Solved

SELECT * performance

Posted on 2009-07-03
11
500 Views
Last Modified: 2012-05-07
Hi all,
I want to know if there is an advantage of using SELECT field1, field2, .... agains SELECT * in terms of performance.
Please forget other considerations. Just want to know about performance.
I will award all interesting comments.
Thanks in advance,
Jaime.
0
Comment
Question by:Jaime Olivares
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • +2
11 Comments
 
LVL 31

Expert Comment

by:RiteshShah
ID: 24775359
if you are giving * instead of field names which are required than you are selecting those columns also which you are not going to use and it will take time to load so better to have field names as long as possible.
0
 
LVL 31

Expert Comment

by:RiteshShah
ID: 24775364
try to specify only the columns you'll need. This will:

Reduce memory consumption and network bandwidth
Ease security design
Gives the query optimizer a chance to read all the needed columns from the indexes
0
 
LVL 31

Expert Comment

by:RiteshShah
ID: 24775368
in short, you will have less IO and less network traffic if you specify column after select statement and hence you will get good performance.
0
Optimizing Cloud Backup for Low Bandwidth

With cloud storage prices going down a growing number of SMBs start to use it for backup storage. Unfortunately, business data volume rarely fits the average Internet speed. This article provides an overview of main Internet speed challenges and reveals backup best practices.

 
LVL 12

Assisted Solution

by:kevin_u
kevin_u earned 50 total points
ID: 24775369
I'd say the primary consideration is that select field1, field2, etc has the advantage of not transfering as much data from the server to the client.  This may be considerable if the client and server are separated by a wan link.

For tables with many columns, its possible it may save some disk read bytes.

The compile of the statement may have a tiny tiny effect, negligible.

The result set may be more human readable.. if that applies.

The execution optimizer may be able to skip some steps and choose a better solution for non-indexed table joins.

Thats what I can think of for now.
0
 
LVL 55

Author Comment

by:Jaime Olivares
ID: 24775382
Hi RiteshShah and kevin,
I want to evaluate only the server's query process itself, not post-process in client machine.
Please rephrase just considering this. Also, I will require all fields anyway.
0
 
LVL 31

Assisted Solution

by:RiteshShah
RiteshShah earned 100 total points
ID: 24775389
well, if you required all field than I guess you will not have any performance benefit, however it will not be human readable clearly but that's fine, no performance benefit
0
 
LVL 40

Accepted Solution

by:
mrjoltcola earned 350 total points
ID: 24775390
Since you requested we forget all other considerations, I will not address why select * is a bad practice in most cases.

From the database execution perspective, no, there is not a performance advantage in the general case, assuming you are comparing selecting every column explicitly vs select *.

The amount of IOs and execution time will be identical (in the general case).

Where the individual fields wil perform better are:

1) If some columns are in an index and some are not. If you query only fields in an index, the DB engine may scan only the index rather than the table segment. This is more efficient.

2) Querying a subset of the columns will reduce the data volume returned in the cursor, and over the network.


As far as the parsing overhead or the DBMS engine execution overhead, they are identical. Actually it may be simpler for the engine to select * since there is no column filter to process.

0
 
LVL 55

Author Closing Comment

by:Jaime Olivares
ID: 31599703
Thanks all for your comments
0
 
LVL 40

Expert Comment

by:mrjoltcola
ID: 24775419
jaime, one more suggestion. You can prove the queries yourself by analyzing the execution plan for each query. That is always my approach.
0
 
LVL 75

Expert Comment

by:Aneesh Retnakaran
ID: 24775448
i know this is already closed, one cent from myside

if you use the column names, sql server has to do an addition check on the system tables to see whether there is a column by that name
0
 
LVL 55

Author Comment

by:Jaime Olivares
ID: 24775809
thanks for the extra info
0

Featured Post

Migrating Your Company's PCs

To keep pace with competitors, businesses must keep employees productive, and that means providing them with the latest technology. This document provides the tips and tricks you need to help you migrate an outdated PC fleet to new desktops, laptops, and tablets.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Suggested Solutions

Title # Comments Views Activity
convert in derived column 7 27
cannot connect to sqlserver 8 25
SQL Server Count where two id types exist in column 8 27
Query Help - MSSQL - Averages 5 25
How to leverage one TLS certificate to encrypt Microsoft SQL traffic and Remote Desktop Services, versus creating multiple tickets for the same server.
Slowly Changing Dimension Transformation component in data task flow is very useful for us to manage and control how data changes in SSIS.
This video shows how to set up a shell script to accept a positional parameter when called, pass that to a SQL script, accept the output from the statement back and then manipulate it in the Shell.
Via a live example, show how to setup several different housekeeping processes for a SQL Server.

813 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

18 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now