Why is this query faster with multiple selects rather than using between?

Question!

I have a table in Sql Server 2008 Express which contains 18 million records. The structure looks something like this (simplified):

Id, GroupId, Value, Created

Id is the primary key with a clustered index
GroupId is a non-clustered index

In this case, every 10 rows get a new groupId meaning that records 1-10 have GroupId 1, records 11-20 have GroupId 2 and so on.

Test 1: This query takes 23 seconds to run and returns 99 records:

DECLARE @Start INT
SET @Start = 1050
select * from FieldValues where GroupId between @Start and @Start + 10

Test 2: This query takes 0 seconds to run and returns 99 records:

DECLARE @Start INT
SET @Start = 1050
select * from FieldValues where GroupId = @Start union
select * from FieldValues where GroupId = @Start + 1 union
select * from FieldValues where GroupId = @Start + 2 union
select * from FieldValues where GroupId = @Start + 3 union
select * from FieldValues where GroupId = @Start + 4 union
select * from FieldValues where GroupId = @Start + 5 union
select * from FieldValues where GroupId = @Start + 6 union
select * from FieldValues where GroupId = @Start + 7 union
select * from FieldValues where GroupId = @Start + 8 union
select * from FieldValues where GroupId = @Start + 9 union
select * from FieldValues where GroupId = @Start + 10


Note: Since results can get cached i always scramble the @Start variable between each test to get non-cached time estimations

Why does these multiple selects (which looks like some beginner have throught up) go so much faster than the more elegant one in test 1?



Answers

Since those appear to be mutually exclusive statements in the unions, I would suggest that union all is a better choice than union. That will create less work for the server.

By : HLGEM


Try using the "Show actual execution plan" in the query analyser and you will see that the second query is probably achieving the results by performing an index seek, whereas the former (slower) is not able to do this because it doesn't know that the records are sequential because the index it is using is non-clustered.



Do you know about the :global command? Does this do what you want?

:g/ERROR

and for the opposite:

:g!/Error

or equivalently:

:v/Error
By : user55400


This video can help you solving your question :)
By: admin