I have a query which will display the employee name who is handling maximum number of project.
the query is
Code Snippet
select EmployeeDetails.Empid,
EmployeeDetails.FirstName + ' '+EmployeeDetails.LastName as EmpName,
count(*) as Number_Of_Projects
from EmployeeDetails left outer join LUP_EmpProject
on EmployeeDetails.Empid= LUP_EmpProject.Empid
group by EmployeeDetails.Empid,EmployeeDetails.FirstName,EmployeeDetails.LastName
HAVING count(*)=(SELECT TOP 1 COUNT(EmpID)
FROM LUP_EmpProject GROUP BY EmpID ORDER BY 1 DESC)
where EmployeeDetails table contain empname and empid. LUP_EmpProject table contain empid and project id.
Can anybody help me in writing a better query than the above given?
Hi y'all, I've recently run a profiler on my code and following query took 7 seconds: SELECT TOP 10 UI, COUNT(UI) AS Expr1 FROM table WHERE (UI <> 'custom_welcome') GROUP BY UI ORDER BY COUNT(UI) DESC Is it possible to rewrite this so my code gets faster? It's also possible that it's due to the size of the table? Thanks in advance! I'll let you know how long your query takes :)
Hi! I M basically an application developer & use simple sql queries in my programmings. I do not have much idea abt tuning/auditing part & thatswhy i m unable to answer them properly in my interviews. Can anybody give me some tips?????
Question 1: In a stored procedure, One SELECT stmt is there & depending upon the @rowcount, it updates around 14000 records which is also written inside this stored procedure. Instead of writing this way, there is some other way which is faster than this. Can anybody tell me the correct way???
Question 2:Can anybody give me few examples like this?????? I need them desparetly.
I have rewritten a stored procedure that consists of a single select that selects from a view. Essentially I combined the select in the view and the select in the sp into one select. I am now trying to determine if the new version is faster.
The estimated execution plan gives a ratio of 96% : 4% in favour of the new version when I run them together from a query window but when I try to time them I can't get a satisfactory result.
If I run each query once and display the difference between start and end time, they display 0. If I run each one 100, 200, etc times I get different results each time.
Can anyone give me the basics of speeding up reports that use queries or views or nested views? Current reports are now taking over 2 minutes to show.We have thousands and sometimes even millions of records to report against.Queries have 4 and 5 table joins etc. We are using ASP.NET 2.0 in Visual Studio 2005 and Crystal Reports. Thanks
I need help makeing the following query run more efficently.
Code:
SELECT t1.ID,t1.firstName,t1.lastName,t1.address,t1.city,t1.state, t1.zip,t1.locationAddress,t1.locationCity,t1.locationState,t1.locationZip FROM Landlord_tbl t1 left outer join Mail_tbl t2 ON t2.potentialSitesID = t1.potentialSitesID WHERE t2.mailed_out_date is null and NOT(t1.firstName+t1.lastName) is Null GROUP BY t1.ID,t1.firstName,t1.lastName,t1.address,t1.city,t1.state, t1.zip,t1.locationAddress,t1.locationCity,t1.locationState,t1.locationZip ORDER BY t1.firstName, t1.lastName, t1.city, t1.state
Hi, when I execute the sql in DBTestArchive and then DBTest query analyzer , I found that the run time is shorter in DBTest. Can I make assumption that the query run time is shorter in DBTest if I select data from it and insert into another database? Thanks.
INSERT INTO DBTestArchive.dbo.tblVendorMasterArchive SELECT * FROM DBTest.dbo.tblVendorMaster
I have a query which joins multiple tables. This query has suddenly begun to take up to 2 minutes to run (vs. 5-10 seconds previously).
No major change in number of records in the tables (currently about 220,000). When I remove the PK from one of the tables which then forces a tablescan, the query returns to running in 5-10 seconds. If I add the PK back, performance is back to 2 minutes.
Any help would be really appreciated.... My stored procedure...
CREATE PROCEDURE business3rd7 @Fromdate DATETIME, @ToDate DATETIME AS
select distinct CONVERT(VARCHAR(10),Receipts.Companynumber1)+CONVE RT(VARCHAR(10),Receipts.Companynumber2) as co , Receipts.Premium1+Receipts.Premium2 as Premium, "CAN"=case when Receipts.transactiontype='CAN' then (receipts.premium1+receipts.premium2) else 0 end, "NET"=Receipts.Premium1+Receipts.Premium2-case when Receipts.transactiontype='CAN' then (receipts.premium1+receipts.premium2) else 0 end,
"#NEW"=case when Receipts.transactiontype='NEW' then count(Receipts.policynumber) else 0 end,
------- "$NEW"= case when Receipts.transactiontype='NEW' then (Receipts.Premium1+Receipts.premium2) else 0 end, "#REN"=case when Receipts.transactiontype='REN' then count(Receipts.policynumber) else 0 end, "$RENEW"= case when Receipts.transactiontype='REN' then (Receipts.Premium1+Receipts.premium2) else 0 end, "#AP"=case when Receipts.transactiontype='AP' then count(Receipts.policynumber) else 0 end, "$AP"= case when Receipts.transactiontype='AP' then (Receipts.Premium1+Receipts.premium2) else 0 end, "#SENT"=case when policy.Renewalofferdate between @Fromdate AND @ToDate then count(policy.policynumber) end,
"%"=case when case when Receipts.transactiontype='REN' then count(Receipts.policynumber)else 0 end =0 then 0 when case when policy.Renewalofferdate between @Fromdate AND @ToDate then count(policy.policynumber) else 0 end=0 then 0 else case when Receipts.transactiontype='REN' then count(Receipts.policynumber)else 0 end /case when policy.Renewalofferdate between @Fromdate AND @ToDate then count(policy.policynumber) else 0 end end,
"Current Year"= case when policy.Renewalofferdate between @Fromdate AND @ToDate then count(clubamount) end, "Previous Year"=case when policy.Renewalofferdate between DateAdd(year, -1, @Fromdate) AND DateAdd(year, -1, @ToDate) then count(clubamount) end, "#AA"=count(receipts.clubamount), "$AA"=sum(receipts.clubamount)
FROM Receipts,Policy where Receipts.Agencyid=Policy.Agentid group by Receipts.CompanyNumber1,Receipts.CompanyNumber2, Receipts.Premium1,Receipts.Premium2, Receipts.TransactionType,policy.Renewalofferdate, Receipts.Agencyid
Yesterday i face a strange SQL Server 2000 behaviour :-(
I had a query that was wrapped inside a stored procedure, as usual. Suddenly, the stored procedure execution time raised from 9 secs to 80.
So to understand where the problem was i cut and pasted the sp body's into a new query analyzer window an then executed it again. Speed back to 9 secs. Tried stored procedure again, and speed again set to 80 secs.
Tried to recompile sp. Nothing. Tried to restart SQL Server. Nothing. Tried to DROP & RE-CREATE sp. Done! Speed again at 9 secs.
My collegue asked me "why?", but i had no words. :confused: Do you have any explanation?
Let's say I have a table of users. Let's imagine there's two fields: username (PK), password
Now I need to authenticate a user against this table. What is the recommended approach? Is it better / faster to (1) SELECT * FROM [User] WHERE username = 'whatever' AND password='whatever' or (2) SELECT * FROM [User] WHERE username = 'whatever' and then in my code check that the record returned matched the password?
It seems when I run the query with the set staticts IO on then statistic reports back with the 'work table', and the query takes 30+ sec. if the worktable is ommited(whatever the reason?) the query take less 1 sec.
Here is my take, I believe work table is created in tempdb...and if not then whole query is using the cached page, am I right?
if I am right then the theory is, if I increase the (via sp_configure) server min memory setting and min query memory, the query ought use the cached page and return in less 1 sec. (specially there is absolutely no one but me on the server), so far I can't make it go faster...what setting am I missing to make it run faster?
Another question is if the query can not avoid but use the tempdb, is it going to always be 30 sec+ time? why is tempdb involvement make it go so much slower?
I apologize for the long post but I am trying to give as much information as I can about the steps I've taken to troubleshoot this.
We have a stored procedure that builds a sql statement and executes it using the Execute command. When I execute the stored procedure through query analyzer it takes close to 5 seconds to execute. When I print out the exact same statement and execute it directly in query analyzer as "raw sql", it takes 0.5 seconds - meaning it takes 10 times longer for the code to execute in the stored proc. I altered the stored proc to execute the printed sql instead of building but it still takes the full 5 seconds and there were no changes in the execution plan. This makes me confident that the issue is not caused by the dynamic sql. I've used with recompile to make sure that the stored procedure caches the most recent execution plan. When I compare the execution plans, the stored proc uses a nested loop whereas the raw sql statement uses a hash join. Seeing that, I added the hash hint to the stored proc and doing so brought down the execution time down from 5 secs to 2 secs but still the raw sql statement uses a clustered index whereas the stored proc uses a non-clustered index and that makes the statement 4 times slower. This proves how efficient clustered indexes are over non-clustered ones, but it doesn't help me since, as far as I know, I can't force SQL Server to use the clustered index.
Does anyone know why sql server is generating such an inefficient execution plan for the stored proc compared to the execution plan that it generates when executing the raw sql statement? The only thing I can think of is that some stats are not updated and that somehow throws off the stored proc. But then again, shouldn't it affect the raw sql statement?
I am trying to find data that is inputted incorrectly in a memo field. M company has been using this field for a few years to keep the contract date. I would like to find all the invalid dates so is there something similar to ISNULL() that I could use to find the dates that don't convert correctly?
I had a User Management module in my application where I created a user with name
`~!@#$@%^&*()[_]+|}{":?><-=[[]];',./
Now I have a functionality to search for the user existing. For that give the search string or a single character and it finds out all the records containing the character.
How do I go about it as the SP i created for it gives correct results except the following
1. Search for % - Gives all record 2. Search for _ - Gives all records 3. Search for [ - Gives NO record 4. Search for the whole string - Gives NO Record
There is a query which when executed in the grid mode(ctrl+d) takes approx 0.02 seconds(about 21,000 rows) But when I execute in the text mode, it takes about 0.40 seconds!! Why is this difference? Also, when the records from this table are read from a VB application, they are equally slow (as in the text mode!) Why is it so slow on the text mode & relatively faster in the grid mode? Has anyone got any idea on ‘Firehose’ style cursor ?(which may speed up access of data in the VB application)
hi all, if i have a comma delimited string and want to insert each delimited substring into a table which of the following way is faster?pass the whole string into the a stored procedure and loop through the delimited string and pick out the substring and insert into the table orloop and pass the substring into a stored procedure and insert N times?or any other better ways someone could suggest me to do thanks!
I was just wondering if this can be done any faster? code-wise that is...
Don't mind the converts, can't do without them, as the data discipline for the source table isn't always reliable, while I have to be absolutely sure the destination data ends in the required format.
I have SQL file but it run slowly when comes to huge record. How do I make it faster. I do create an index but how to make use the index? Pls help me on this...
I'm sonewhat new to MS SQL Server and I'm wondering about which of thefollowing two queries would be faster:DECLARE @ResidencesBuilt intDECLARE @BarracksBuilt intDECLARE @AirBaysBuilt intDECLARE @NuclearPlantsBuilt intDECLARE @FusionPlantsBuilt intDECLARE @StarMinesBuilt intDECLARE @TrainingCampsBuilt intDECLARE @FactoriesBuilt intSELECT@ResidencesBuilt = SUM(CASE WHEN BuildingType = 0 THEN Built END),@BarracksBuilt = SUM(CASE WHEN BuildingType = 1 THEN Built END),@AirBaysBuilt = SUM(CASE WHEN BuildingType = 2 THEN Built END),@NuclearPlantsBuilt = SUM(CASE WHEN BuildingType = 3 THEN Built END),@FusionPlantsBuilt = SUM(CASE WHEN BuildingType = 4 THEN Built END),@StarMinesBuilt = SUM(CASE WHEN BuildingType = 5 THEN Built END),@TrainingCampsBuilt = SUM(CASE WHEN BuildingType = 6 THEN Built END),@FactoriesBuilt = SUM(CASE WHEN BuildingType = 7 THEN Built END)FROM BuildingsGROUP BY kdIDHAVING kdID = 2902Or:DECLARE @ResidencesBuilt intDECLARE @BarracksBuilt intDECLARE @AirBaysBuilt intDECLARE @NuclearPlantsBuilt intDECLARE @FusionPlantsBuilt intDECLARE @StarMinesBuilt intDECLARE @TrainingCampsBuilt intDECLARE @FactoriesBuilt intSET @ResidencesBuilt = (SELECT Built FROM Buildings WHERE BuildingType = 0AND kdID = 2902)SET @BarracksBuilt = (SELECT Built FROM Buildings WHERE BuildingType = 1 ANDkdID = 2902)SET @AirBaysBuilt = (SELECT Built FROM Buildings WHERE BuildingType = 2 ANDkdID = 2902)SET @NuclearPlantsBuilt = (SELECT Built FROM Buildings WHERE BuildingType =3 AND kdID = 2902)SET @FusionPlantsBuilt = (SELECT Built FROM Buildings WHERE BuildingType = 4AND kdID = 2902)SET @StarMinesBuilt = (SELECT Built FROM Buildings WHERE BuildingType = 5AND kdID = 2902)SET @TrainingCampsBuilt = (SELECT Built FROM Buildings WHERE BuildingType =6 AND kdID = 2902)SET @FactoriesBuilt = (SELECT Built FROM Buildings WHERE BuildingType = 7AND kdID = 2902)The data source is:kdID BuildingType Built2902 6 02902 7 02902 4 02902 0 802902 2 02902 1 52902 3 402902 5 10Or:CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Buildings] ([kdID] [int],[BuildingType] [tinyint],[Built] [int])INSERT INTO Buildings (kdID, BuildingType, Built) VALUES (2902, 0, 80)INSERT INTO Buildings (kdID, BuildingType, Built) VALUES (2902, 1, 5)INSERT INTO Buildings (kdID, BuildingType, Built) VALUES (2902, 2, 0)INSERT INTO Buildings (kdID, BuildingType, Built) VALUES (2902, 3, 40)INSERT INTO Buildings (kdID, BuildingType, Built) VALUES (2902, 4, 0)INSERT INTO Buildings (kdID, BuildingType, Built) VALUES (2902, 5, 10)INSERT INTO Buildings (kdID, BuildingType, Built) VALUES (2902, 6, 0)INSERT INTO Buildings (kdID, BuildingType, Built) VALUES (2902, 7, 0)Analyzer says the first would be faster, but it has a lot of SUM()'s andwhatnot so I'm not too sure about this. There are also about 1000 rows inthe actual Buildings table. This will be a part of a stored procedure.
I want to know the # of users on our web site for each month in a given year. I'm looking for a faster way to do this--perhaps one that can leverage an index instead of reading the entire table! (My avg disk queue right now is above 7 and the query takes about 90 seconds).
Here's my current SP. Basically I'm calculating each month/year and using UNION to join them together, then pivot to rotate.
Hi all, I m new to this forum and this is my first question. I m having 2 pages in my web site ... page 1 query directly to db using sqldatasource, the second page query through a BLL then DAL by following the step in this tutorial (http://www.asp.net/learn/dataaccess/tutorial02vb.aspx?tabid=63).... Page 1 is using a "Like" query search and the Page 2 is the normal displaying some product detail.... Under normal circumstances, one will expect Page 1 will be way fastest than the Page 2... however the problem is Page 1 is in thunder speed while Page 2 takes 10 secs to load... 10 seconds is really not acceptable... I really couldnt figure out what happens... both Page 1 and Page 2 are using the same connection string which connection through a DSN.... How is the connection different by using sqldatasource and DAL?? Could someone please help.... ThanksP.S. I m using a Pervasive database
I have a cursor prcedure that is pretty slow because as the cursor moves through the data I have three select statement on the same table to find other rows information. Is there a better way to do this? Simple Example of Code is: DECLARE MyVARABLES 1 to X DECLARE c1 CURSOR FOR SELECT MyData1, MyData2 to X FROM MyTable FOR UPDATE OF MyUpdateData --Start Cursor OPEN c1 FETCH NEXT FROM c1 INTO MyVariables --LOOP WHILE @@FETCH_STATUS = 0 BEGIN ----------------------- -- Get other rows data to add to this rows data ......GUESSING THIS IS THE SLOW PART as the table is LARGESELECT MyVar1 = MyData1 FROM MyTable WHERE MyTableColumns = MyVariables AND MyTableColumns2 <> MyVariables2 --FINDS OTHER ROW (I have three of these)
--Calculate & Update If MyVarable = 'this or that' BEGIN UPDATE MyTable SET MyUpdateData = MyVar1 * x *y WHERE CURRENT OF c1 END ------------------- -- NextFETCH NEXT FROM c1 INTO MyVarables 1 to xEND CLOSE c1 DEALLOCATE c1
I´ve created a class to make some standard transaction development a little bit faster. The destructor seem to run, but something makes this object slow down the database, if SqlTransaction and/or SqlConnection isnt manualy handled with the method Commit(). Any ideas on how to handle the SqlTransaction and SqlConnection better?
public class DataTransaction { private bool blnError = false; private ArrayList arrErrorList = new ArrayList(); private SqlConnectionobjConnection = new SqlConnection(System.Configuration.ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings["ConnectionString"].ToString()); private SqlTransactionobjTransaction;
Previosuly I was executing 2 DTS packages one afte the other manually and together they took a CONSIDERABLE time. The 1st one was pulling data from the OLPT, doing transformations and populating the tables in my Datamart and the 2nd one was doing a FULL process of all the dimensions and cubes.
However I tried scheduling the DTSs as jobs and havethen merged the 2 resulting jobs as a SINGLE job having 2 sequential steps. To my surprise the resulting job takes less than half the time (actually even lesser) as compared with my original approach i.e. running the DTSs. And I am talking about major improvement in terms of completion of the tasks here :)
Am i getting over excited here or is this natural? I assume that if this is correct then jobs much be some sort of "compiled" version as compared to DTS and maybe that's why I have this terrific improvement in terms of execution times.
If I had a WHERE clause that had to compare a string to another string would it be faster one way or another if I broke it down to three different, smaller searches?
Previosuly I was executing 2 DTS packages one afte the other manually and together they took a CONSIDERABLE time. The 1st one was pulling data from the OLPT, doing transformations and populating the tables in my Datamart and the 2nd one was doing a FULL process of all the dimensions and cubes.
However I tried scheduling the DTSs as jobs and havethen merged the 2 resulting jobs as a SINGLe job having 2 sequential steps. To my surprise the resulting job takes less than half the time (actually even lesser) as compared with my original approach i.e. running the DTSs.
Am i getting over excited here or is this natural? I assume that if this is correct then jobs much be some sort of "compiled" version as compared to DTS and maybe that's why I have this terrific improvement in terms of execution times.
I have a live database and an archive database. I update the archive tables once a day from the live tables using:
INSERT INTO arc_table SELECT * FROM cur_table AS cur WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM arc_table AS arc WHERE arc.key = cur.key)
GO
This inserts newer records into the archive tables from the live tables.
I have two different methods to clean the live tables once a week but keep data from the previous week. Both methods have been verified to delete the same rows.
DELETE cur_table WHERE EXISTS (SELECT key FROM arc_table AS arc WHERE arc.key = cur_table.key) AND date_time < GetDate() - 7
GO
Second method modified from BOL - deletes identical rows
DELETE cur_table FROM (SELECT key FROM arc_table) AS arc WHERE arc.key = cur_table.key AND date_time < GetDate() - 7
GO
I read that "WHERE [NOT] EXISTS" is faster than "WHERE [NOT] IN" but this is the first time I have seen DELETE xx FROM (SELECT ----)
I'd like to know which procedure will be faster and/or better.
HelloI need this really faster in mS SQL 2000Usernumber (int)reportid (FK)reportreportid (PK)Category (int)SELECT A, B, C, D INTO UserCopy FROM UserWHERE User.reportid IN (SELECT MAX(report.reportID) AS maxReport FROM Report GROUP BY report.Category) AND user.number NOT IN (120,144,206,345,221,789,548,666,1204,4875,22,135, 777,444)can return a more than 1000 rows (an the table = 10.000 rows): SELECT MAX(report.reportID) AS maxReport FROM Report GROUP BY report.Categoryand the table user has a few millions rowsReport.ReportId is a Primary key for User.reportid (FK) for the moment it takes up to 3 minutes, i need to do that in 30 seconds maximumthank you for helping
