Need some Logic Help on some row by row process

Question

Need some Logic Help on some row by row process

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

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

Matt Miller (4) SSC Guru Points: 124210 More actions · Answer 1

psst - Jack? (secret time)

Jeff's solution is referred by MS tech-heads (some of their bloggers) as an "inner loop" technique. Meaning - you have to touch each record one at a time a "accumulate" the values as you pass through them (yes - just like the variable would act in a "real" loop). The @var being used is a mechanism to "pass info" between consecutive records.

And the "consecutive" part is where it gets tricky - and that's where the clustered index comes into play (since you need to control the order of the rows during processing - which is usually a big no-no in set-based processing).

So far - it smells and acts like a "regular" loop with a cursor, right? The difference here seems to be that the row updates don't require individual commits (like a "classic" cursor would). The update for all intents and purposes performs at the same speed as a "regular" update. So - you manage to con SQL Server into giving you the ordering benefits of a cursor, while maintaining the performance of a "traditional" set-based solution.

In other words - it's not exactly set-based, due to the ordering and looping. But it performs at the same level as something good "set-based", so - who really cares that it's technically not?

"Just ignore the man behind the curtain...."

(It actually in my mind shows the way a cursor SHOULD work. The "individual row update" part just kills me - there's no justification why the updates couldn't be kept in memory, and "flushed" all at once. Heck - even procedural languages allow for that, so why doesn't SQL Server?)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?

Jack Corbett SSC Guru Points: 184394 More actions · Answer 2

Thanks for the explanation Matt. This is basically how I thought it would work, but trying to understand it sets my head spinning because it is so different from how a "normal" update would work.

I just had an interesting thought, how would an update trigger handle the "inner loop", does it see it as a single update or individual updates?

Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004339 More actions · Answer 3

Heh... ya beat me to it... thanks, Matt.

--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)

Matt Miller (4) SSC Guru Points: 124210 More actions · Answer 4

Jack Corbett (3/4/2008)
Thanks for the explanation Matt. This is basically how I thought it would work, but trying to understand it sets my head spinning because it is so different from how a "normal" update would work.
I just had an interesting thought, how would an update trigger handle the "inner loop", does it see it as a single update or individual updates?

It's a single update operation and is treated as such...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?

Jack Corbett SSC Guru Points: 184394 More actions · Answer 5

That would have been my assumption, but it never hurts to ask.

Thanks,

Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question

Ralph Curry SSC Enthusiast Points: 167 More actions · Answer 6

Here's another approach that I use sometimes. Pack all the data you want into a fixed length string, aggregating on your desired ID then unpack if from the string.

select

Widget = convert(int, substring(AggData, 1, 11)) ,

DateValue = convert(datetime, substring(AggData, 12,24))

from (

select AggData = max(convert(char(11), Widget) + convert(char(24), DateValue, 121))

from MyTable

group by Widget

) t

I didn't actually test this sample since I don't have access to SQL Server at home, but it should work with minimal tweeking.

Kev Riley SSCrazy Eights Points: 9075 More actions · Answer 7

Jeff, Matt,

that has just blown my socks off! Have you any links to further reading on this 'inner loop' technique.

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004339 More actions · Answer 8

Heh... yeah... I know a really good one 😉

http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Advanced+Querying/61716/

--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)

Ralph Curry SSC Enthusiast Points: 167 More actions · Answer 9

I just got into work to try it, and it looks like I didn't understand the question. Sorry about that.

Ralph Curry SSC Enthusiast Points: 167 More actions · Answer 10

OK, the same technigue of packing aggregate into a string, but using a correlated subquery.

select

Widget,

DateValue

from (

select

Widget,

DateValue,

prev=(

select max(convert(varchar, DateValue, 121) + convert(char(11), Widget))

from #mytable t2

where t2.DateValue < t.DateValue

)

from #mytable t

) t

where prev is null

or Widget <> convert(int, substring(prev,24,11))

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004339 More actions · Answer 11

Heh... at least you tried. Thanks for the feedback.

--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)

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004339 More actions · Answer 12

Ralph Curry (3/5/2008)
OK, the same technigue of packing aggregate into a string, but using a correlated subquery.
select
Widget,
DateValue
from (
select
Widget,
DateValue,
prev=(
select max(convert(varchar, DateValue, 121) + convert(char(11), Widget))
from #mytable t2
where t2.DateValue < t.DateValue
)
from #mytable t
) t
where prev is null
or Widget <> convert(int, substring(prev,24,11))

Oh... be careful... that's got a triangular join in it... please see the following for why that can be so very bad...

http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/61539/

--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)

Ralph Curry SSC Enthusiast Points: 167 More actions · Answer 13

Thanks, that was a good read. I knew that the correlated subquery caused it to be a RBAR approach, just packaged in a single query in case you are querying a system you don't have DDL rights on. I also assumed that if there was an index on (DateValue, Widget) (maybe DESC) it would do the max in the correlated subquery more efficiently than the brute-force triangle join.

While I have your attention, how about this:

select

identity(int, 1, 1) seq_id,

Widget,

DateValue

into #myNewTable

from #mytable

order by DateValue, Widget

-- create clustered index in (seq_id)

select t.*

from #myNewTable t

left join #myNewTable t2

on t.seq_id = t2.seq_id + 1

where t.seq_id = 1 or t.Widget <> t2.Widget

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004339 More actions · Answer 14

Thats one of the better ideas, Ralph. It takes 25 ms duration, 15 ms CPU time, and 214 logical reads.

The update method I showed, as long as it looks, takes 15 ms duration, 15 ms CPU time, 2 writes, and only 155 logical reads.

Either way, though, they're both lightning fast compared to any kind of a loop or correlated subquery...

Nice job.

--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)

Dan Standeven Valued Member Points: 73 More actions · Answer 15

Jeff, I was finally able to take a look at this, and was able to modify what you provided to generate my results.

Thanks for your help.

Dan