Hi Chris,

I was trying to use Suggestion given in your last post,

Could u plz guide me further...how to move on that Qry..

@ninja

But from now i m not investing my time in reading and replying to ur post...

😉

@chris-2

could u please suggest me further...

I think ur last suggestion might work...seems lot of improvement..

I m waiting for ur response

@ninja

I know in b/w 8 hours u r usually....see the posts read them...

its lot of work to do...its very time consuming to read all the posts..

I can understand

Thanks

For...

what should i do? 🙁

1st qry takes-1 sec

2nd - 40-50 sec

3rd-3 sec

here is execution plan for combined

@chris-2,

1st query takes:46 sec

2nd one:44 sec

3rd one:43 sec

but i think this estimation is not always fix,

means very little diffrence not be same for every execution

@chris-2

query which u hv posted, took 58 sec to execte

and select qry executed in 3 sec(Select * from #Orderlines).

No there is no results...only messages indicating number of rows effected..

if we execute select * from #orderlines

then rows effected will display

it takes 58 sec to execute,

nd i am directly executing them into SSMS

Thanks for Reply Chris

I again Executed the Query , nd did't made any changes except column names to match them with group By Clause,

U can see Execution Plan attached.

Good morning

@chris-2 i am not able to get that Query3 ,

Every Morning I have a hope with u guys...Expecting some logical magic.

That improve my Query performance and...

Good Morning frfernan 🙂

Now I have removed that GETOETYPE function Call From My Query,

--------------------------------------------------------------------

ol.[Cust#],

oetype = DBO.GETOETYPE(ol.[OE Type]),

ol.[Trans],

ol.[Whse],

--------------------------------------------------------------------

But did't found...

@frfernan

as u say "so I would prefer apply MAX to ordernumber and group by cono, orderno, ordersuf. That is, focus on the clustering keys."

I again do some changes in Query,i.e...

@ninja

Are u talking Abt this one

"Unless you want to include pretty much every other columns in that table, that looks like the most-ish plan you can expect.

Might be...