New answers tagged execution-plan
According to the docs there are three ways to recompile a stored procedure and/or the queries inside of a stored procedure. WITH RECOMPILE This is probably the most direct way, and easiest way to accomplish your goals. If you are willing to edit the definition of the stored procedure then you can automatically force a recompile every time: CREATE ...
You can use the option recompile as mentioned by Erik for sure: Additionally, you can also temporarily disable the caching of that particular execution plan using DBCC FREEPROCCACHE(Plan_handle) You can find the cached plan handle (for that query) from below : SELECT cp.plan_handle, st.[text] FROM sys.dm_exec_cached_plans AS cp CROSS APPLY ...
To get a clustered index seek, you'd need a clustered index that supports your filter (e.g. leading key would have to be Personal_ID, not ID). You can't force a seek if there's no index with a leading column of Personal_ID that supports the filter. This does not mean you should change the existing clustered index, unless this is the only query you ever ...
Without having created any tests I would guess that it's not possible to seek an index without having seek predicates, especially not if you use SELECT * and get all table columns. I would try to filter on an index-column that is part of the index you want to seek in and additionally retrieve only columns that are covered by this index. Documentation ...
You have almost 40000 rows where word='Facebook*'. I suppose that these rows are somewhat randomly scattered on the whole table. This means that Postgres has to read tens of thousands of random blocks from a disk, which might be slow. You can try to cluster rows that have the same word together. You can use the command cluster misspelled using test_scanid;. ...
MySQL already can filter down to 1 row by using a different smaller index (only 4 bytes). | 1 | SIMPLE | alternatename | ref | IDX_8F82EED4E2097D,idx_geoid_lang_pref | IDX_8F82EED4E2097D | 4 | acme_geonames.geoname.geonameid | 1 | Using where So it doesn't need to use the bigger index. Hope this answers your question.
You do not use the isPreferredName in your query. This must be a/the reason why the index is not used. Also, the optimizer decides. It is not because you create an index that it will be used. All depends on the statistics for the table. How many rows? How many different unique values? What is the expected percentage of returned rows?
Hash joins require an "equijoin predicate". So I rewrote the query as an explicit join (instead of IN...(subselect)), and instead of using A.key = B.key as the join condition, I used A.key > B.key - 1 AND A.key < B.key +1.
check the answer of this question: Executing stored procedure takes too long than executing TSQL The answer that is accepted is a simple one and seems to be the same parameter sniffing issue you are having.
What is up with FROM part JOIN model ON 1=1? This the same as FROM part, model, which is a cartesian join and will result in a very large number of rows. Is that join supposed to be like that? You will likely help us help you if you provide details about the tables involved. Please "script" the definition of the tables, along with any indexes defined on ...
How do I get the execution plans when they don't display here? One option could be to capture the plan_handle and then look up the query plan afterwards for that plan_handle using the following query: SELECT CONVERT(XML, query_plan) from sys.dm_exec_text_query_plan( 0x0600050059E32C0/*Truncated for brevity, replace with your full plan_handle*/, ...
You have a couple of things going on here. First since you are using a trim it's likely that the optimizer is using the date ranges first since it will have a better idea of where to look and how many rows will be returned. Second. You are getting a scan likely because you've asked for a partial cache so it's not matching on individual rows. If you were to ...
SQL Server thinks that the dates are more selective because it knows what the value in the Start and End date fields look like. Because of the trimming on the StudentId column it has no idea how many rows there are. Once you fix that to not use the trimmed computed column it should work as expected.
Check to ensure the database compatibility level is the same on the 2 servers. I ran a quick test on a SQL Server 2012 instance and see the TOP operator is introduced if the compatibility level is 100 or lower. Unless you have a specific reason to do otherwise, it is best to use the 110 (SQL Server 2012) compatibility level on a SQL Server 2012 instance.
I reckon you have a value for ROWCOUNT. Do: SET ROWCOUNT 0 ...to turn it off.
The count is not distinct rows - so if the table is scanned many times each row will be counted many time. In this case the nested loops join with the scan is reading all 168 rows once for each of the 1008 rows coming out of the other leg which explains the 169344. I'm guessing that none of the temporary tables have any indexes which would explain the ...
You can hit the button of "Display Estimated Execution Plan", It would show in green line if there is any missing indexes that can help executing you statement better and faster. if any thing seemed normal and now green line showed up you can use the following statement to identify the missing indexes" SELECT * FROM ...
Top 50 recent answers are included