THE SQL Server Blog Spot on the Web

Welcome to SQLblog.com - The SQL Server blog spot on the web Sign in | |
in Search

Paul White: Page Free Space

A technical SQL Server blog from New Zealand.

Browse by Tags

All Tags » Seeks

  • Dynamic Seeks and Hidden Implicit Conversions

    Most people know that a LIKE predicate with only a trailing wildcard can usually use an index seek: SELECT p.Name FROM Production.Product AS p WHERE p.Name LIKE N 'D%' ; As the execution plan shows, SQL Server determines a covering range (which depends Read More...
  • SQL Server, Seeks, and Binary Search

    The following table summarizes the results from my last two blog entries, showing the CPU time used when performing 5 million clustered index seeks: In test 1, making the clustered index unique improved performance by around 40%. In test 2, making the Read More...
  • Seeking Without Indexes

    A seek can contain one or more seek predicates – each of which can either identify at most one row in a unique index (a singleton lookup) or a range of values (a range scan). When looking at a query plan, we will often need to look at the details of the seek operator in the Properties window to see how many operations it is performing, and what type of operation each one is. As you saw in the first post in this mini-series, the number of hidden seeking operations can have an appreciable impact on performance. Measuring Seeks and Scans I mentioned in my last post that there is no way to tell from a graphical query plan whether you are seeing a singleton lookup or a range scan. You can work it out – if you happen to know that the index is defined as unique and the seek predicate is an equality comparison, but there’s no separate property that says ‘singleton lookup’ or ‘range scan’. This is a shame, and if I had my way, the query plan would show different icons for range scans and singleton lookups – perhaps also indicating whether the operation was one or more of those operations underneath the covers. In light of all that, you might be wondering if there is another way to measure how many seeks of either type are occurring in your system, or for a particular query. As is often the case, the answer is yes – we can use a couple of dynamic management views (DMVs): sys.dm_db_index_usage_stats and sys.dm_db_index_operational_stats. Read More...
  • So…is it a Seek or a Scan?

    You’re probably most familiar with the terms ‘Seek’ and ‘Scan’ from the graphical plans produced by SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS). The image to the left shows the most common ones, with the three types of scan at the top, followed by four types of seek. You might look to the SSMS tool-tip descriptions to explain the differences between them: Not hugely helpful are they? Both mention scans and ranges (nothing about seeks) and the Index Seek description implies that it will not scan the index entirely (which isn’t necessarily true). Recall also yesterday’s post where we saw two Clustered Index Seek operations doing very different things. The first Seek performed 63 single-row seeking operations; and the second performed a ‘Range Scan’ (more on those later in this post). I hope you agree that those were two very different operations, and perhaps you are wondering why there aren’t different graphical plan icons for Range Scans and Seeks? I have often wondered about that, and the first person to mention it after yesterday’s post was Erin Stellato (twitter | blog): Read More...
  • When is a Seek not a Seek?

    The following script creates a single-column clustered table containing the integers from 1 to 1,000 inclusive. IF OBJECT_ID(N'tempdb..#Test', N'U') IS NOT NULL DROP TABLE #Test ; GO CREATE TABLE #Test ( id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ); ; INSERT #Test (id) SELECT V.number FROM master.dbo.spt_values AS V WHERE V.[type] = N'P' AND V.number BETWEEN 1 AND 1000 ; Let’s say we need to find the rows with values from 100 to 170, excluding any values that divide exactly by 10. One way to write that query would be: SELECT T.id FROM #Test AS T WHERE T.id IN ( 101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109, 111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119, 121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129, 131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139, 141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149, 151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159, 161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169 ) ; That query produces a pretty efficient-looking query plan: Read More...
  • A Tale of Two Index Hints

    If you look up Table Hints in Books Online, you’ll find the following statement: If a clustered index exists, INDEX(0) forces a clustered index scan and INDEX(1) forces a clustered index scan or seek. If no clustered index exists, INDEX(0) forces a table scan and INDEX(1) is interpreted as an error. The interesting thing there is that both hints can result in a scan. If that is the case, you might wonder if there is any effective difference between the two. This blog entry explores that question, and highlights an optimizer quirk that can result in a much less efficient query plan when using INDEX(0). I’ll also cover some stuff about ordering guarantees. Read More...
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems
  Privacy Statement