This article was originally published on 𝕏.
I was asked recently why Halloween Protection was needed for data modification statements that include a self-join of the target table. This gives me a chance to explain, while also covering some interesting product bug history from the SQL Server 7 and 2000 days.
If you already know all there is to know about the Halloween Problem as it applies to SQL Server, you can skip the background section.
This article was originally published on 𝕏.
Update execution plans are not something the T-SQL statement writer has much control over. You can affect the data reading side of the plan with query rewrites and hints, but there’s not nearly as much tooling available to affect the writing side of the plan.
Update processing can be extremely complex and reading data-changing execution plans correctly can also be difficult. Many important details are hidden away in obscure and poorly documented properties, or simply not present at all.
In this article, I want to you show a particularly bad update plan example. It has value in and of itself, but it will also give me a chance to describe some less well-known SQL Server details and behaviours.
The OUTPUT clause can be used to return results from an INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, or MERGE statement. The data can be returned to the client, inserted to a table, or both.
There are two ways to add OUTPUT data to a table:
OUTPUT INTOINSERT statement.For example:
-- Test table
DECLARE @Target table
(
id integer IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL,
c1 integer NULL
);
-- Holds rows from the OUTPUT clause
DECLARE @Output table
(
id integer NOT NULL,
c1 integer NULL
);
I have written a four-part series on the Halloween Problem.
Some of you will never have heard about this issue. Those that have might associate it only with T-SQL UPDATE queries. In fact, the Halloween Problem affects execution plans for INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE and MERGE statements.
This is a topic I have been meaning to write about properly for years, ever since I read Craig Freedman’s 2008 blog post on the topic, which ended with the cryptic comment:
“…although I’ve used update statements for all of the examples in this post, some insert and delete statements also require Halloween protection, but I’ll save that topic for a future post.”
That future post never materialized, so I thought I would have a go. The four parts of the series are summarized and linked below, I hope you find the material interesting.
The Halloween Problem can have a number of important effects on execution plans. In this final part of the series, we look at the tricks the optimizer can employ to avoid the Halloween Problem when compiling plans for queries that add, change or delete data.
The MERGE statement (introduced in SQL Server 2008) allows us to perform a mixture of INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE operations using a single statement.
The Halloween Protection issues for MERGE are mostly a combination of the requirements of the individual operations, but there are some important differences and a couple of interesting optimizations that apply only to MERGE.
In the first part of this series, we saw how the Halloween Problem applies to UPDATE queries. To recap briefly, the problem was that an index used to locate records to update had its keys modified by the update operation itself (another good reason to use included columns in an index rather than extending the keys). The query optimizer introduced an Eager Table Spool operator to separate the reading and writing sides of the execution plan to avoid the problem. In this post, we will see how the same underlying issue can affect INSERT and DELETE statements.
Much has been written over the years about understanding and optimizing SELECT queries, but rather less about data modification. This series looks at an issue that is specific to INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE and MERGE queries – the Halloween Problem.
The phrase “Halloween Problem” was originally coined with reference to a SQL UPDATE query that was supposed to give a 10% raise to every employee who earned less than $25,000. The problem was that the query kept giving 10% raises until everyone earned at least $25,000.
We will see later on in this series that the underlying issue also applies to INSERT, DELETE and MERGE queries, but for this first entry, it will be helpful to examine the UPDATE problem in a bit of detail.
Most tuning efforts for data-changing operations concentrate on the SELECT side of the query plan. Sometimes people will also look at storage engine considerations (like locking or transaction log throughput) that can have dramatic effects. A number of common practices have emerged, such as avoiding large numbers of row locks and lock escalation, splitting large changes into smaller batches of a few thousand rows, and combining a number of small changes into a single transaction in order to optimize log flushes.
This is all good, but what about the data-changing side of the query plan — the INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, or MERGE operation itself — are there any query processor considerations we should take into account? The short answer is yes.
The query optimizer considers different plan options for the write-side of an execution plan, though there isn’t a huge amount of T-SQL language support that allows us to affect these choices directly. Nevertheless, there are things to be aware of, and things we can look to change.
Can DELETE operations cause pages to split?
Yes. It sounds counter-intuitive on the face of it. Deleting rows frees up space on a page, and page splitting occurs when a page needs additional space. Nevertheless, there are circumstances when deleting rows causes them to expand before they can be deleted.
From time to time, I encounter a system design that always issues an UPDATE against the database after a user has finished working with a record — without checking to see if any of the data was in fact altered.
The prevailing wisdom seems to be “the database will sort it out”. This raises an interesting question: How smart is SQL Server in these circumstances?
In this post, I’ll look at a generalisation of this problem: What is the impact of updating a column to the value it already contains?
The specific questions I want to answer are:
UPDATE generate any log activity?