August 29, 2012 at 1:35 am
update a
set a.Flag = 0
from table1 a
WHERE
a.OLD_NUMBER in (select number from table2) and
a.NEW_NUMBER not in (select number from table2)
The above query sets the flag column to 0 if OLD_NUMBER is found in table2 and NEW_NUMBER is not found in table2. The problem with this query is table2 has about 3,2 million numbers. The sub query "select number from table2" takes about 15-20 seconds to execute. This query therefore takes way to long (about 50 min if table1 has 6000 records). Is there a more efficient, faster way to accomplish the same?
August 29, 2012 at 1:51 am
Try this (untested):
select * into #t
from table1
delete a
from #t a
inner join table2 b
on b.number = a.NEW_NUMBER
update a
set a.Flag = 0
from table1 a
inner join #t t
on t.NEW_NUMBER = b.NEW_NUMBER
inner join table2 b
on b.number = t.OLD_NUMBER
You need index on number column on table2.
August 29, 2012 at 2:22 am
IN and NOT IN are usually very efficient, sometimes more so that joins. If the number column is nullable that could cause worse performance than expected.
Can you post the table definitions, index definitions and execution plan please?
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 29, 2012 at 2:49 am
hardus.lombaard (8/29/2012)
update aset a.Flag = 0
from table1 a
WHERE
a.OLD_NUMBER in (select number from table2) and
a.NEW_NUMBER not in (select number from table2)
The above query sets the flag column to 0 if OLD_NUMBER is found in table2 and NEW_NUMBER is not found in table2. The problem with this query is table2 has about 3,2 million numbers. The sub query "select number from table2" takes about 15-20 seconds to execute. This query therefore takes way to long (about 50 min if table1 has 6000 records). Is there a more efficient, faster way to accomplish the same?
50 minutes suggests you don't have a usable index on column [number] of table2. With only 6000 rows in table1, indexing will matter far less.
Here's the simple join equivalent of your query;
UPDATE a
SET a.Flag = 0
FROM table1 a
INNER JOIN table2 t2a ON t2a.number = a.OLD_NUMBER
LEFT JOIN table2 t2b ON t2b.number = a.NEW_NUMBER
WHERE t2b.number IS NULL
For fast, accurate and documented assistance in answering your questions, please read this article.
Understanding and using APPLY, (I) and (II) Paul White
Hidden RBAR: Triangular Joins / The "Numbers" or "Tally" Table: What it is and how it replaces a loop Jeff Moden
August 29, 2012 at 2:56 am
Your'e right. It actually doesn't matter whether I use joins or "in's" and "not in's". All I needed was an index!
August 29, 2012 at 3:05 am
You might want to try this one also:
UPDATE t
SET Flag = CASE (SELECT 1 FROM Table2 WHERE number = NEW_NUMBER) WHEN 1 THEN Flag ELSE 0 END
FROM Table1 t
INNER JOIN Table2 ON number = OLD_NUMBER
My thought question: Have you ever been told that your query runs too fast?
My advice:
INDEXing a poor-performing query is like putting sugar on cat food. Yeah, it probably tastes better but are you sure you want to eat it?
The path of least resistance can be a slippery slope. Take care that fixing your fixes of fixes doesn't snowball and end up costing you more than fixing the root cause would have in the first place.
Need to UNPIVOT? Why not CROSS APPLY VALUES instead?[/url]
Since random numbers are too important to be left to chance, let's generate some![/url]
Learn to understand recursive CTEs by example.[/url]
[url url=http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/St
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply