age*_*ega 5 sql-server sql-server-2012
我有一个查询,使用FULL JOIN需要2.5秒,使用INNER,RIGHT或LEFT JOIN需要40秒.
这是查询.子查询(完成两次)只需要1.3秒.
SELECT T1.[time], T1.Total, T1.rn, T2.[time], T2.Total, T2.rn
FROM
(
select [time], MAX(ComputedValue) as Total, row_number() over (order by [time]) as rn
FROM
(
select SUBSTRING(CONVERT(CHAR(10), IntervalStartTime, 108), 0, 6) as [time], ComputedValue
from LoadTestTransactionSample
where LoadTestRunId=285
and CounterName='Total Transactions'
and TransactionName='Export'
) foo
group by [time]
) T1
_____ JOIN
(
select [time], MAX(ComputedValue) as Total, row_number() over (order by [time]) as rn
FROM
(
select SUBSTRING(CONVERT(CHAR(10), IntervalStartTime, 108), 0, 6) as [time], ComputedValue
from LoadTestTransactionSample
where LoadTestRunId=285
and CounterName='Total Transactions'
and TransactionName='Export'
) foo
group by [time]
) T2
ON T1.rn = T2.rn - 1
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
该select SUBSTRING位只是从DateTime中获取HH:MM字符串. LoadTestTransactionSample实际上是一个连接8个表的VIEW.(仅供参考,数据库是Visual Studio加载测试结果存储区).以下是其(相关)专栏:
LoadTestRunId INT NOT NULL
CounterName NVARCHAR(255) NOT NULL
TransactionName NVARCHAR(64) NOT NULL
IntervalStartTime DATETIME NOT NULL
IntervalEndTime DATETIME NOT NULL
ComputedValue REAL
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
FULL JOIN返回一个额外的不需要的行,所以我需要做一个RIGHT JOIN来得到正确的答案.
我不是真的在寻找一个解决方案(我有一个:将子查询预取到表变量中使用SQL Server 2012分析函数'LAG',感谢@ a1ex07),只是对可能导致极端差异的一些理解在这些连接类型之间的性能.
编辑: 这是慢速右连接查询计划 和快速完整连接查询计划.它们太大了,无法发布截图.
编辑2: 实际上查询计划有45%的RIGHT JOIN和55%的FULL JOIN,结果是完全不准确(实际上它最终比99%/ 1%差).我想这意味着我必须依赖实际的执行统计数据.
编辑3: 慢速加入的统计数据:
(40 row(s) affected)
Table 'LoadTestPerformanceCounterCategory'. Scan count 0, logical reads 37556, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LoadTestPerformanceCounter'. Scan count 0, logical reads 176464, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LoadTestScenario'. Scan count 0, logical reads 176464, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LoadTestCase'. Scan count 0, logical reads 176464, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'WebLoadTestTransaction'. Scan count 0, logical reads 13411100, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LoadTestPerformanceCounterInstance'. Scan count 0, logical reads 36563718, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LoadTestPerformanceCounterSample'. Scan count 19721, logical reads 269657, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LoadTestRunInterval'. Scan count 41, logical reads 205, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
SQL Server Execution Times:
CPU time = 36754 ms, elapsed time = 36763 ms.
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
快速加入的统计数据:
(41 row(s) affected)
Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LoadTestPerformanceCounterCategory'. Scan count 0, logical reads 1832, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LoadTestPerformanceCounter'. Scan count 0, logical reads 8608, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LoadTestScenario'. Scan count 0, logical reads 8608, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LoadTestCase'. Scan count 0, logical reads 8608, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'WebLoadTestTransaction'. Scan count 0, logical reads 654200, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LoadTestPerformanceCounterInstance'. Scan count 0, logical reads 1783596, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LoadTestPerformanceCounterSample'. Scan count 962, logical reads 13154, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LoadTestRunInterval'. Scan count 2, logical reads 10, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
SQL Server Execution Times:
CPU time = 1950 ms, elapsed time = 1944 ms.
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
尽管有一个明显相似的查询计划,RIGHT JOIN正在进行比FULL JOIN大得多的读取和更多扫描.
被工作台(在FULL JOIN)提示吗?那是临时表吗?
这似乎表明查询优化器已损坏吗?