SQL Question

Why not use BETWEEN?

Select Count(INVOICE_N) as NumberOfInvoices, convert(money, sum(RSID_EXTENDED)) as TotalRevenue
  From HistoryV2
  Where rsih_date BETWEEN convert(date,getdate()) and dateadd(day,1,convert(date,getdate()))

Select allOpen in new window

Where did you get this "more efficent" from?

btw, when rsih_date is of type DATE, then both queries are logical equivalent.

What indice do you have on this table? How does the actual execution plan looks like? What does SET STATISTICS IO ON; report in the message pane?

@ste5an

This is a SQL test question

First of all:

When it is all Information you've got, then you cannot decide. Cause you need information about the physical table and its indices.  Clustered vs. heap, covering vs. non-covering indices. This is necessary to predict whether we can expect an table scan, clustered index seek or whether we will even see a RID lookup.

btw, depending on the test, the points above are the correct answer.

E.g. take a look at the actual execution plans:

DECLARE @HistoryV1 TABLE
    (
      INVOICE_N INT ,
      RSID_EXTENDED INT ,
      rsih_date DATE
    );

SELECT  COUNT(INVOICE_N) AS NumberOfInvoices ,
        CONVERT(MONEY, SUM(RSID_EXTENDED)) AS TotalRevenue
FROM    @HistoryV1
WHERE   rsih_date = CONVERT(DATE, GETDATE()); 

  
SELECT  COUNT(INVOICE_N) AS NumberOfInvoices ,
        CONVERT(MONEY, SUM(RSID_EXTENDED)) AS TotalRevenue
FROM    @HistoryV1
WHERE   rsih_date >= CONVERT(DATE, GETDATE())
        AND rsih_date < DATEADD(DAY, 1, CONVERT(DATE, GETDATE())); 

DECLARE @HistoryV2 TABLE
    (
      INVOICE_N INT ,
      RSID_EXTENDED INT ,
      rsih_date DATE ,
      UNIQUE ( rsih_date )
    );

SELECT  COUNT(INVOICE_N) AS NumberOfInvoices ,
        CONVERT(MONEY, SUM(RSID_EXTENDED)) AS TotalRevenue
FROM    @HistoryV2
WHERE   rsih_date = CONVERT(DATE, GETDATE()); 

  
SELECT  COUNT(INVOICE_N) AS NumberOfInvoices ,
        CONVERT(MONEY, SUM(RSID_EXTENDED)) AS TotalRevenue
FROM    @HistoryV2
WHERE   rsih_date >= CONVERT(DATE, GETDATE())
        AND rsih_date < DATEADD(DAY, 1, CONVERT(DATE, GETDATE())); 

DECLARE @HistoryV3 TABLE
    (
      INVOICE_N INT ,
      RSID_EXTENDED INT ,
      rsih_date DATE ,
      PRIMARY KEY ( rsih_date )
    );

SELECT  COUNT(INVOICE_N) AS NumberOfInvoices ,
        CONVERT(MONEY, SUM(RSID_EXTENDED)) AS TotalRevenue
FROM    @HistoryV3
WHERE   rsih_date = CONVERT(DATE, GETDATE()); 

  
SELECT  COUNT(INVOICE_N) AS NumberOfInvoices ,
        CONVERT(MONEY, SUM(RSID_EXTENDED)) AS TotalRevenue
FROM    @HistoryV3
WHERE   rsih_date >= CONVERT(DATE, GETDATE())
        AND rsih_date < DATEADD(DAY, 1, CONVERT(DATE, GETDATE())); 

Select allOpen in new window

The test question is most probably trying to make a point about "sargable predicates"

But the examples do not make the point very clearly,  a more obvious example would apply a function to the date (in bold) in example A

Select Count(INVOICE_N) as NumberOfInvoices, convert(money, sum(RSID_EXTENDED)) as TotalRevenue
  From HistoryV2
  Where convert([rsih_date],date) = convert(date,getdate())

and then compare that to a "sargable" alternative where the data in not subjected to alteration

Regretably for the examiner an added complexity arises because in recent versions of SQL Server you can still get use of an index on [rsih_date] even if subjected to that function.

Looking for "sargable predicates" is good practice, I think it is the exam designer who has failed.

I failed to mention that the test question stated that the data column had a clustered index.

I will do better next time.

I'm sorry about that.

Then both queries are identical in performance and execution plan..

Yes. In recent sql server versions that is true... hence my point about the inadequacy of the test question :)