LAG和LEAD功能

Question

在SQL Server 2012中使用新的LAG和LEAD函数有什么优势？
是编写一个简单的问题还是调试查询一个简单的问题，还是性能得到了改善？

这对我来说很重要，因为我们经常需要这种功能，而且我想知道是否应该在不久的将来建议升级。
如果只是简单的查询，那么升级的麻烦（和成本）将不值得。

Answer 1

为了证明执行计划的差异，我使用了Dave的SQL Authority博客的获奖解决方案：

• 解决难题的方法–在不使用SQL Server 2012分析函数的情况下模拟LEAD（）和LAG（）

;WITH T1
AS (SELECT row_number() OVER (ORDER BY SalesOrderDetailID) N
         , s.SalesOrderID
         , s.SalesOrderDetailID
    FROM
        TempDB.dbo.LAG s
    WHERE
        SalesOrderID IN (20120303, 20120515, 20120824, 20121031))
SELECT SalesOrderID
     , SalesOrderDetailID AS CurrentSalesOrderDetailID
/*   , CASE
           WHEN N % 2 = 1 THEN
               max(CASE
                   WHEN N % 2 = 0 THEN
                       SalesOrderDetailID
               END) OVER (PARTITION BY (N + 1) / 2)
           ELSE
               max(CASE
                   WHEN N % 2 = 1 THEN
                       SalesOrderDetailID
               END) OVER (PARTITION BY N / 2)
       END LeadVal */
     , CASE
           WHEN N % 2 = 1 THEN
               max(CASE
                   WHEN N % 2 = 0 THEN
                       SalesOrderDetailID
               END) OVER (PARTITION BY N / 2)
           ELSE
               max(CASE
                   WHEN N % 2 = 1 THEN
                       SalesOrderDetailID
               END) OVER (PARTITION BY (N + 1) / 2)
       END PreviousSalesOrderDetailID
FROM
    T1
ORDER BY
    SalesOrderID
  , SalesOrderDetailID;



SELECT SalesOrderID
     , SalesOrderDetailID AS CurrentSalesOrderDetailID
     , LAG(SalesOrderDetailID, 1, 0) OVER (ORDER BY SalesOrderID, SalesOrderDetailID) AS PreviousSalesOrderDetailID
FROM TempDB.dbo.LAG
WHERE SalesOrderID  IN (20120303, 20120515, 20120824, 20121031);





Warning: Null value is eliminated by an aggregate or other SET operation.

(10204 row(s) affected)
Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 6, logical reads 81638, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LAG'. Scan count 4, logical reads 48, 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 = 297 ms,  elapsed time = 332 ms.

--- versus ---

(10204 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 'LAG'. Scan count 4, logical reads 48, 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 = 78 ms,  elapsed time = 113 ms.

除了更优雅之外，它还消耗更少的资源。

这是图形执行计划的比较：

执行计划显示出在此特定情况下的明显胜者。Dave的页面有许多可能的不同方式来获取LEAD / LAG功能。也许其中一些会击败SQL Server的内部解决方案。或者可能不是。