Pulling Group By Above a Join

One of the transformations available to the SQL Server query optimizer is pulling a logical Group By (and any associated aggregates) above a Join.

Visually, this means transforming a tree of logical operations from:

…to this:

The above diagrams are logical representations. They need to be implemented as physical operators to appear in an execution plan. The options are:

• Group By
  • Hash Match Aggregate
  • Stream Aggregate
  • Distinct Sort
• Join
  • Nested Loops Join
  • Nested Loops Apply
  • Hash Match Join
  • Merge Join

When the optimizer moves a Group By above a Join it has to preserve the semantics. The new sequence of operations must be guaranteed to return the same results as the original in all possible circumstances.

One cannot just pick up a Group By and arbitrarily move it around the query tree without risking incorrect results.

Apply versus Nested Loops Join

SQL is a declarative language. We use SQL to write a logical query specification that defines the results we want. For example, we might write a query using either APPLY or JOIN that logically describes exactly the same results.

It is up to the query optimizer to find an efficient physical implementation of that logical requirement. SQL Server is free to choose any plan it likes, so long as the results are guaranteed to be the same as specified in the original SQL.

The optimizer is capable of transforming an apply to a join and vice versa. It generally tries to rewrite apply to join during initial compilation to maximize the searchable plan space during cost-based optimization. Having transformed an apply to a join early on, it may also consider a transformation back to an apply shape later on to assess the merits of e.g. an index loops join.

Nested Loops Prefetching

Nested loops join query plans can be a lot more interesting (and complicated) than is commonly realized.

One query plan area I get asked about a lot is prefetching. It is not documented in full detail anywhere, so this seems like a good topic to address in a blog post.

The examples used in this article are based on questions asked by Adam Machanic.

Improving Partitioned Table Join Performance

The query optimizer does not always choose an optimal strategy when joining partitioned tables. This post looks at an example of that, showing how a manual rewrite of the query can almost double performance, while reducing the memory grant to almost nothing.

SQL Server Optimizer Bug with JOIN and GROUP BY

I came across a SQL Server optimizer bug recently that made me wonder how on earth I never noticed it before.

As the title of this post suggests, the bug occurs in common JOIN and GROUP BY queries. While it does not cause incorrect results to be returned, it will often cause a poor query plan to be selected by the optimizer.

If you are just interested in the bug itself, you will find a description in the section headed “the bug revealed”. It relates to cardinality estimation for serial partial aggregates.

As the regular reader will be expecting though, I am going to work up to it with a bit of background. The lasting value of this post (once the bug is fixed) is in the background details anyway.

Join Performance, Implicit Conversions, and Residuals

Introduction

You probably already know that it’s important to be aware of data types when writing queries, and that implicit conversions between types can lead to poor query performance.

Some people have gone so far as to write scripts to search the plan cache for CONVERT_IMPLICIT elements, and others routinely inspect plans for that type of thing when tuning.

Now, that’s all good, as far as it goes. It may surprise you to learn that not all implicit conversions are visible in query plans, and there are other important factors to consider too.

Heaps of Trouble?

Brad Schulz recently wrote about optimizing a query run against tables with no indexes at all. The problem was, predictably, that performance was not very good. The catch was that we are not allowed to create any indexes (or even new statistics) as part of our optimization efforts.

In this post, I’m going to look at the problem from a different angle, and present an alternative solution to the one Brad found.