Performance

I originally wrote about catch-all queries early in 2009, just as something that I’d seen several times in client code. It turned into the 3rd most popular post ever on my blog.

A lot’s changed since 2009. When I wrote the original post, most production servers were SQL 2005 or SQL 2000. SQL 2008 had been out less than a year and its fix for catch-all queries, the RECOMPILE hint, didn’t even work properly (it had an incorrect results bug in RTM, was pulled in SP1 and fixed in SP2)

As such, my feelings on how to solve the problem with catch-all queries has changed over the years.

Before I get to solutions, let’s start with the root cause of the problem with catch-all queries – plan caching and the need for plans to be safe for reuse.

Let’s take a sample query. I’ll use the same one I used in the original post.

CREATE PROCEDURE SearchHistory
(@Product int = NULL, @OrderID int = NULL, @TransactionType char(1) = NULL, @Qty int = NULL)
AS
SELECT ProductID, ReferenceOrderID, TransactionType, Quantity,
TransactionDate, ActualCost
FROM Production.TransactionHistory
WHERE (ProductID = @Product Or @Product IS NULL)
AND (ReferenceOrderID = @OrderID OR @OrderID Is NULL)
AND (TransactionType = @TransactionType OR @TransactionType Is NULL)
AND (Quantity = @Qty Or @Qty is null)
GO

There are two nonclustered indexes on the TransactionHistory table, one on ProductID, one on ReferenceOrderID and ReferenceLineID.

For the initial discussion, let’s just consider two of the clauses in the WHERE. I’ll leave the other two in the stored proc, but they won’t be used.

WHERE (ProductID = @Product Or @Product IS NULL)
AND (ReferenceOrderID = @OrderID OR @OrderID Is NULL)

We would expect, if the ProductID parameter is passed, to get a seek using the index on ProductID, if the ReferenceOrderID parameter is passed, to get a seek using the index on ReferenceOrderID, and if both are passed, then either an index intersection or a seek on one of the indexes, key lookup and secondary filter for the other, plus, in all cases, a key lookup to fetch the columns for the SELECT.

That’s not what we get (I cleared the plan cache before running each of these).

The expected indexes are used, but they’re used for scans not seeks. Why? Let’s just consider the second plan for a bit.

The index aren’t used for seeks, because plans must be safe for reuse. If a plan was generated with an index seek, seeking for ReferenceOrderID = @OrderID, and that plan was cached and reused later when @OrderID was NULL, we’d get incorrect results. ReferenceOrderID = NULL matches no records.

And so we have index scans with the full predicate (ReferenceOrderID = @OrderID OR @OrderID Is NULL) applied after the index is read.

This is not particularly efficient, as the properties on the index seek shows.

The entire index, all 113443 rows were read, to return a single row. Not ideal, but it’s far from the largest problem with this form of query.

The plan’s got an index scan on the index on ReferenceOrderID, and then a key lookup back to the clustered index. That key lookup has a secondary filter on it, (ProductID = @Product Or @Product IS NULL). The optimiser assumed that a small number of rows would be returned from the index seek on ReferenceOrderID (1.47 to be specific), and hence the key lookup would be cheap, but that’s not going to be the case if the plan is reused with a ProductID passed to it instead of a ReferenceOrderID.

Before we look at that, the performance characteristics for the procedure being called with the ReferenceOrderID parameter are:

The duration and CPU are both in microseconds, making this a very fast query, despite the index scan.

Now, without clearing the plan cache, I’m going to run the procedure with only the ProductID parameter passed.

CPU’s gone from an average of 8ms to around 120ms. Duration has gone from average around 6ms to about 125ms and reads have jumped from 271 (2 MB of data processed) to 340 597 (2.6 GB of data processed)

And this is for a table that has 113k records and a query that returned 4 rows.

The key lookup, which was fine when an OrderID was passed, is not fine when @OrderID is NULL and the index scan returns the entire table.

The plans that the optimiser has come up with for this query form aren’t stable. They’re safe for reuse, they have to be, but performance-wise they’re not stable.

But, maybe it’s just this form of query, there are other ways to write queries with multiple optional parameters.

Let’s try the CASE and COALESCE forms.

CREATE PROCEDURE SearchHistory_Coalesce
(@Product int = NULL, @OrderID int = NULL, @TransactionType char(1) = NULL, @Qty int = NULL)
AS
SELECT ProductID, ReferenceOrderID, TransactionType, Quantity,
TransactionDate, ActualCost
FROM Production.TransactionHistory
WHERE ProductID = COALESCE(@Product, ProductID)
AND ReferenceOrderID = COALESCE(@OrderID, ReferenceOrderID)
AND TransactionType = COALESCE(@TransactionType, TransactionType)
AND Quantity = COALESCE(@Qty, Quantity)
GO

CREATE PROCEDURE SearchHistory_Case
(@Product int = NULL, @OrderID int = NULL, @TransactionType char(1) = NULL, @Qty int = NULL)
AS
SELECT ProductID, ReferenceOrderID, TransactionType, Quantity,
TransactionDate, ActualCost
FROM Production.TransactionHistory
WHERE ProductID = CASE WHEN @Product IS NULL THEN ProductID ELSE @Product END
AND ReferenceOrderID = CASE WHEN @OrderID IS NULL THEN ReferenceOrderID ELSE @OrderID END
AND TransactionType = CASE WHEN @TransactionType IS NULL THEN TransactionType ELSE @TransactionType END
AND Quantity = CASE WHEN @Qty IS NULL THEN Quantity ELSE @Qty END
GO

These both give us full table scans, rather than the index scan/key lookup we saw earlier. That means their performance will be predictable and consistent no matter what parameter values are used. Consistently bad, but at least consistent.

It’s also worth noting that neither of these will return correct results if there are NULL values in the columns used in the WHERE clause (because NULL != NULL). Thanks to Hugo Kornelis (b | t) for pointing this out.

And then two more forms that were mentioned in comments on the original post, slightly more complicated:

CREATE PROCEDURE SearchHistory_Case2
(@Product int = NULL, @OrderID int = NULL, @TransactionType char(1) = NULL, @Qty int = NULL)
AS
SELECT  ProductID,
ReferenceOrderID,
TransactionType,
Quantity,
TransactionDate,
ActualCost
FROM    Production.TransactionHistory
WHERE   (CASE WHEN @Product IS NULL THEN 1
WHEN @Product = ProductID THEN 1
ELSE 0
END) = 1
AND (CASE WHEN @OrderID IS NULL THEN 1
WHEN @OrderID = ReferenceOrderID THEN 1
ELSE 0
END) = 1
AND (CASE WHEN @TransactionType IS NULL THEN 1
WHEN @TransactionType = TransactionType THEN 1
ELSE 0
END) = 1
AND (CASE WHEN @Qty IS NULL THEN 1
WHEN @Qty = Quantity THEN 1
ELSE 0
END) = 1
GO

CREATE PROCEDURE SearchHistory_Complex
(@Product int = NULL, @OrderID int = NULL, @TransactionType char(1) = NULL, @Qty int = NULL)
AS
SELECT  ProductID,
ReferenceOrderID,
TransactionType,
Quantity,
TransactionDate,
ActualCost
FROM    Production.TransactionHistory
WHERE ((ProductID = @Product AND @Product IS NOT NULL) OR (@Product IS NULL))
AND ((ReferenceOrderID = @OrderID AND @OrderID IS NOT NULL) OR (@OrderID IS NULL))
AND ((TransactionType = @TransactionType AND @TransactionType IS NOT NULL) OR (@TransactionType IS NULL))
AND ((Quantity = @Qty AND @Qty IS NOT NULL) OR (@Qty IS NULL))

These two give the same execution plans as the first form we looked at, index scan and key lookup.

Performance-wise, we’re got two different categories of query. We’ve got some queries where the execution plan contains an index scan on one or other index on the table (depending on parameters passed) and a key lookup, and others where the execution plan contains a table scan (clustered index scan) no matter what parameters are passed.

But how do they perform? To test that, I’m going to start with an empty plan cache and run each query form 10 times with just the OrderID being passed and then 10 times with just the ProductID being passed, and aggregate the results.

The query forms that had the clustered index scan in the plan have consistent performance. On large tables it will be consistently bad, it is a full table scan, but it will at least be consistent.

The query form that had the key lookup have erratic performance, no real surprise there, key lookups don’t scale well and looking up every single row in the table is going to hurt. And note that if I ran the queries in the reverse order on an empty plan cache, the queries with the ProductID passed would be fast and the queries with the OrderID would be slow.

So how do we fix this?

When I first wrote about this problem 7 years ago, I recommended using dynamic SQL and discussed the dynamic SQL solution in detail. The dynamic SQL solution still works very well, it’s not my preferred solution any longer however.

What is, is the RECOMPILE hint.

Yes, it does cause increased CPU usage due to the recompiles (and I know I’m likely to get called irresponsible and worse for recommending it), but in *most* cases that won’t be a huge problem. And if it is, use dynamic SQL.

I recommend considering the RECOMPILE hint first because it’s faster to implement and far easier to read. Dynamic SQL is harder to debug because of the lack of syntax highlighting and the increased complexity of the code. In the last 4 years, I’ve only had one case where I went for the dynamic SQL solution for a catch-all query, and that was on a server that was already high on CPU, with a query that ran many times a second.

From SQL 2008 SP2/SQL 2008 R2 onwards, the recompile hint relaxes the requirement that the generated plan be safe for reuse, since it’s never going to be reused. This firstly means that the plans generated for the queries can be the optimal forms, index seeks rather than index scans, and secondly will be optimal for the parameter values passed.

And performance-wise?

Reads down, duration down and CPU down even though we’re recompiling the plan on every execution (though this is quite a simple query, so we shouldn’t expect a lot of CPU to generate the plan).

How about the other forms, do they also improve with the RECOMPILE hint added? As I did before, I’m going to run each 10 times and aggregate the results, that after adding the RECOMPILE hint to each.

What can we conclude from that?

One thing we note is that the second form of case statement has a higher CPU, duration and reads than any other. If we look at the plan, it’s still running as an index scan/key lookup, despite the recompile hint.

The second thing is that the more complex forms perform much the same as the simpler forms, we don’t gain anything by adding more complex predicates to ‘guide’ the optimiser.

Third, the coalesce form might use slightly more CPU than the other forms, but I’d need to test a lot more to say that conclusively. The numbers we’ve got are small enough that there might well be measuring errors comparable to the number itself.

Hence, when this query form is needed, stick to the simpler forms of the query, avoid adding unnecessary predicates to ‘help’ the optimiser. Test the query with NULLs in the filtered columns, make sure it works as intended.

Consider the RECOMPILE hint first, over dynamic SQL, to make it perform well. If the query has long compile times or runs very frequently, then use dynamic SQL, but don’t automatically discount the recompile hint for fear of the overhead. In many cases it’s not that bad.

‘SARGable’ is a weird term. It gets bandied around a lot when talking about indexes and whether queries can seek on indexes. The term’s an abbreviation, ‘SARG’ stands for Search ARGument, and it means that the predicate can be executed using an index seek.

Lovely. So a predicate must be SARGable to be able to use an index seek, and it must be able to use an index seek to be SARGable. A completely circular definition.

So what does it actually mean for a predicate to be SARGable? (and we’ll assume for this discussion that there are suitable indexes available)

The most general form for a predicate is <expression> <operator> <expression>. To be SARGable, a predicate must, on one side, have a column, not an expression on a column. So, <column> <operator> <expression>

SELECT * FROM Numbers
WHERE Number = 42;

SELECT * FROM Numbers
WHERE Number + 0 = 42;

SELECT * FROM Numbers
WHERE Number = 42 + 0;

Any¹ function on a column will prevent an index seek from happening, even if the function would not change the column’s value or the way the operator is applied, as seen in the above case. Zero added to an integer doesn’t change the value of the column, but is still sufficient to prevent an index seek operation from happening.

While I haven’t yet found any production code where the predicate is of the form ‘Column + 0’ = @Value’, I have seen many cases where there are less obvious cases of functions on columns that do nothing other than to prevent index seeks.

UPPER(Column) = UPPER(@Variable) in a case-insensitive database is one of them, RTRIM(COLUMN) = @Variable is another. SQL ignores trailing spaces when comparing strings.

The other requirement for a predicate to be SARGable, for SQL Server at least, is that the column and expression are of the same data type or, if the data types differ, such that the expression will be implicitly converted to the data type of the column.

SELECT 1 FROM SomeTable
WHERE StringColumn = 0;

SELECT 1 FROM SomeTable
WHERE StringColumn = ‘0’;

There are some exceptions here. Comparing a DATE column to a DATETIME value would normally implicitly convert the column to DATETIME (more precise data type), but that doesn’t cause index scans. Neither does comparing an ascii column to a unicode string, at least in some collations.

In generally though, conversions should be explicit and decided on by the developer, not left up to what SQL server decides.

What about operators?

The majority are fine. Equality, Inequality, IN (with a list of values), IS NULL all allow index usage. EXIST and IN with a subquery are treated like joins, which may or may not use indexes depending on the join type chosen.

LIKE is a slight special case. Predicates with LIKE are only SARGable if the wildcard is not at the start of the string.

SELECT 1 FROM SomeStrings
WHERE ASCIIString LIKE 'A%'

SELECT 1 FROM SomeStrings
WHERE ASCIIString LIKE '%A'

There are blog posts that claim that adding NOT makes a predicate non-SARGable. In the general case that’s not true.

SELECT * FROM Numbers
WHERE NOT Number > 100;

SELECT * FROM Numbers
WHERE NOT Number <= 100;

SELECT * FROM Numbers
WHERE NOT Number = 137;

These index seeks are returning most of the table, but there’s nothing in the definition of ‘SARGable’ that requires small portions of the table to be returned.

That’s mostly that for SARGable in SQL Server. It’s mostly about having no functions on the column and no implicit conversions of the column.

(1) An explicit CAST of a DATE column to DATETIME still leaves the predicate SARGable. This is an exception that’s been specifically coded into the optimiser.

In a similar vein to last week’s blog post… I heard an interesting comment recently. “Change that Column != 2 to a Column > 2 or Column < 2 combination, it can use indexes better.”

Sounds like something that clearly needs testing!

I’ll start with simple numbers table.

CREATE TABLE dbo.Numbers (
  Number INT NOT NULL
);

ALTER TABLE Numbers ADD CONSTRAINT PK_Numbers
  PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED (Number);

and put 1 million rows into it

INSERT INTO dbo.Numbers (Number)
SELECT TOP (1000000) ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT 1))
  FROM msdb.sys.columns c CROSS JOIN msdb.sys.columns c2;

Let’s start, before we get into comparing things, with looking at the execution plan of a query with a != (or <>) operator.

SELECT Number
  FROM Numbers
  WHERE Number <> 12742; -- because 2 is on the first page of the index, and I don’t want any special cases here

That’s kinda complicated for a query with one table and one predicate. Let’s look at in pieces. The easiest place to start is the Clustered Index Seek. The seek predicate on the clustered index seek is

Seek Keys[1]: Start: [Test].[dbo].[Numbers].Number > Scalar Operator([Expr1009]), End: [Test].[dbo].[Numbers].Number < Scalar Operator([Expr1010])

Hmm…Looks like the parser/optimiser has already made our intended change for us. There’s some funky stuff in the top part of the plan, but what it’s essentially doing is generating two rows for the nested loop join, both with just the value that we’re excluding from the query, then the seek runs twice. I suspect that’s once for the less than 12742 and once for the greater than 12742 portions of the original predicate.

But, let’s do the full due diligence, the plan may not tell the whole story.

The performance numbers for the inequality form of the query, gathered via Extended Events and aggregated with Excel are:

Duration 122ms
CPU 105ms
Logical reads: 1619

This is our baseline, the numbers we’re comparing against. If the comment mentioned at the beginning is correct, then the revised query will have a significantly better performance.

The revised query is:

SELECT Number
  FROM Numbers
  WHERE Number > 12742 OR Number < 12742;

Execution plan is much simpler, no constant scans, no joins. Just a single index seek operation that executes once.

Is is better though?

Duration: 126ms
CPU: 103ms
Logical reads: 1619

No, it’s not.

Yes, we have a simpler plan, but we do not have a more efficient query. We’re still reading every page in the index and fetching all but one row of the table. The work required is the same, the performance characteristics are the same.

But, maybe, if the numbers aren’t unique and we’re excluding more than just one row it’ll be different.

That needs a slightly different table to test on.

CREATE TABLE MoreNumbers (
SomeNumber INT NOT NULL,
Filler CHAR(100)
);

CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX idx_MoreNumbers ON dbo.MoreNumbers(SomeNumber);
GO

INSERT INTO dbo.MoreNumbers (SomeNumber, Filler)
SELECT TOP (500000) NTILE(50) OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT 1)), ''
FROM msdb.sys.columns c CROSS JOIN msdb.sys.columns c2;

I’m just going to look at the performance characteristics this time. The execution plans are the same as for the earlier query. The two queries are:

SELECT * FROM dbo.MoreNumbers WHERE SomeNumber != 24;
SELECT * FROM dbo.MoreNumbers WHERE SomeNumber < 24 OR SomeNumber > 24;

Query 1:

Duration 97ms
CPU 77ms
Logical Reads 7624

Query 2:

Duration 98ms
CPU 75ms
Logical Reads 7624

Again identical.

Just like with the pointless WHERE clause predicate last week, we have a query change that has had no effect on the query performance. Now, to be honest, there are some query form changes that can improve performance. For example, converting a set of OR predicates to UNION can improve query performance sometimes (and leave it unchanged in others), and so these kinds of rewrites do need to be tested to see if they’re useful.

More importantly though, those of us who are posting on forums and advising others have a responsibility to do these tests before we recommend changes to others, as they may very well not do them. If we don’t, we’re propagating myths and not helping the advancement of our field.

I remember a forum thread from a while back. The question was on how to get rid of the index scan that was in the query plan. Now that’s a poor question in the first place, as the scan might not be a problem, but it’s the first answer that really caught my attention.

Since the primary key is on an identity column, you can add a clause like ID > 0 to the query, then SQL will use an index seek.

Technically that’s correct. If the table has an identity column with the default properties (We’ll call it ID) and the clustered index is on that identity column, then a WHERE clause of the form WHERE ID > 0 AND <any other predicates on that table> can indeed execute with a clustered index seek (although it’s in no way guaranteed to do so). But is it a useful thing to do?

Time for a made up table and a test query.

CREATE TABLE dbo.Orders(
  OrderID INT IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
  OrderDate DATETIME2(7) NULL,
  ShipmentRef CHAR(10) NULL,
  ShipmentDate DATE NULL,
  Status VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL
);

That’ll do the job. And then a few hundred thousand rows via SQL Data Generator and we’re good to go.

And for a query that has a nasty index scan, how about

SELECT  OrderDate,
    ShipmentDate,
    Status
  FROM    dbo.Orders
  WHERE   LTRIM(RTRIM(Status)) = 'Delivered';

Now, that’s running as a clustered index scan because the predicate’s not SARGable and besides, there’s no index on that column, but let’s pretend we don’t know that.

If I add a WHERE clause predicate that filters no row out, can I get a query plan with an index seek?

SELECT  OrderDate,
    ShipmentDate,
    Status
  FROM    dbo.Orders
  WHERE   LTRIM(RTRIM(Status)) = 'Delivered'
    AND OrderID > 0;

Why yes, I can.

Op Success? Well…

The goal of performance tuning is to improve the performance of a query, not to change operators in a query plan. The plan is a tool, not a goal.

Have we, by adding a WHERE clause predicate that filters out no rows, improved performance of the query? This needs an extended events session to answer. Nothing fancy, just a sql_statement_completed event will do the trick.

I ran each query 10 times, copied the captured events into Excel and averaged them:

Query with just the LTRIM(RTRIM(Status)) = ‘Delivered’
CPU: 77ms
Duration: 543ms

Query with LTRIM(RTRIM(Status)) = ‘Delivered’ AND OrderID > 0
CPU: 80ms
Duration: 550ms

We haven’t tuned that query. I won’t say we’ve made it slower either, the differences are well within the error range on our measuring, but there’s definitely no meaningful performance gain.

There’s no gain because we haven’t changed how the query executes. A scan, and in this case it will be a scan of the entire index, will likely use the non-leaf levels of the b-tree to locate the logical first page of the leaf level, then will read the entire leaf level. The seek we managed to generate will use the b-tree to find the value 0 in the clustered index key, that’s what makes it a seek. Since the column is an identity starting at 1, that means the first row read will be on the logical first page of the leaf level, then it will read the entire leaf level.

Both will do the same amount of work, and so we haven’t done anything useful to the query by adding a WHERE clause that filters out no rows.

Scans are not always bad. If a query needs to read every row of a table, that’s a scan and effort shouldn’t be expended trying to make it an index seek.

To improve the performance of a query, we need to make changes that reduce the work needed to run the query. That often starts with reducing the amount of data that the query reads, by changing the query so that it can use indexes effectively and/or adding indexes to support the query. Not by adding pointless pieces to a query just to change plan operators from ones that are believed to be bad to ones that are believed to be good. Doing that is just a waste of time and effort.

When I looked at indexing for queries containing predicates combined with OR, it became clear that the are some restrictive requirements for indexes for the optimiser to consider using the indexes for seek operations.

• Each predicate (or set of predicates) combined with an OR must have a separate index
• All of those indexes must be covering, or the row count of the concatenated result set low enough to make key lookups an option, as the optimiser does not apparent to consider the possibility of doing key lookups for a subset of the predicates before concatenating the result sets.

So what can be done if it’s not possible to meet those requirements?

The standard trick is to convert the query with ORs into multiple queries combined with UNION. The idea is that since OR predicates are evaluated separately and the result sets concatenated, we can do that manually by writing the queries separately and concatenating them using UNION or UNION ALL. (UNION ALL can only be safely used if the predicates are known to be mutually exclusive)

CREATE TABLE Persons (
PersonID INT IDENTITY PRIMARY KEY,
FirstName    VARCHAR(30),
Surname VARCHAR(30),
Country CHAR(3),
RegistrationDate DATE
)

CREATE INDEX idx_Persons_FirstName ON dbo.Persons (FirstName) INCLUDE (Surname)
CREATE INDEX idx_Persons_Surname ON dbo.Persons (Surname) INCLUDE (FirstName)
GO

-- Data population using SQLDataGenerator

SELECT FirstName, Surname
FROM dbo.Persons
WHERE FirstName = 'Daniel' OR Surname = 'Barnes'

SELECT FirstName, Surname
FROM dbo.Persons
WHERE FirstName = 'Daniel'
UNION
SELECT FirstName, Surname
FROM dbo.Persons
WHERE Surname = 'Barnes'

In this case, the OR can be replaced with a UNION and the results are the same. The Union form is slightly less efficient according to the execution plan’s costings (60% compared to the OR at 40%), and the two queries have the same general form, with two index seeks and some form of concatenation and remove duplicates.

So in that case it worked fine, although the original form was a little more efficient
(more…)