Can anybody tell me how to make this DQL query more faster and better because i am using a SELECT to get a very large amount of rows from a very large Table created in Documentum
select r_object_id from table1(all)
where table1_attribute1 = '12345'
and table1_attribute2 > 0
and table1_attribute3 not in (
select table2_attribute1 from table2
) enable (return_range 1 1000 'r_object_id')
You might have to look into creating indexes on database. This can be done directly (SQL) or through DQL. I prefer the latter since column names are the same and you can rebuild them though DQL.
by "table" you mean "object type" right? you can try creating a SQL which may perform faster avoiding some joins
Related
I am trying to fetch set of records from the database part by part.
I tried to use Limit and fetch but it seems like it does not working with oracle 11g. Is there any alternative solution to do this. I have tried many in google results but nothing is working properly.
You can use this query and do what u want.
SELECT A.*
FROM (SELECT A.*, ROWNUM ROWNUMBER
FROM Table1 T
WHERE ROWNUM <= TO) T
WHERE ROWNUMBER > FROM;
FROM is from which number and TO is to which number
A Sound application is based on sound design. Kindly check if you are trying to achieve a procedural requirement using an SQL. If yes, it is better to use PL/SQL instead of SQL.
Create a cursor using the required SQL without any limits.
Create a type of associative array to hold the batch records.
Create an associative array using the type created above
Open and loop the cursor.
FETCH created_cursor BULK COLLECT INTO created_associated_array LIMIT ;
Hope this helps.
I'm developing a system for generate mdx queries from entity "FilterCriterias" and related info like the number of records of a query, so I need a generic way to get the number of records of a mdx query than use subcubes. In a normal query I do something like:
WITH
MEMBER [MyCount] AS
Count([Date].[Date].MEMBERS)
SELECT
{[MyCount]} ON 0
FROM [Adventure Works];
But I have problems when use this way in queries a little more complexes like that
WITH
MEMBER [MyCount] AS
Count([Date].[Date].MEMBERS)
SELECT
{[MyCount]} ON 0
FROM
(
SELECT
{[Measures].[Sales Amount]} ON 0
,{[Date].[Date].&[20050701] : [Date].[Date].&[20051231]} ON 1
FROM
(
SELECT
{[Sales Channel].[Sales Channel].&[Internet]} ON 0
FROM [Adventure Works]
)
);
I guess the logic response could be the number of records of [Date].[Members] left in the subcube, but I get a result without columns and rows. I'm newbie in mdx language and I don't understand this behavior. Exists some generic way to get the number of records from a "base" query just like SELECT COUNT(*) FROM () in plain SQL?
The structure is quite different to a ralational SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ().
I believe that the structure of a sub-select will be very similar to that of a sub-cube and reading through this definition from MSDN (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms144774.aspx) of what a sub-cube contains tells us that it isn't a straight filter like in a relational query:
Admittedly I still find this behaviour rather "enigmatic" (a polite way of saying "I do not understand it")
Is there a workaround?
I am thinking of using Simple.Data Micro-ORM for my ASP.NET 4.5 website. However, there is something that I need to know before deciding whether to use it or not.
Let's take the following Join query for example:
var albums = db.Albums.FindAllByGenreId(1)
.Select(
db.Albums.Title,
db.Albums.Genre.Name);
This query will be translated to:
select
[dbo].[Albums].[Title],
[dbo].[Genres].[Name]
from [dbo].[Albums]
LEFT JOIN [dbo].[Genres] ON ([dbo].[Genres].[GenreId] = [dbo].[Albums].[GenreId])
WHERE [dbo].[Albums].[GenreId] = #p1
#p1 (Int32) = 1
Let's assume that the 'Genres' table is a a table with thousands or even millions of rows. I think that it might be very inefficient to filter the data after the JOIN has taken place, which is what this query translated for in Simple.Date.
Would it be better to filter the data firs in the Generes table, which means create make a SELECT statement first and make the JOIN with that filtered table?
Wouldn't it be better to filter the data ahead of time?
Furthermore, is there an option to make that type of complex (JOIN on a filtered table) query using Simple.Data.
Need your answer to know if to proceed with Simple.Data, or damp it in favor of another micro-ORM.
You are confused about how SQL is interpreted and executed by the database engine. Modern databases are incredibly smart about the best way to execute queries, and the order in which instructions appear in SQL statements has nothing to do with the order in which they are executed.
Try running some queries through SQL Management Studio and looking at the Execution Plan to see how they are actually optimised and executed. Or just try the SQL you think would work better and see how it actually performs compared to what is generated by Simple.Data.
The sql that Simple.Data is generating is idomatic T-SQL, too be honest its what I would be writing if I was drafting the sql myself.
This sql allows Sql Server to optimise the execution plan which should mean the most efficient retrieval of data.
The beauty of Simple.Data is that if you have any doubts or issues with the sql it generates you can just call a stored proc:
db.ProcedureWithParameters(1, 2);
I am using QSQlQuery on a sqlite3 database. To fetch a particular item , I was populating the result from 4 different tables. I thought joining the tables would increase the performance/speed and get the result faster. So I joined 2 tables initially but it takes longer time to fetch the data after joining the tables (?)
Any suggestion on how to improve the performance would be really appreciated. Also, I was looking at the http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/qsqlquery.html and it is mentioned that using setForwardOnly would increase the performance on some databases. Any idea if it would work for SQLite3?
Thanks!
According to this link,
http://sqlite.org/cvstrac/wiki?p=PerformanceTuning
SQLite implements JOIN USING by translating the USING clausing into some extra WHERE clause terms. It does the same with NATURAL JOIN and JOIN ON. So while those constructs might be helpful to the human reader, they don't really make any difference to SQLite's query optimizer.
-I was wrong to join two tables and expect the fetch to be faster. It does not work with SQLite database. Instead using a "where" clause and joining two results directly definitely has some positive impact on the performance.
(example :
select * from A,B where A.id = B.id where A.id = 1; instead of
select * from A left outer join B on A.id = B.id where A.id = 1)
The SQLite translates first statement to second before compiling and you could save on the small amount of CPU time by directly using the second statement
I have recently stumbled upon a problem with selecting relationship details from a 1 table and inserting into another table, i hope someone can help.
I have a table structure as follows:
ID (PK) Name ParentID<br>
1 Myname 0<br>
2 nametwo 1<br>
3 namethree 2
e.g
This is the table i need to select from and get all the relationship data. As there could be unlimited number of sub links (is there a function i can create for this to create the loop ?)
Then once i have all the data i need to insert into another table and the ID's will now have to change as the id's must go in order (e.g. i cannot have id "2" be a sub of 3 for example), i am hoping i can use the same function for selecting to do the inserting.
If you are using SQL Server 2005 or above, you may use recursive queries to get your information. Here is an example:
With tree (id, Name, ParentID, [level])
As (
Select id, Name, ParentID, 1
From [myTable]
Where ParentID = 0
Union All
Select child.id
,child.Name
,child.ParentID
,parent.[level] + 1 As [level]
From [myTable] As [child]
Inner Join [tree] As [parent]
On [child].ParentID = [parent].id)
Select * From [tree];
This query will return the row requested by the first portion (Where ParentID = 0) and all sub-rows recursively. Does this help you?
I'm not sure I understand what you want to have happen with your insert. Can you provide more information in terms of the expected result when you are done?
Good luck!
For the retrieval part, you can take a look at Common Table Expression. This feature can provide recursive operation using SQL.
For the insertion part, you can use the CTE above to regenerate the ID, and insert accordingly.
I hope this URL helps Self-Joins in SQL
This is the problem of finding the transitive closure of a graph in sql. SQL does not support this directly, which leaves you with three common strategies:
use a vendor specific SQL extension
store the Materialized Path from the root to the given node in each row
store the Nested Sets, that is the interval covered by the subtree rooted at a given node when nodes are labeled depth first
The first option is straightforward, and if you don't need database portability is probably the best. The second and third options have the advantage of being plain SQL, but require maintaining some de-normalized state. Updating a table that uses materialized paths is simple, but for fast queries your database must support indexes for prefix queries on string values. Nested sets avoid needing any string indexing features, but can require updating a lot of rows as you insert or remove nodes.
If you're fine with always using MSSQL, I'd use the vendor specific option Adrian mentioned.