A varchar(MAX) STRING_SPLIT function for SQL 2012 and above

Question

A varchar(MAX) STRING_SPLIT function for SQL 2012 and above

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 40 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

Solomon Rutzky SSCoach Points: 16430 More actions · Answer 1

Jonathan AC Roberts wrote:

Thom A wrote:
having something that has a varchar passed to it that returns an nvarchar could be very bad for SARGability, if the column being compared afterwards is a varchar too (as the Column would be implicitly converted, meaning any indexes are effectively useless).
I've just run a test and not converting the results of the dbo_STRING_SPLIT function and joining the results to a varchar still does an index seek on the table. ... It does a seek on both queries but the second query (without the convert varchar(5)) is a bit slower to execute

Hi there.

Regarding @thom-a's statement about implicit conversions: that is an unfortunately common misunderstanding / over-simplification. The CONVERT_IMPLICIT is not the cause of the performance degradation. It's Microsoft's horrible miscalculation that the pain of switching the default collation for OSs using the US English (i.e. en-US) locale / culture to Latin1_General_CI_AS (and dealing with a customers upgrading and having problems with queries against temp tables doing joins on string columns) would be worse than keeping an increasingly obsolete default collation for new installations (i.e. SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS). SQL Server collations (those starting with "SQL_") have different sort orders for VARCHAR and NVARCHAR data, and that is why the conversion (implicit or explicit) to NVARCHAR causes problems: the index isn't in the correct physical order, so it needs to be scanned or ignored. Please see my post, "Impact on Indexes When Mixing VARCHAR and NVARCHAR Types", for full details.

Regarding @jonathan-ac-roberts 's test: you might want to include a GO between the two test queries. It might not make a difference, but I have found that quite often running multiple queries in a single batch will produce different performance results as compared to running them individually / in separate batches. Typically one of them, if executed in the same batch, ends up being affected for the worse than when executed independently.

Take care,

Solomon...

This reply was modified 5 years ago by Solomon Rutzky.
This reply was modified 5 years ago by Solomon Rutzky.

SQL# — https://SQLsharp.com/ ( SQLCLR library ofover 340 Functions and Procedures)
Sql Quantum Lift — https://SqlQuantumLift.com/ ( company )
Sql Quantum Leap — https://SqlQuantumLeap.com/ ( blog )
Info sites — Collations • Module Signing • SQLCLR

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004406 More actions · Answer 2

Solomon Rutzky wrote:

Regarding @jonathan-ac-roberts 's test: you might want to include a GO between the two test queries. It might not make a difference, but I have found that quite often running multiple queries in a single batch will produce different performance results as compared to running them individually / in separate batches. Typically one of them, if executed in the same batch, ends up being affected for the worse than when executed independently.

Excellent point, Solomon! To wit, I've found that even the use of GO between batches is sometimes not enough. Sometimes they need to physically be executed separately.

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

Solomon Rutzky SSCoach Points: 16430 More actions · Answer 3

Jeff Moden wrote:

Solomon Rutzky wrote:
Regarding @jonathan-ac-roberts 's test: you might want to include a GO between the two test queries. It might not make a difference, but I have found that quite often running multiple queries in a single batch will produce different performance results as compared to running them individually / in separate batches.
Excellent point, Solomon! To wit, I've found that even the use of GO between batches is sometimes not enough. Sometimes they need to physically be executed separately.

Hi Jeff. Yes, I have experienced the same, but was just trying to not throw too much into that reply ;-). But yes, nowadays when I do any performance testing of this nature, I nearly always do fully separate executions just to be sure. Thanks for mentioning that as I wasn't sure if I was the only one seeing such things.

Take care,

Solomon...

SQL# — https://SQLsharp.com/ ( SQLCLR library ofover 340 Functions and Procedures)
Sql Quantum Lift — https://SqlQuantumLift.com/ ( company )
Sql Quantum Leap — https://SqlQuantumLeap.com/ ( blog )
Info sites — Collations • Module Signing • SQLCLR

Jonathan AC Roberts SSCoach Points: 18361 More actions · Answer 4

Jeff Moden wrote:

Solomon Rutzky wrote:
Regarding @jonathan-ac-roberts 's test: you might want to include a GO between the two test queries. It might not make a difference, but I have found that quite often running multiple queries in a single batch will produce different performance results as compared to running them individually / in separate batches. Typically one of them, if executed in the same batch, ends up being affected for the worse than when executed independently.
Excellent point, Solomon! To wit, I've found that even the use of GO between batches is sometimes not enough. Sometimes they need to physically be executed separately.

I've tried the test with a GO between and it does make a difference to the elapsed and CPU times reported in the "set statistics" messages. It brings the query without cast(varchar) down to be only about 10% slower than the query with the cast. Without the GO, the query without the cast(varchar) is about 3 times slower than the one with cast(varchar). I can't say I understand why though?

As for the IO, there are 10 scan counts reported on #t1 for the query without cast(varchar) compared to zero scans with it. This is true for whether or not the GO is included.

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004406 More actions · Answer 5

fgrodriguez wrote:

The usefulness of this function is not that of rapid execution, but the utility of the result.

I've heard many people speak such words and they're usually the same ones begging for a performance fix some time later. Performance (ie, "Rapid Execution") is second only to correct functionality and it's a very close second. Don't dismiss it so easily.

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

rreimche Newbie Points: 2 More actions · Answer 6

I'm having the following problem with the solution. The following call returns 'bc' as the only value, not 'Abc' as I would suppose:

DECLARE @Test table (Field NVARCHAR(255))


INSERT INTO @Test 
    SELECT value FROM dbo.STRING_SPLIT('Abc', ', ')


SELECT * FROM @Test

If I try STRING_SPLIT('Abc, Ced', ', '), I get 'bc,' and 'Ced'.

And splitting 'Abc, Ced, Def' with the same delimiter delivers 'bc,', 'Ced,' and 'Def'.

So, it seems that using ', ' (comma and space) as a delimiter makes the first letter to be eaten and it does not remove ',' from the end of the splittet values.

I have also tried STRING_SPLIT('Abc Ced Def', ' '), here I have gotten 'Abc ', 'Ced ', 'Def ' (there are spaces on the end, which I consider to be wrong).

Am I doing something wrong or is there a problem in the function definition? I am using MS SQL Server 2012.

Thank you for your help in advance,

Roman

Jonathan AC Roberts SSCoach Points: 18361 More actions · Answer 7

rreimche wrote:

I'm having the following problem with the solution. The following call returns 'bc' as the only value, not 'Abc' as I would suppose:
DECLARE @Test table (Field NVARCHAR(255))


INSERT INTO @Test 
    SELECT value FROM dbo.STRING_SPLIT('Abc', ', ')


SELECT * FROM @Test
If I try STRING_SPLIT('Abc, Ced', ', '), I get 'bc,' and 'Ced'. And splitting 'Abc, Ced, Def' with the same delimiter delivers 'bc,', 'Ced,' and 'Def'.
So, it seems that using ', ' (comma and space) as a delimiter makes the first letter to be eaten and it does not remove ',' from the end of the splittet values.
I have also tried STRING_SPLIT('Abc Ced Def', ' '), here I have gotten 'Abc ', 'Ced ', 'Def ' (there are spaces on the end, which I consider to be wrong).
Am I doing something wrong or is there a problem in the function definition? I am using MS SQL Server 2012.
Thank you for your help in advance, Roman

Hi Roman,

Thank you for looking at the code.

I've fixed the problem (code below).

I'll get it republished with the correction.

Jonathan

IF OBJECT_ID('[dbo].[STRING_SPLIT]','IF') IS NULL BEGIN
    EXEC ('CREATE FUNCTION [dbo].[STRING_SPLIT] () RETURNS TABLE AS RETURN SELECT 1 X') 
END
GO
ALTER FUNCTION [dbo].[STRING_SPLIT]
(
    @string    nvarchar(MAX), 
    @separator nvarchar(MAX)
)
RETURNS TABLE WITH SCHEMABINDING 
AS RETURN
   WITH X(N) AS (SELECT 'Table1' FROM (VALUES (0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0)) T(C)),
        Y(N) AS (SELECT 'Table2' FROM X A1, X A2, X A3, X A4, X A5, X A6, X A7, X A8) , -- Up to 16^8 = 4 billion
        T(N) AS (SELECT TOP(ISNULL(LEN(@string),0)) ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT NULL)) -1 N FROM Y),
        Delim(Pos) AS (SELECT t.N FROM T WHERE SUBSTRING(@string, t.N, LEN(@separator+'x')-1) LIKE @separator OR t.N = 0),
        Separated(value) AS (SELECT SUBSTRING(@string, d.Pos + CASE WHEN Pos=0 THEN 1 ELSE LEN(@separator+'x')-1 END , LEAD(d.Pos,1,2147483647) OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT NULL)) - CASE WHEN d.Pos=0 THEN 2-LEN(@separator+'x') ELSE d.Pos END - (LEN(@separator+'x')-1)) 
                               FROM Delim d
                              WHERE @string IS NOT NULL)
       SELECT s.value
         FROM Separated s
        WHERE s.value <> @separator
GO

Sergiy SSC Guru Points: 110208 More actions · Answer 8

Jeff Moden wrote:

I'm not sure who or what marked the post by fgrodriguez as spam but I'm reposting it here so that the de-spaminator doesn't delete it.
I'll also state I'm a bit concerned about the possible performance of the code because it's an mTVF rather than an iTVF. That's part of the reason why I wanted to make sure the marked post didn't disappear. It deserves to be tested.

Recursive CTE?

A bit concerned? About the possible performance?

_____________
Code for TallyGenerator

rreimche Newbie Points: 2 More actions · Answer 9

Great, thank you for the correction. Here is another Problem to consider

INSERT INTO @Test SELECT value FROM dbo.STRING_SPLIT('Abc, Ced, Def, ', ', ')

gives "Abc", "Ced" and "Def, " (notice whitespace in the laste value). I think ", " should not be present in the last value.

Another catch:

INSERT INTO @Test SELECT value FROM dbo.STRING_SPLIT(', Abc, Ced, Def', ', ')

delivers "", "Abc", Ced", Def". I guess the first empty value should not be there.

Cheers,

Roman

Jonathan AC Roberts SSCoach Points: 18361 More actions · Answer 10

rreimche wrote:

Great, thank you for the correction. Here is another Problem to consider
INSERT INTO @Test SELECT value FROM dbo.STRING_SPLIT('Abc, Ced, Def, ', ', ')
gives "Abc", "Ced" and "Def, " (notice whitespace in the laste value). I think ", " should not be present in the last value.
Another catch:
INSERT INTO @Test SELECT value FROM dbo.STRING_SPLIT(', Abc, Ced, Def', ', ')
delivers "", "Abc", Ced", Def". I guess the first empty value should not be there.
Cheers, Roman

That's also a feature of the SPLIT_STRING function in SQL Server:

 /* This version */
SELECT value FROM dbo.STRING_SPLIT(',Abc,Ced,,Def', ',');
/* SQL Server version */
SELECT value FROM STRING_SPLIT(',Abc,Ced,,Def', ',');

splitstring1

If you want to suppress them you could write a WHERE clause:

SELECT value FROM dbo.STRING_SPLIT(',Abc,Ced,,Def', ',');
 WHERE value <> ''

Jonathan AC Roberts SSCoach Points: 18361 More actions · Answer 11

I've put an LTRIM on the output to make it the same as the SQL Server version, also it was searching the string for the delimiter one short of the length of the string so the final delimiter wasn't being found when the string was terminated with a delimiter. I've fixed that in the following code:

IF OBJECT_ID('[dbo].[STRING_SPLIT]','IF') IS NULL BEGIN
    EXEC ('CREATE FUNCTION [dbo].[STRING_SPLIT] () RETURNS TABLE AS RETURN SELECT 1 X') 
END
GO
ALTER FUNCTION [dbo].[STRING_SPLIT]
(
    @string    nvarchar(MAX), 
    @separator nvarchar(MAX)
)
RETURNS TABLE WITH SCHEMABINDING 
AS RETURN
   WITH X(N) AS (SELECT 'Table1' FROM (VALUES (0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0),(0)) T(C)),
        Y(N) AS (SELECT 'Table2' FROM X A1, X A2, X A3, X A4, X A5, X A6, X A7, X A8) , -- Up to 16^8 = 4 billion
        T(N) AS (SELECT TOP(ISNULL(LEN(@string),0)+1) ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT NULL)) -1 N FROM Y),
        Delim(Pos) AS (SELECT t.N FROM T WHERE SUBSTRING(@string, t.N, LEN(@separator+'x')-1) LIKE @separator OR t.N = 0),
        Separated(value,position) AS (SELECT SUBSTRING(@string, d.Pos + CASE WHEN Pos=0 THEN 1 ELSE LEN(@separator+'x')-1 END , LEAD(d.Pos,1,2147483647) OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT NULL)) - CASE WHEN d.Pos=0 THEN 2-LEN(@separator+'x') ELSE d.Pos END - (LEN(@separator+'x')-1)),
                                             d.pos      
                                        FROM Delim d
                                       WHERE @string IS NOT NULL)
       SELECT LTRIM(s.value) value,
              ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT NULL)) position
         FROM Separated s
        WHERE s.value <> @separator;
GO

I've also added a column called "position" so the position of the column in the string can be identified.

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004406 More actions · Answer 12

Now that's a matter of opinion. I, for one, want it to return empty or null strings for any element that exists but isn't filled. One of the things I test with is passing 3 commas and nothing else. If it doesn't return 4 empty string or 4 nulls, it's broken, IMHO.

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

Kristen-173977 SSCrazy Eights Points: 8687 More actions · Answer 13

My Splitter function takes 3 parameters - data, delimiter and ValueForBlanks - typically empty string or NULL, but the value '[[DELETE]]' then completely removes any blank entries

Jonathan AC Roberts SSCoach Points: 18361 More actions · Answer 14

Kristen-173977 wrote:

My Splitter function takes 3 parameters - data, delimiter and ValueForBlanks - typically empty string or NULL, but the value '[[DELETE]]' then completely removes any blank entries

Or you could just add a WHERE clause to filter them out as it's a table valued function.

Kristen-173977 SSCrazy Eights Points: 8687 More actions · Answer 15

Jonathan AC Roberts wrote:

Or you could just add a WHERE clause to filter them out as it's a table valued function.

Yes ... but my Splitter returns an Item No, and if I use WHERE afterwards I have gaps in the Item No, so I would then also have to add code to solve that, every time I have that requirement, whereas if I get my Splitter to remove them that function returns contiguous Item Nos.

I still have the option of the Splitter not removing them, so I can have the data "raw" and post-process if that is more appropriate.