I’d like us to talk about statement level recompilation and how it could help us in a few particular scenarios. Such as parameter sniffing, search with optional parameters and filtered indexes. But first of all, let’s talk why do we need to worry about that at all.

Let’s look at extremely oversimplified picture. When we submit the query to SQL Server, one of the first things SQL Server is doing is compiling the query. Compilation itself is not cheap, especially in case of complex queries. As result, SQL Server tries to cache execution plan and reuse it when the same query runs again. The interesting thing happens in case if query has  parameters. SQL Server is looking at actual parameter values during compilation/recompilation stage and using them for cardinality estimations. This called parameter sniffing. As result, the plan (which will be cached) would be optimal for specific set of parameters provided during compilation stage. Next time, when SQL Server reuses the cached plan, there is the chance that plan would not be good for another set of values.

Let’s look at specific example. Let’s think about company that is doing some business internationally although most part of the customers are in USA. Let’s create the table and populate it with some data with ~99% of the customers in US. In addition to that let’s create an index on Country column. Images below are clickable.

Now let’s execute the query that selects customers for particular country. Most part of the client libraries would generate code like that.

When we run the first statement with @Country = ‘Canada’, SQL Server chooses to use non-clustered index on Country and perform key lookup. This makes sense – we have only ~1% of canadian customers – value is selective enough. But the problem is that plan has been cached. And when we run select for @Country = ‘USA’, it re-uses the same plan which is extremely inefficient. Don’t be confused by query cost – let’s look at Statistics IO:

Just to prove inefficiency – let’s run the query again but use constant instead of parameter. You can see that SQL Server chooses clustered index scan which introduces ~50 times less logical reads in compare with original non-clustered index seek.

The same thing happens if we use stored procedures.

Now we can see the opposite effect – when we run this SP with @Country = ‘USA’, it generates clustered index scan. And reuses the same plan for Canadian customers. And this is real problem if we have data that distributed unevenly. Something forces recompilation and if we are “lucky enough” to have first call with untypical set of parameters – the inefficient plan would be cached and used for all queries.

One of the ways to solve the problem is to use statement level recompile. If we add OPTION (RECOMPILE) to our code, SQL Server would not bother to cache the plan – it would recompile it every time optimizing it for the current set of parameters. Let’s take a look:

Obviously the downside of that particular method would be recompilation cost. Recompilation would happen every time the query executes.

Another area when statement level recompilation could be quite useful is the case when we need to select data based on optional (or dynamic) parameter set. I’ve already blogged about it a long time ago and today want to show you another way of doing that with statement level recompilation. But let’s first take a look at the problem:

As we can see, because plan is cached SQL Server is unable to generate the plan that would be valid regardless of parameter value. So clustered index scan is the option here. Now, if we add OPTION (RECOMPILE) to the statement, it would change the picture – as you see, it generates optimal plan in every case.

Is it better than the method with dynamic SQL I demonstrated in the old post – it depends. One of the downsides I have with recompilation is that plan would not be cached (which is, of course, expected) and would not be present in results of sys.dm_exec_query_stats DMV. I’m using this view all the time during performance tuning to find most expensive queries. Of course, I can catch those statements with other tools but that is less convinient for me.

Last example I’d like to show you related to filtered indexes. Let’s assume that our table hosts Customer data for both, Businesses and Consumers. We can have specific columns that belong only to specific category – granted this is questionable design but I saw it more than a few times. Systems like that could have different reports for different types of the customers and one of the ways to optimize those reports is to create covered filtered indexes based on customer type. Something like that:

But what if we want to have the shared code – assuming we would like to create SP that returns us customer by type and by name:

If we look at the filtered indexes we have – those are would be the perfect match for index seek. The problem is that SQL Server cannot generate and cache plan that relies on the filtered index. Choice of the index would depend on the @CustomerType parameter. And recompilation could help us here:

It’s questionable if OPTION (RECOMPILE) here is better than IF statement. But the point I want to make is if you’re using filtered indexes and filter value is provided as parameter, you should avoid plan caching if you want filtered indexes to be used.

Source code is available for download

Locking in Microsoft SQL Server (Part 13 – Schema locks)

We did not talk much about schema locks while back when we were discussing locking. Those locks are a little bit different than other locks – they are acquired on objects (and metadata) level and protecting the metadata. Think about it from the following prospective – you don’t want to have 2 sessions altering the table simultaneously. And you don’t want the table being dropped when you are selecting data from there.

There are 2 types of schema locks. SCH-S – schema stability locks. Those locks are kind of “shared” locks and acquired by DML statements and held for duration of the statement. They are compatible with each other and with other lock types (S, U, X, I*). The caveat is that those locks acquired regardless of transaction isolation level – so you’d have those locks even when your queries are running in read uncommitted or snapshot isolation levels. Let’s take a look.

First, let’s create the table and populate it with some data. You, perhaps, need to adjust number of rows in the table based on your hardware.

Second, let’s run long-running select in read uncommitted mode (I even use NOLOCK hint to make it a little bit more “visible”).

And while it’s running, let’s run the statement that shows currently acquired locks (click on the image to open it in the new window). That statement is basically using sys.dm_tran_locks DMV – I just added a few other things to make it easier to see/understand. You can get it in the script file (see the link below).

And here are the results:

As you can see, even if statement uses READ UNCOMMITTED transaction isolation level, we still have SCH-S acquired.

Second type of the lock is schema modification lock – SCH-M. This lock type is acquired by sessions that are altering the metadata and live for duration of transaction. This lock can be described as super-exclusive lock and it’s incompatible with any other lock types including intent locks. Let’s take a look. Let’s run the previous select again and in another session let’s try to alter the table – add new column.

Even if adding nullable column is pure metadata operation, as we can see below it’s blocked.

I’m pretty sure you saw that behavior when you tried to update metadata in production on the live system 🙂 And interesting thing, that while you have SCH-M lock waiting, you can easily get other SCH-S locks acquired on the same object without any problems. Let’s take a look – again, let’s run first select, next alter table statement, and finally run the third select (I renamed CTE to CTE2 here):

As you see, there are 2 granted SCH-S locks and one SCH-M lock request waiting for both sessions. This is a reason why your DDL statement can wait for quite a long time on the system under heavy load.

The biggest possible issue with schema modification lock is that it’s incompatible even with intent locks. Let’s take a look – same scenario as before, but let’s run INSERT statement in the third session.

And let’s check the locks.

Insert statement is trying to place intent lock (IX) on the table and it’s incompatible with SCH-M lock. So insert is blocked. Kind of interesting situation when select in read uncommitted isolation level blocks insert. And if we think about it, there are more operations counted as metadata modifications than we think. For example, index rebuild would do exactly the same thing. And of course partitioning related operation.

If we think about SCH-M locks, they are acquired on the object level – deadlock possibilities are endless. And unfortunately, that’s extremely annoying when you’re dealing with operations related to table partitioning. Well, there is no easy way to solve that problem – good error handling could help though. I will show some examples shortly.

Source code is available for download

Next: Deadlocks during DDL operations (alteration, partition switch, etc)

Table of content

Sunday T-SQL Tip: Aligned non-clustered indexes on partitioned table – again..

If you read my blog for some time, you could see that I’m a bit addicted to that subject. But I saw quite a few cases when people started to have performance issues and very suboptimal plans with non-clustered indexes after they partitioned the tables. I’ve already blogged about that problem in general here as well as demonstrated one of the workarounds for one particular case. Today I want to show how to make that workaround a little bit more clean and clear as well as generalize that approach a little bit.

Before we begin, please take a few minutes to read and refresh my previous post. It defines the problem and explains why we have the issue with the index. You also need the script to recreate the data.

First, I’d like to show another method how we can achieve the similar goal. Similarly to the previous example we would like to force index seek on each individual partition using $Partition function and merge the results. But instead of union data from multiple CTEs we can use sys.partition_range_values view. Main idea is to find how many partitions do we have there and then use cross apply with filter on $Partition function. Something like that (click on the image to open it in the different window):

As you can see, the plan looks quite different than before but at the end it achieves the same results with the method with multiple CTEs. And it has the benefit – technically with that approach you don’t need to be limited by number of partitions or, better say, large number of partitions don’t generate very large select statement. On the other hand, there is the potential problem with statistics

As you can see, SQL Server expected to execute index seek just 2 times but we have 6 partitions here. Well, even if sysobjvalues table has column level statistics on value column, it would not help us much here. We can, of course, try to help SQL by removing join with sys.partition_functions; but still.. It could be incorrect.

If we know that we have static and small number of partitions we can do something like that – just use numbers:

Of course, even if number of partitions is large, there is always dynamic SQL if you want to use it. You can construct numbers in the Boundaries CTE with that.

That $Partition function is the great way to force index seek within the each partitions. And I would like to show you another example that can be beneficial in the case when table is partitioned by “values”, not by “intervals”. E.g. when every partition boundary specifies actual and single value and the # of distinct partition values is the same with the boundaries. Sounds a bit confusing? Let’s see the example. Assuming you’re collecting the data by postal/zip codes (some transactions in the areas) and partition transaction table by postal code. Something like below:

As you can see, table has aligned non-clustered index on TranAmount. Now, let’s say we would like to find max transaction amount per postal code. On the physical level we would like to get Max TranAmount per partition. Below are 2 select statements – first is the classic approach. Second one is using $Partition function.

Now let’s look at the plans. First select just scans entire index – 2.2M rows needs to be processed

Second select introduces separate top 1 “scan” on each partition.

And you can compare Statistics IO here.

Again, $Partition function works great – just be very careful with that implementation. You need to make sure that SQL Server is unable to generate a good plan before you do any tricks. Otherwise you can end up in the worse situation than with the standard method. And of course, it’s nightmare to support. Or, perhaps, you want to call it job security 🙂

Source code is available for download

Store Custom Fields/Attributes in Microsoft SQL Server Database (Part 2 – Name/Value pairs)

Last time we discussed 2 design patterns that can be used when you store custom attributes in SQL Server database. Today I’d like to talk about another pattern known as Name/Value pairs and sometimes called as Entity-Attribute-Values.

This pattern is very old and well known. Something like that (click on the image to open it in the new window):

I’m pretty sure that 75% of developers tried to use it in one way or another. I’ve seen quite a few different implementations. I even saw the implementation where entire database consisted of just 2 tables: Objects, with 2 columns – ID and ObjectType, and Attributes – similarly to what we saw above with exception that value was the string (it was prior to sql_variant days). And system even worked – kind of, in development and QA. Funniest thing – that system had even been sold and first customer was a wholesales company that replaced their existing point-of-sale system. Poor customers and happy consultants who were hired to “solve” the problem.. 🙂

There is one killing factor though – you cannot store more than 8000 bytes in sql_variant. So (max) data types cannot be supported. If this is not the deal breaker – the design looks very flexible (and in fact it is). The general problem here is the attribute access cost. Classic approach produces 1 join per attribute. Something like that:

Could be inner join, could be outer – depends on the situation and design. But besides a lot of joins there is another problem. Developers are lazy. Everytime they need to write the statement like that, they would use cut and paste (see the nice red undeline above). And you can imagine amount of errors it could introduce.

Of course, when we talk about client application, we can select all attributes to the client as the rowset and pivot (remember this magic word) data there:

Unfortunately that would not solve the problem when we need to sort/page/filter by the attributes nor, more importantly, help us with reports. And customers demand reports.

I’m not going to analyze  that approach based on criteria we specified. I’ll show you the examples how attribute access cost in the implementation based on joins kills that. But there is another way. With SQL 2005 and above, you can use PIVOT which is part of T-SQL. So let’s take a look. First, let’s create Articles and ArticleAttributes table

As you probably noticed, I replaced Attribute Name with Index. This will add a little bit more complexity to the code but same time it saves us storage space. We are going to save a lot of records in that table. And that’s usual “It depends” question – is additional complexity worth that. There is also very good idea to keep some kind of “Metadata” table that stores some information about attributes and types. This is essential in case if you store attribute indexes but it also helps even in case if you store Attribute Names.

Now let’s populate it with the data


Let’s enable IO statistics and execution plan and see how it behaves when we need to access the data. First – classic approach with Joins:









As you can see this introduces the plan with a lot of joins and quite a lot of IO. Now let’s try to reshape the query to use PIVOT.

As you can see – that’s far far better. You can play with the shape of the query if you want to change execution plan – for example approach below gives you nested loop instead of merge join.

As you can see the difference in IO is dramatic.

Let’s play with a couple other scenarios. What if we want to search for specific value in one of the attributes? Well, we need to create the index in such case.

The biggest problem here is the size of the key. With index it cannot exceed 900 bytes. Value (which is SQL Variant) can go far above that. So we basically have 2 choices. First either do not include Value to the index (or have it as included column) or perhaps, use filtered index and  disable the (index) search for some fields. Even if first option does not look very promising, there is one thing to consider. Are there any other criteria for the search? If all your use cases include some additional columns in the query it could make sense to push those columns to Attributes table and make them part of the index. As the real-life example, assuming you’re collecting data and all your queries include time range. In such case you can push ATime column to Attributes table and make the index as (AttrIndex, ATime) include(Value). While it uses the range scan, it could be acceptable because of additional filter on ATime that limits number of records.

Another scenario – sorting/paging. Assuming you want to display 1 page of data (10 rows). You can do something like that:

Let’s go through the list of criteria for this approach:

  1. Multiple schemas support – Yes.
  2. Expandability. Yes.
  3. Online schema change. Yes. Although if customer needs to be able to change data type of the attribute some work is required.
  4. Storage cost. Medium to High depend on indexes and use cases
  5. Attribute access overhead. 1 join + PIVOT overhead
  6. Search-friendly. Yes with extra index. Possible issues with large values (900 bytes key size limitation)
  7. Sorting/Paging friendly. Same as above.
  8. Upfront knowledge about data schema. Required. Client needs to know about the schema in order to build PIVOT statement. On the server side dynamic SQL could be required

And the last one is the biggest limitation of the design. While it offers very good performance, you have to babysit the solution. You need to think about use cases to design queries and indexes. You need to maintain indexes – you’ll get excessive fragmentation there.

Next time will do some performance comparison of the various methods

Source code is available for download

P.S. I want to thank Vladimir Zatuliveter (zatuliveter _at_ gmail _dot_com) for his help with preparation of this post.

Sunday T-SQL Tip: select top N using aligned non-clustered index on partitioned table

Almost one year ago I blogged about table partitioning in Microsoft SQL Server. I mentioned one specific case when table partitioning hurt the performance – case when you need to select top N rows using aligned non-clustered index. I said that there is no good workarounds for this particular case. Well, there is one. Kind of.

First, let’s take a look at the original problem. I adjusted the script I used an year ago a little bit. First, assuming we have non-partitioned table with clustered index on ID and non-clustered index on DateModified date. Let’s create that table an populate it with some data (if you click on the images below those would be opened in the new browser window).

Now let’s say we need to select top 100 rows based on DateModified column. This is quite typical scenario you’re using in production systems when you need to export and/or process the data.

As long as table is not partitioned, you can see that plan is very good. Basically SQL Server looks up the first row in the non-clustered index for specific DateModified value and do the ordered scan for the first 100 rows. Very efficient. Now, let’s partition the table based on DateCreated on quarterly basis.

And now – let’s run that statement again. As you can see, SQL Server started to use CI scan with SORT Top N. I explained why it happened in the previous post.

If we force SQL Server to use the index, the plan would be even worse in this particular case.

Although If you have the huge transactional table and # of rows with DateModified > ? is relatively small, the plan above could be more efficient than CI scan but SCAN/SORT TOP N would always be there.

Is there solution to this problem? Well, yes and no. I don’t know if there is generic solution that would work in all cases, although if you table has limited number of partitions and packet size is not huge there is one trick you can do.

Let’s take a look at the picture that shows how non-clustered index is aligned.

I just copied it from the old post, so dates are a little bit off. SQL Server cannot use the same efficient plan with non-partitioned/non-aligned index because data could reside on the different partitions. Although, we can still use ordered index scan within each partition. And next, if we select top N rows from each partition independently, union them all and next sort them all together and grab top N rows, we will have what we need. And we can do it using $Partition function. Let’s take a look:

Each PData CTE uses $Partition function that limits data search within the single partition so SQL Server can use ordered index scan there. In fact, it would be very similar to what we had when we did the select against non-partitioned table. Next, AllData CTE merges all results from PData CTEs and sort them based on DateModified and ID – returning top 100 rows. Last select joins the data from the main table with IDs returned from AllData CTE. One very important point I want to stress – as you can see, PData/AllData CTEs don’t select all columns from the table but only columns from the non clustered index. Data from the clustered index selected based on the join in the main select. This approach limits CTE operation to use index only and avoids unnecessary key lookups there.

If we look at result set, we can see that data is basically selected from partition 3 and 4.

And now let’s look at the execution plan.

As you can see, red rectangles represent PData CTEs. There is no key lookups until very last stage and those lookups are done only for 100 rows. One other thing worth to mention that SQL Server is smart enough to perform SORT as part of Concatenation operator and illuminate unnesesary rows there. As you can see, only 1 row is returned as part of PData5 – SQL Server does not bother to get other 99 rows.

This particular example has the data distributed very evenly (which usually happens with DateCreated/DateModified pattern). Generally speaking, cost of the operation will be proportional to the number of partitions multiplied by packet size. So if you have the table with a lot of partitions, that solution would not help much. On the other hand, there are usually some tricks you can use. Even in this particular case you don’t need to include PData6 to the select. This partition is empty. Also, you can put some logic in place – perhaps create another table and store most recent DateModified value per partition. In such case you can dynamically construct the select and exclude partitions where data has not been recently modified.

As the disclaimer, that solution is not the silver bullet especially if you have a lot of partitions and need to select large data packet. But in some cases it could help. And PLEASE TEST IT before you put it to production

Source code is available for download

UPDATE (2012-03-11): Look at that post to see how to implement that particular example in a different way

Sunday T-SQL Tip: Inline vs. Multi-statement Table Valued Functions

One of the biggest challenges for the developers who are not familiar with T-SQL is understanding the conceptual difference between client side and T-SQL functions. T-SQL functions look very similar to the functions developed withhigh-level programming languages. While encapsulation and code reuse are very important patterns there, it could hurt database code badly.

There are 2 kinds of functions in Microsoft SQL Server that can return table result set. The good one and the bad one. Unfortunately the bad one is much easier to use and understand for people who used ti work with high-level languages.

Let’s take a look. First, let’s create 2 tables and populate them with the data. Don’t put much attention how good is the data and how logically correct are the statements – we’re talking about performance here.

Now let’s create the multi-statement function here and run it. As you can see, total execution time is 176 millisecond in my environment.

Now let’s do inline function. We need to change the original select statement and use cross apply here. Looks more complex but at the end – execution time is 106 milliseconds – about 40 percent faster.

Now let’s check the execution plans – as you can see – first plan (multi-statement) is very simple – CI scan + aggregate. Second (inline) introduces much more complicated execution plan. Also it worth to notice that SQL Server shows that second plan takes all the cost.

How could it happen? How less expensive and simpler plan could run slower? The answer is that SQL Server lies – it does not show multi-statement function executions there at all. Let’s run the profiler and start to capture SP:Starting event.

As you can see – multi-statement function introduces SP call for each row processed. Think about all overhead related with that. Inline functions are working similarly to C++ inline functions – those are “embedded” to the execution plan and don’t carry any SP calls overhead.

So the bottom line – don’t use multi-statement functions if possible. I’m going to start the set of the posts related with CTEs – and will show how you can convert very complex multi-statement functions to inline ones.

Source code is available for download

Update (2011-12-18):
As Chirag Shah mentioned in comments, my example above is not 100% valid. I demonstrated the difference between Inline TVF and Scalar Multi-Statement function. So let’s correct that and and run the test again. (Image is clickable)

As you can see, results are even worse. The main point I want to stress – as long as UDF body has begin/end keywords, SQL Server treats them similarly to stored procedures. And that hurts.

Source code has been updated to include the last example

Sunday T-SQL Tip: Merge into CTE as the Target

If you spent some time working with Microsoft SQL Server 2008, you should be aware of the Merge statement. This statement is not only allowing you to insert/update/delete data as the part of the single statement (which helps with locking and performance), it also gives you an ability to intercept column values from the source rowset – something you cannot do with regular OUTPUT clause of insert, update and delete statement.

Today I’d like to show you another hidden beauty of this statement – ability to use CTE as the Target. Basically it gives you an ability to execute merge against subset of the data from the table. There are quite a few cases where it could be beneficial – let’s think about the situation when you need to synchronize target with the source that contains data only for subset of target rows. Confusing? Let’s think about one real life example.

Let’s think about order entry system and assume that you want to have a cache and store the information about last 15 orders per customer in the system. Let’s create the table and populate it with some data.

In this example orders are sorted by ID and partitioned by customers – so bigger ID means more recent orders. As you can see – you have 100 customers with 15 orders each in the cache.

Let’s assume that every day you get the data about the new orders placed into the system. This data contains the orders for subset of the customers (obviously some customers don’t place orders that day). It could also have the orders from the new customers that you don’t have in the cache. Let’s create the table:

As you can see, in this example we added 10 orders per customer for 21 old customers (CustomerIds from 80 to 100) as well as added 10 new customers (CustomerIds from 101 to 110).

What do we want to have at the end is to update the cache for existing customers (delete first 10 old orders) and add new customers to the cache. Obviously we don’t want to touch customers who did not submit any orders during the day.

Merge statement would work perfectly here. Although if we use Data table as the target, we will have hard time to differentiate the customers who didn’t submit any data. Fortunately we can put CTE that filters out customers who don’t have any orders today and use it as the target. Let’s take a look:

So, first CTE – SourceData – does the trick – it filters out everybody who don’t have the new orders. This would be our Target. Now let’s prepare the Source – first what we need to do is to combine data from the cache with the new data – MergedData CTE does that. As result of this CTE we’ll have all old and new orders combined for the customers who submits the orders today. Next – we need to determine most recent 15 orders – basically let’s sort MergedData (use ROW_NUMBER()) based on ID in descending order. Here is SortedData CTE. And now we can use first 15 rows per customer from this CTE as the Source.

The trick is what to do next – if there is the order in SourceData that is not in the Source (top 15 from SortedData) – it means order is old and we need to delete it from the cache. “When not matched by source” does that. If order is in the Source but not in the cache – we need to insert it (“when not matched by Target“). Obviously if order is in the both places, we should ignore it. And now, if you think about SourceData CTE which is the Target for the merge – it makes perfect sense. In case if you use the dbo.Data table there – all orders from the customers who did not submit data today would not be matched by Source and would be deleted. So CTE as the Target takes care of it.

If you look at the data, you’d see that new customers (CustomerID > 100) have 10 rows in the cache with ID starting at 16. Old customers who submitted data today (CustomerID: 80..100) have last 15 orders – with ID from 11 to 25. And old customers data (CustomerID < 80) is intact.

Source code is available for download

Sunday T-SQL Tip (on Thursday): Set vs. Select

It’s been a while since I posted any Sunday T-SQL Tips. Well, let’s do it today even if it’s Thursday :). I feel a little bit guilty stopping to blog about locking and blocking. I promise, I will blog about optimistic isolation levels in 2 weeks.

Today I want to talk about 2 very similar operators: SET and SELECT. If you ask T-SQL Developer what to use, in most part of cases she/he answers that it does not really matter. Well, it’s correct – up to degree. Those operators work in the same way unless they work differently. Let’s take a look.

First, let’s create a table and populate it with 50 rows.

Now, let’s look at the similarities. Let’s query the row. As you can see, both operators work the same way. Plain and perfect.

Now let’s change the query and try to select the row that does not exist in the table.

And here is the first major difference – SET operator “sets” variable to null. SELECT kept old value. It makes sense, if you think about it – SET assignes result from subquery that did not return any data. But more interesting behavior is when query tries to select multiple rows. Let’s run select first.

As you can see, it processes 9 rows and at the end variable has the value from the last one. Let’s check SET operator:

As you can see – it failed. Again, makes sense if you think about it from subquery standpoint.

Let’s think about it from the practical angle. Assuming you need to query some row from Users table based on Name. If today Name is unique (and has unique constraint/index on it) it does not really matter what to use SET or SELECT. Although, what will happen with the code that uses SELECT if in one day, name stops to be unique? Obviously it introduces hard-to-find bugs/side effects – system just picks up one of the rows. Using SET in such case helps – code simply fails. Obviously it will require troubleshooting but at the end it will take much less time to pinpoint the problem. Of course, you can check @@RowCount (and it’s the only choice if you need to select/assign more than 1 variable as part of the query), but with 1 variable SET is more elegant (based on my opinion).

Same time, when I need to assign constants to the multiple variables, I prefer to use select. Less typing and probably a couple microseconds of performance improvement due less operators.

Code can be downloaded here