How to Optimize T-SQL Query Using Execution Plan

execution-planoptimizationsql serversql-server-2008t-sql

I have a SQL query that I have spent the past two days trying to optimise using trial-and-error and the execution plan, but to no avail. Please forgive me for doing this but I will post the entire execution plan here. I have made the effort to make the table and column names in the query and execution plan generic both for brevity and to protect my company's IP. The execution plan can be opened with SQL Sentry Plan Explorer.

I have done a fair amount of T-SQL, but using execution plans to optimise my query is a new area for me and I have really tried to understand how to do it. So, if anyone could help me with this and explain how this execution plan can be deciphered to find ways in the query to optimise it, I would be eternally grateful. I have many more queries to optimise – I just need a springboard to help me with this first one.

This is the query:

DECLARE @Param0 DATETIME     = '2013-07-29';
DECLARE @Param1 INT          = CONVERT(INT, CONVERT(VARCHAR, @Param0, 112))
DECLARE @Param2 VARCHAR(50)  = 'ABC';
DECLARE @Param3 VARCHAR(100) = 'DEF';
DECLARE @Param4 VARCHAR(50)  = 'XYZ';
DECLARE @Param5 VARCHAR(100) = NULL;
DECLARE @Param6 VARCHAR(50)  = 'Text3';

SET NOCOUNT ON

DECLARE @MyTableVar TABLE
(
    B_Var1_PK int,
    Job_Var1 varchar(512),
    Job_Var2 varchar(50)
)

INSERT INTO @MyTableVar (B_Var1_PK, Job_Var1, Job_Var2) 
SELECT B_Var1_PK, Job_Var1, Job_Var2 FROM [fn_GetJobs] (@Param1, @Param2, @Param3, @Param4, @Param6);

CREATE TABLE #TempTable
(
    TTVar1_PK INT PRIMARY KEY,
    TTVar2_LK VARCHAR(100),
    TTVar3_LK VARCHAR(50),
    TTVar4_LK INT,
    TTVar5 VARCHAR(20)
);

INSERT INTO #TempTable
SELECT DISTINCT
    T.T1_PK,
    T.T1_Var1_LK,
    T.T1_Var2_LK,
    MAX(T.T1_Var3_LK),
    T.T1_Var4_LK
FROM
    MyTable1 T
    INNER JOIN feeds.MyTable2 A ON A.T2_Var1 = T.T1_Var4_LK
    INNER JOIN @MyTableVar B ON B.Job_Var2 = A.T2_Var2 AND B.Job_Var1 = A.T2_Var3
GROUP BY T.T1_PK, T.T1_Var1_LK, T.T1_Var2_LK, T.T1_Var4_LK

-- This is the slow statement...
SELECT 
    CASE E.E_Var1_LK
        WHEN 'Text1' THEN T.TTVar2_LK + '_' + F.F_Var1
        WHEN 'Text2' THEN T.TTVar2_LK + '_' + F.F_Var2
        WHEN 'Text3' THEN T.TTVar2_LK
    END,
    T.TTVar4_LK,
    T.TTVar3_LK,
    CASE E.E_Var1_LK
        WHEN 'Text1' THEN F.F_Var1
        WHEN 'Text2' THEN F.F_Var2
        WHEN 'Text3' THEN T.TTVar5
    END,
    A.A_Var3_FK_LK,
    C.C_Var1_PK,
    SUM(CONVERT(DECIMAL(18,4), A.A_Var1) + CONVERT(DECIMAL(18,4), A.A_Var2))
FROM #TempTable T
    INNER JOIN TableA (NOLOCK) A ON A.A_Var4_FK_LK  = T.TTVar1_PK
    INNER JOIN @MyTableVar     B ON B.B_Var1_PK     = A.Job
    INNER JOIN TableC (NOLOCK) C ON C.C_Var2_PK     = A.A_Var5_FK_LK
    INNER JOIN TableD (NOLOCK) D ON D.D_Var1_PK     = A.A_Var6_FK_LK
    INNER JOIN TableE (NOLOCK) E ON E.E_Var1_PK     = A.A_Var7_FK_LK  
    LEFT OUTER JOIN feeds.TableF (NOLOCK) F ON F.F_Var1 = T.TTVar5
WHERE A.A_Var8_FK_LK = @Param1
GROUP BY
    CASE E.E_Var1_LK
        WHEN 'Text1' THEN T.TTVar2_LK + '_' + F.F_Var1
        WHEN 'Text2' THEN T.TTVar2_LK + '_' + F.F_Var2
        WHEN 'Text3' THEN T.TTVar2_LK
    END,
    T.TTVar4_LK,
    T.TTVar3_LK,
    CASE E.E_Var1_LK 
        WHEN 'Text1' THEN F.F_Var1
        WHEN 'Text2' THEN F.F_Var2
        WHEN 'Text3' THEN T.TTVar5
    END,
    A.A_Var3_FK_LK, 
    C.C_Var1_PK


IF OBJECT_ID(N'tempdb..#TempTable') IS NOT NULL
BEGIN
    DROP TABLE #TempTable
END
IF OBJECT_ID(N'tempdb..#TempTable') IS NOT NULL
BEGIN
    DROP TABLE #TempTable
END

What I have found is that the third statement (commented as being slow) is the part that is taking the most time. The two statements before return almost instantly.

The execution plan is available as XML at this link.

Better to right-click and save and then open in SQL Sentry Plan Explorer or some other viewing software rather than opening in your browser.

If you need any more information from me about the tables or data, please don't hesitate to ask.

Best Answer

Before getting to the main answer, there are two pieces of software you need to update.

Required Software Updates

The first is SQL Server. You are running SQL Server 2008 Service Pack 1 (build 2531). You ought to be patched up to at least the current Service Pack (SQL Server 2008 Service Pack 3 - build 5500). The most recent build of SQL Server 2008 at the time of writing is Service Pack 3, Cumulative Update 12 (build 5844).

The second piece of software is SQL Sentry Plan Explorer. The latest versions have significant new features and fixes, including the ability to directly upload a query plan for expert analysis (no need to paste XML anywhere!)

Query Plan Analysis

The cardinality estimate for the table variable is exactly right, thanks to a statement-level recompilation:

table variable estimate

Unfortunately, table variables do not maintain distribution statistics, so all the optimizer knows is that there are six rows; it knows nothing of the values that might be in those six rows. This information is crucial given that the next operation is a join to another table. The cardinality estimate from that join is based on a wild guess by the optimizer:

first join estimate

From that point on, the plan chosen by the optimizer is based on incorrect information, so it's no wonder really that performance is so poor. In particular, the memory set aside for sorts and hash tables for hash joins will be far too small. At execution time, the overflowing sorts and hashing operations will be spilled out to physical tempdb disk.

SQL Server 2008 does not highlight this in execution plans; you can monitor the spills using Extended Events or Profiler Sort Warnings and Hash Warnings. Memory is reserved for sorts and hashes based on cardinality estimates before execution starts, and cannot be increased during execution regardless of how much spare memory your SQL Server may have. Accurate row count estimates are therefore crucial for any execution plan that involves workspace memory consuming operations.

Your query is also parameterized. You should consider adding OPTION (RECOMPILE) to the query if different parameter values affect the query plan. You should probably consider using it anyway, so the optimizer can see the value of @Param1 at compilation time. If nothing else, this may help the optimizer produce a more reasonable estimate for the index seek shown above, given that the table is very large, and partitioned. It may also enable static partition elimination.

Try the query again with a temporary table instead of the table variable and OPTION (RECOMPILE). You should also try materializing the result of the first join into another temporary table, and run the rest of the query against that. The number of rows is not all that large (3,285,620) so this should be reasonably quick. The optimizer will then have an exact cardinality estimate and distribution statistics for the result of the join. With luck, the rest of the plan will fall into place nicely.

Working from the properties shown in the plan, the materializing query would be:

SELECT
    A.A_Var7_FK_LK,
    A.A_Var4_FK_LK,
    A.A_Var6_FK_LK, 
    A.A_Var5_FK_LK,
    A.A_Var1,
    A.A_Var2,
    A.A_Var3_FK_LK
INTO #AnotherTempTable
FROM @MyTableVar AS B
JOIN TableA AS A
    ON A.Job = B.B_Var1_PK
WHERE
    A_Var8_FK_LK = @Param1;

You could also INSERT into a predefined temporary table (the correct data types are not shown in the plan, so I cannot do that part). The new temporary table may or may not benefit from clustered and nonclustered indexes.

Related Solutions

SQL Server – How TOP Impacts an Execution Plan

I would have guessed that when a query includes TOP n the database engine would run the query ignoring the the TOP clause, and then at the end just shrink that result set down to the n number of rows that was requested. The graphical execution plan seems to indicate this is the case -- TOP is the "last" step. But it appears there is more going on.

The way the above is phrased makes me think you may have an incorrect mental picture of how a query executes. An operator in a query plan is not a step (where the full result set of a previous step is evaluated by the next one.

SQL Server uses a pipelined execution model, where each operator exposes methods like Init(), GetRow(), and Close(). As the GetRow() name suggests, an operator produces one row at a time on demand (as required by its parent operator). This is documented in the Books Online Logical and Physical Operators reference, with more detail in my blog post Why Query Plans Run Backwards. This row-at-a-time model is essential in forming a sound intuition for query execution.

My question is, how (and why) does a TOP n clause impact the execution plan of a query?

Some logical operations like TOP, semi joins and the FAST n query hint affect the way the query optimizer costs execution plan alternatives. The basic idea is that one possible plan shape might return the first n rows more quickly than a different plan that was optimized to return all rows.

For example, indexed nested loops join is often the fastest way to return a small number of rows, though hash or merge join with scans might be more efficient on larger sets. The way the query optimizer reasons about these choices is by setting a Row Goal at a particular point in the logical tree of operations.

A row goal modifies the way query plan alternatives are costed. The essence of it is that the optimizer starts by costing each operator as if the full result set were required, sets a row goal at the appropriate point, and then works back down the plan tree estimating the number of rows it expects to need to examine to meet the row goal.

For example, a logical TOP(10) sets a row goal of 10 at a particular point in the logical query tree. The costs of operators leading up to the row goal are modified to estimate how many rows they need to produce to meet the row goal. This calculation can become complex, so it is easier to understand all this with a fully worked example and annotated execution plans. Row goals can affect more than the choice of join type or whether seeks and lookups are preferred to scans. More details on that here.

As always, an execution plan selected on the basis of a row goal is subject to the optimizer's reasoning abilities and the quality of information provided to it. Not every plan with a row goal will produce the required number of rows faster in practice, but according to the costing model it will.

Where a row goal plan proves not to be faster, there are usually ways to modify the query or provide better information to the optimizer such that the naturally selected plan is best. Which option is appropriate in your case depends on the details of course. The row goal feature is generally very effective (though there is a bug to watch out for when used in parallel execution plans).

Your particular query and plan may not be suitable for detailed analysis here (by all means provide an actual execution plan if you wish) but hopefully the ideas outlined here will allow you to make forward progress.

Sql-server – Why does OBJECT_ID return NULL in a computed column

A metadata function mentioned in a computed column in a #temp table is going to reference tempdb.sys.objects, not yourdatabase.sys.objects, since the table is created in tempdb. Try adding the database prefix to the insert, and that will make OBJECT_ID go find it in the right place:

CREATE TABLE #procs (
  name SYSNAME,
  [object_id] AS OBJECT_ID(name)
);

INSERT INTO #procs (name) VALUES ('dbo.sp_send_dbmail');
INSERT INTO #procs (name) VALUES ('msdb.dbo.sp_send_dbmail');

SELECT name, [object_id] FROM #procs;

Results:

dbo.sp_send_dbmail          NULL
msdb.dbo.sp_send_dbmail     283148054