March 25, 2010 at 1:14 am
All,
I have one scenario.
create table t1
(
AssetID int,
Date datetime,
InceptionDate datetime
)
insert into t1
select 1,'01/jan/2001','01/01/2005'
union
select 1,'01/feb/2002','01/01/2005'
union
select 1,'01/mar/2003','01/01/2005'
union
select 1,'01/apr/2004','01/01/2005'
union
select 2,'01/mar/2000','01/01/2003'
union
select 2,'01/apr/2000','01/01/2003'
union
select 3,'01/mar/2000','01/01/1999'
union
select 3,'01/apr/2000','01/01/1999'
i want to fetch only AssetID and min(Date) , If the date is less than inception data. But the condition is i don't want to use MIN() function.
Expected output:
1 01/01/2001
2 01/mar/2000
karthik
March 25, 2010 at 1:30 am
Actually the table has more than 100000 records. So if i execute query like
select Assetid,min(date)
from t1
group by assetid
having min(date) <> inceptiondate
it is taking 1 minutes.
karthik
March 25, 2010 at 1:54 am
Dear,
Kindly provide the test script for batter analyze.
Regards
Vijay
March 25, 2010 at 6:16 am
karthikeyan-444867 (3/25/2010)
Actually the table has more than 100000 records. So if i execute query likeselect Assetid,min(date)
from t1
group by assetid
having min(date) <> inceptiondate
it is taking 1 minutes.
.Net SqlClient Data Provider: Msg 8121, Level 16, State 1, Line 25
Column 't1.InceptionDate' is invalid in the HAVING clause because it is not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause.
[/color]
March 25, 2010 at 6:22 am
CREATE TABLE #T1
(
AssetID INTEGER NOT NULL,
Date DATETIME NOT NULL,
InceptionDate DATETIME NOT NULL,
);
INSERT #T1
SELECT 1,'2001-01-01', '2005-01-01'
UNION ALL
SELECT 1,'2002-02-01', '2005-01-01'
UNION ALL
SELECT 1,'2003-03-01', '2005-01-01'
UNION ALL
SELECT 1,'2004-04-01', '2005-01-01'
UNION ALL
SELECT 2,'2000-03-01', '2003-01-01'
UNION ALL
SELECT 2,'2000-04-01', '2003-01-01'
UNION ALL
SELECT 3,'2000-03-01', '1999-01-01'
UNION ALL
SELECT 3,'2000-04-01', '1999-01-01';
SELECT AssetID, MIN(Date)
FROM #T1
GROUP BY
AssetID
HAVING MIN(Date) <> MIN(InceptionDate);
AssetID (No column name)
1 2001-01-01 00:00:00.000
2 2000-03-01 00:00:00.000
3 2000-03-01 00:00:00.000
March 25, 2010 at 6:25 am
1. Why do you want to avoid the min() function? That's like saying "I want to saw a board in half, but I don't want to use a saw." If this is a homework assignment, chances are that your professor recently went over the what he wants you to use in class.
2. Do you think min() is the reason you query takes a full minute to run? Is your question really just how to speed it up? Or is your query producing the wrong results?
3. having min(date) <> inceptiondate How does this test to see if the date is LESS than the inception date? The test you have specified is less than or greater than.
__________________________________________________
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. -- Friedrich Schiller
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down. -- Stephen Stills
March 25, 2010 at 6:39 am
DROP TABLE #T1
GO
CREATE TABLE #T1
(
AssetID INTEGER NOT NULL,
Date DATETIME NOT NULL,
InceptionDate DATETIME NOT NULL,
);
INSERT #T1
SELECT 1,'2001-01-01', '2005-01-01'
UNION ALL
SELECT 1,'2002-02-01', '2005-01-01'
UNION ALL
SELECT 1,'2003-03-01', '2005-01-01'
UNION ALL
SELECT 1,'2004-04-01', '2005-01-01'
UNION ALL
SELECT 2,'2000-03-01', '2003-01-01'
UNION ALL
SELECT 2,'2000-04-01', '2003-01-01'
UNION ALL
SELECT 3,'2000-03-01', '1999-01-01'
UNION ALL
SELECT 3,'2000-04-01', '1999-01-01';
CREATE INDEX nc1 ON #T1 (AssetID, InceptionDate);
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX uq1 ON #T1 (AssetID, Date);
SELECT A.AssetID, CA.Date
FROM (
SELECT DISTINCT
AssetID,
InceptionDate
FROM #T1
) A
CROSS
APPLY (
SELECT TOP (1)
B.Date
FROM #T1 B
WHERE B.AssetID = A.AssetID
AND B.Date < A.InceptionDate
ORDER BY
B.Date ASC
) CA;
AssetID Date
1 2001-01-01 00:00:00.000
2 2000-03-01 00:00:00.000
The stream aggregate there is for the DISTINCT, not a MIN.
March 25, 2010 at 6:43 am
select assetid,date
from
(
select assetid,date, row_number () over (partition by assetid order by date ) rowid from t1
WHERE date < inceptiondate ) t
WHERE t.rowid = 1
-------Bhuvnesh----------
I work only to learn Sql Server...though my company pays me for getting their stuff done;-)
March 25, 2010 at 6:46 am
karthikeyan-444867 (3/25/2010)
Actually the table has more than 100000 records. So if i execute query likeselect Assetid,min(date)
from t1
group by assetid
having min(date) <> inceptiondate
it is taking 1 minutes.
if you have index on date column then min(date) kills seek operation on it which might result in slownees of query.
-------Bhuvnesh----------
I work only to learn Sql Server...though my company pays me for getting their stuff done;-)
March 25, 2010 at 6:56 am
Bhuvnesh (3/25/2010)
if you have index on date column then min(date) kills seek operation on it which might result in slownees of query.
What do you mean here? Having an index prevents a seek???
March 25, 2010 at 6:57 am
Just for fun.
WITH [Recursive]
AS (
SELECT TOP (1)
T.AssetID,
T.Date
FROM #T1 T
WHERE T.Date < T.InceptionDate
ORDER BY
T.AssetID,
T.InceptionDate
UNION ALL
SELECT T.AssetID,
T.Date
FROM Recursive R
JOIN #T1 T
ON T.AssetID > R.AssetID
WHERE T.Date < T.InceptionDate
AND NOT EXISTS
(
SELECT *
FROM #T1 T1
WHERE T1.AssetID = T.AssetID
AND T1.Date < T1.InceptionDate
AND T1.Date < T.Date
)
AND NOT EXISTS
(
SELECT *
FROM #T1 T2
WHERE T2.AssetID < T.AssetID
AND T2.AssetID > R.AssetID
AND T2.Date < T2.InceptionDate
)
)
SELECT *
FROM Recursive;
March 25, 2010 at 7:19 am
I still don't understand why the obvious query is unacceptable.
select assetID, min([date])
from t1
where [date] < inceptionDate
group by assetID
__________________________________________________
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. -- Friedrich Schiller
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down. -- Stephen Stills
March 25, 2010 at 7:25 am
The Dixie Flatline (3/25/2010)
I still don't understand why the obvious query is unacceptable.
select assetID, min([date])
from t1
where [date] < inceptionDate
group by assetID
You have dealt with the 'Senior Software Engineer' before, right? 😉
Possibly a lack of good indexes, just as likely a data distribution which makes the (partial) index scan(s) inefficient. Depending on the circumstances, the TOP + APPLY may be significantly faster. There's a good article on why that might be around somewhere - :laugh:
March 25, 2010 at 7:48 am
With a proper index in place, a TOP(1) subquery can beat the performance of a min(), because the query plan only has to do a one-row seek. I expect that one day they will refine the optimizer to the point where knows to do that with MIN() too.
__________________________________________________
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. -- Friedrich Schiller
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down. -- Stephen Stills
March 25, 2010 at 8:10 am
The Dixie Flatline (3/25/2010)
I expect that one day they will refine the optimizer to the point where knows to do that with MIN() too.
That's called a loose index scan. There is a good reason why SQL Server does not include it, but I can't recall the details off the top of my head. I think it might be an architectural thing.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply