|
Then I believe I have enough info to recommend you to not use pagination the way you do.
SELECT * FROM tbl LIMIT 2000,10; is an extraordinary inefficient query.
It's internally functioning like this pseudocode:
SELECT BOTTOM 10 *
FROM (
SELECT TOP (2000+10) *
FROM T
)In short it selects the 2010 first rows to just throw away the first 2000 rows.
If you can store the max(ID) from the previous page I'd recommend trying this instead
SELECT id
,RefId1
,RefId2
,...
FROM T
WHERE id > @PreviousMaxID
ORDER BY id
LIMIT @PageSizeYou obviously need to have an index on the id column for this to be fast.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: If you can store the max(ID) from the previous page I'd recommend trying this instead
I like the idea. Unfortunately the id is not sequential (again not my idea.)
So to do the paged query based on that it would require sorting the primary id then paging on that. So perhaps exactly the same or even less efficient.
|
|
|
|
|
That's why you need to have an index on the id. (or any unique column or combination of columns)
The index is already sorted per definition.
So the WHERE id > @PreviousMaxID just walks down the b-tree to the right id and starts counting leafnodes until it reaches @PageSize.
I don't know how AWS Aurora is organized, but if your table is clustered, you don't even need to lookup the pages and Bob's your uncle.
|
|
|
|
|
I do not believe that is how that works.
The primary key is indexed. However indexing is a btree and based on a hash. I presume natural ordering on the index would be to walk the btree. But, again, that would be based on the hash.
In contrast "id > previous" is based on the value.
I do not have access to the hashing algorithm and even if I used "hash(id) > hash(previous)" then it would end up doing a table scan (or at least an index scan) which would not help at all.
|
|
|
|
|
B-tree is not hash based.
MySQL DOES support[^] hash-based indexing, but that is not supported on neither MyISAM nor InnoDb. Only for Memory storage engine and NDB-clusters.
And then you still need to choose between b-tree OR hash-based index.
Hash-based indexes are obviously NOT ordered.
I don't know anything about Amazons databases, so whether your index is hash-based or not is something you need to check.
In my very personal opinion, the only reason to use a hash-based index instead of b-tree is if your data doesn't have any kind of ordering to it, like GUIDs for example.
<edit>Curiosity took over, I wondered why your RefID was char(22), and it seems like a base64 encoding of GUIDs use exactly 22 characters.</edit>
modified 24-Mar-18 14:44pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: B-tree is not hash based.
Ok. I stand corrected.
So that should work.
Jörgen Andersson wrote: I don't know anything about Amazons databases
They do not expose the underlying implementation. But it should be a binary equivalent so your point should hold.
Jörgen Andersson wrote: and it seems like a base64 encoding of GUIDs use exactly 22 characters
Yes I believe that is correct. Not my design but I believe something I have looked at in just the last day would support that.
|
|
|
|
|
If it's a btree index it should work.
But if it is a hash index, I really don't have a solution.
Except adding a btree index on the table.
Hash indexes are faster for lookups, but totally useless for ranges.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi - We migrated from sql server 2008 to 2012. We have a stored proc which inserts dates into a table. We insert an initial value wherein the identity key value is -1, with an insert statement. For the rest of the dates, we have a while loop. within the while loop, the next identity key value is resulting as 0 in sql server 2012 and as a 1 in sql server 2008. Both server have the table's field name defined with identity_seed as 0, and increment as 1.
Why does sql server 2008 have 1 as the next value after -1, and sql server 2012 have 0 as the next value after -1?
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
The fact you have a while-loop is filling me horror. However, without being able to see the SP code we can't possibly comment on what might be going wrong.
You have contradicted yourself however, you stated Quote: We insert an initial value wherein the identity key value is -1,
but you state Quote: Both server have the table's field name defined with identity_seed as 0, and increment as 1.
Without checking I can't confirm, but perhaps there was a hole in 2008 that allowed you to trample all over the IDENTITY column.
You should use IDENTITY (-1,1) if you want the first key to be -1 (but I suspect you don't).
Try posting the code so we can suggest ways of improving it ... like getting rid of the WHILE loop 
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you're RESEEDing the table:
If rows are present in the table, the next row is inserted with the new_reseed_value value.
In version SQL Server 2008 R2 and earlier, the next row inserted uses new_reseed_value + the current increment value.
So if you reseed to 0, and your increment is 1, the next value in SQL 2008 R2 or earlier will be 1, whereas the next value in SQL 2012 or later will be 0.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, that is helpful!
|
|
|
|
|
VK19 wrote: Why does sql server 2008 have 1 as the next value after -1, and sql server 2012 have 0 as the next value after -1?
The answer was above, but I am curious why it matters.
Certainly existing data would long be past zero or one. And if this is new data, always, then why does it matter?
|
|
|
|
|
This is part of our datawarehouse project.
We have some reports set up for data extract, and using some <> 0 conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
So then adjust your index to start at 100 just to be sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I am using a merge statement in my Stored Proc, when I am trying to get inserted values, its giving me all the matched and unmatched ones.
In the example below:
MERGE [dbo].[Service_Program_Detail] AS T
USING (select *, @PK_Target 'PK_Target' from [dbo].[Service_Program_Detail]
where FK_Program_Code_ServiceProgDetails = @PK_Source
and FK_Fiscal_Period_Code_ServiceProgDetails=@Fiscal_Period_Code) AS S
ON ((T.FK_Service_Code_ServiceProgDetails = S.FK_Service_Code_ServiceProgDetails)
and (T.FK_Fiscal_Period_Code_ServiceProgDetails=S.FK_Fiscal_Period_Code_ServiceProgDetails)
and (T.FK_Program_Code_ServiceProgDetails=S.PK_Target))
WHEN NOT MATCHED
THEN INSERT(FK_Service_Code_ServiceProgDetails, FK_Program_Code_ServiceProgDetails
, FK_Fiscal_Period_Code_ServiceProgDetails, CreatedBy, ModifiedBy
, CreatedOn, ModifiedOn, FK_Service_Program_Detail_Unit_Types)
VALUES(S.FK_Service_Code_ServiceProgDetails, S.PK_Target
, S.FK_Fiscal_Period_Code_ServiceProgDetails, @ExecutedBy, @ExecutedBy,
getdate(), getdate(), FK_Service_Program_Detail_Unit_Types)
WHEN MATCHED
THEN UPDATE SET T.FK_Service_Program_Detail_Unit_Types = S.FK_Service_Program_Detail_Unit_Types
OUTPUT inserted.PK_Service_Program_Detail,
inserted.FK_Service_Code_ServiceProgDetails,
@PK_Source,
inserted.FK_Program_Code_ServiceProgDetails,
inserted.FK_Fiscal_Period_Code_ServiceProgDetails
INTO @Service_Program_Detail
(
PK_Service_Program_Detail_T,
FK_Service_Code_ServiceProgDetails,
Program_Code_S,
Program_Code_T,
FK_Fiscal_Period_Code_ServiceProgDetails
);
the output statement is inserting not matched values and matched values, but I want only not matched values to be inserted into @Service_Program_Detail. My question is, is there any possibility that I can output matched and not matched values separately or I want only not matched values (which I could able to do by putting only not matched condition, but I want to update the value as well but it shouldn't be inserted into @Service_Program_Detail and it should be able to go into a different value or table variable.
Thanks,
Abdul Aleem
"There is already enough hatred in the world lets spread love, compassion and affection."
|
|
|
|
|
In the output clause you can specify the $action column that tells you whether it was an insert, update or a delete. And since you only have updates when matched...
|
|
|
|
|
Any help to figure out this query is highly appreciated.
I have three tables. (Scripts to load test data copied below).
First table #UserAccounts has UserAccounts, AccountType and BillingAccountKey.
Second table #BillingTransactions had Billingtransactionkey(surrogate key), BillingAccountKey and BillingCode.
UserAccount and BillingAccountKey has 1 to 1 relationship.
Third Table #BillingCodeRank has BillingCode and Rank.
I want to see the billing code associated with each UserAccount (with account type 'O') that has the max rank.
Example:UserAccount 456 has BillingAccountKey =2 and has three billing codes (222,333,444) having rank 6,5,4 recpectively.
The result should show BillingCode 222 associated with UserAccount 456 because codee 222 has the max rank among the three codes.
The final result from the test data would be as shown below:
Result:
UserAccount AccountType BillingAccountKey BillingCode Rank
456 O 2 222 6
789 O 3 111 7
102 O 5 333 5
--Scripts to load test data
SELECT * INTO #UserAccount FROM (
SELECT 123 AS UserAccounts, 'I' AS AccountType, 1 AS BillingAccountKey
UNION ALL
SELECT 456, 'O', 2
UNION ALL
SELECT 789, 'O', 3
UNION ALL
SELECT 101, 'I', 4
UNION ALL
SELECT 102, 'O', 5) A
SELECT * FROM #UserAccount
--================================================================
SELECT * INTO #BillingTransactions FROM (
SELECT 1 AS BillingTransactionKey, 1 AS BillingAccountKey, 111 AS BillingCode
UNION ALL
SELECT 2, 2, 222
UNION ALL
SELECT 3, 2, 333
UNION ALL
SELECT 4, 2, 444
UNION ALL
SELECT 5, 3, 111
UNION ALL
SELECT 6, 3, 555
UNION ALL
SELECT 7, 3, 666
UNION ALL
SELECT 8, 3, 222
UNION ALL
SELECT 9, 5, 333
UNION ALL
SELECT 10, 5, 777)A
SELECT * FROM #BillingTransactions
--===============================================
SELECT * INTO #BillingCodeRank FROM(
SELECT 111 AS BillingCode, 7 AS [Rank]
UNION ALL
SELECT 222, 6
UNION ALL
SELECT 333, 5
UNION ALL
SELECT 444, 4
UNION ALL
SELECT 555, 3
UNION ALL
SELECT 666, 2
UNION ALL
SELECT 777, 1
UNION ALL
SELECT 888, 1
UNION ALL
SELECT 999, 3
UNION ALL
SELECT 101, 5)A
SELECT * FROM #BillingCodeRank
Thank you for you help.
|
|
|
|
|
Something like this should work:
WITH cteOrderedBillingCodes As
(
SELECT
T.BillingAccountKey,
T.BillingCode,
R.Rank,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY T.BillingAccountKey ORDER BY R.Rank DESC) As RN
FROM
#BillingTransactions As T
INNER JOIN #BillingCodeRank As R
ON R.BillingCode = T.BillingCode
)
SELECT
A.UserAccount,
A.AccountType,
A.BillingAccountKey,
C.BillingCode,
C.Rank
FROM
#UserAccount As A
LEFT JOIN cteOrderedBillingCodes As C
ON C.BillingAccountKey = A.BillingAccountKey
And C.RN = 1
WHERE
A.AccountType = 'O'
;
ROW_NUMBER (Transact-SQL) | Microsoft Docs[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
sorry its very complex to me.
|
|
|
|
|
I am stuck in the middle of a project. I am having an issue with adding the data source in "Entity Data Model Wizard"
Navigation Path:::::
Solution Explorer : Models(Folder): Add : New Item : ADO.NET Entity Data Model : EF Designer From Database : New Connection
Now here in "New Connection" I want to connect my postgresql database using Postgresql Datasource but I have only SQL Server datasource option there, Anybody know how to deal with this ERROR..??
Note: I have added Npgsql, entityframework5.Npgsql through NuGet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 27-Feb-18 8:31am.
|
|
|
|
|
You've already had an answer posted.
And remember, the people who answer questions here are volunteers. Nobody is being paid to give you an answer in a fixed amount of time.
Try engaging with the people who are trying to help you, rather than flouting the rules of the site.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 27-Feb-18 8:31am.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
