MSSQL - Query efficiency to many filters
I'm making an ASP.NET website which users can select more than 20 different filters at the same time. Something like 'Product Type', 'Year', 'State-of-Usage', 'Color', 'Size' and so forth.
Many of these items are related to other tables. So, my query makes a 'SELECT' using WHERE and 'INNER JOIN' to 12 other tables.
The problem resides in parameters that can be present or not.
I mean, depending of the user choice, some parameters will be NULL or not and I can't utilize them in my query (like using ISNULL()) because I'm affraid of return a wrong result caused by this.
So, my solution is build the query string depending of the parameters received , I mean, the query will consider only those which have real values.
declare @SEARCH_QUERY nvarchar(max);
set @SEARCH_QUERY = 'select AcervoID, Categoria, Fabricante, Personagem, Estado,
IIF(LEN(Description) > 120, LEFT(Description,120) + ''...'', Description) [mDescription],
Value, Availability, ActiveLink, Title,
RIGHT([thumb], CHARINDEX('''', REVERSE([thumb])) -1) [Image],
E.UsoID, E.FontAwesome
from Acervo A
inner join Categorias C on C.CatID = A.Categoria
inner join Fabricantes F on F.FabID = A.Fabricante
inner join Personagem P on P.PersID = A.Personagem
inner join EstadoUso E on E.UsoID = A.Estado
where A.Ativo = ''true'' and A.Disponiveis > 0'
if @m_Cat >-1
set @SEARCH_QUERY = @SEARCH_QUERY + ' and A.Categoria = ' + convert(nvarchar(4),@m_Cat)
if @m_Fab >-1
set @SEARCH_QUERY = @SEARCH_QUERY + ' and A.fabricante = ' + convert(nvarchar(4),@m_Fab)
if @m_Pers > -1
set @SEARCH_QUERY = @SEARCH_QUERY + ' and A.Personagem = ' + convert(nvarchar(4),@m_Pers)
if @m_EU is not null
set @SEARCH_QUERY = @SEARCH_QUERY + @m_EU
exec sp_executeSQL @SEARCH_QUERY
Is there a best way to do it?
Thanks in advance.
sql-server-2012 ado.net
add a comment |
I'm making an ASP.NET website which users can select more than 20 different filters at the same time. Something like 'Product Type', 'Year', 'State-of-Usage', 'Color', 'Size' and so forth.
Many of these items are related to other tables. So, my query makes a 'SELECT' using WHERE and 'INNER JOIN' to 12 other tables.
The problem resides in parameters that can be present or not.
I mean, depending of the user choice, some parameters will be NULL or not and I can't utilize them in my query (like using ISNULL()) because I'm affraid of return a wrong result caused by this.
So, my solution is build the query string depending of the parameters received , I mean, the query will consider only those which have real values.
declare @SEARCH_QUERY nvarchar(max);
set @SEARCH_QUERY = 'select AcervoID, Categoria, Fabricante, Personagem, Estado,
IIF(LEN(Description) > 120, LEFT(Description,120) + ''...'', Description) [mDescription],
Value, Availability, ActiveLink, Title,
RIGHT([thumb], CHARINDEX('''', REVERSE([thumb])) -1) [Image],
E.UsoID, E.FontAwesome
from Acervo A
inner join Categorias C on C.CatID = A.Categoria
inner join Fabricantes F on F.FabID = A.Fabricante
inner join Personagem P on P.PersID = A.Personagem
inner join EstadoUso E on E.UsoID = A.Estado
where A.Ativo = ''true'' and A.Disponiveis > 0'
if @m_Cat >-1
set @SEARCH_QUERY = @SEARCH_QUERY + ' and A.Categoria = ' + convert(nvarchar(4),@m_Cat)
if @m_Fab >-1
set @SEARCH_QUERY = @SEARCH_QUERY + ' and A.fabricante = ' + convert(nvarchar(4),@m_Fab)
if @m_Pers > -1
set @SEARCH_QUERY = @SEARCH_QUERY + ' and A.Personagem = ' + convert(nvarchar(4),@m_Pers)
if @m_EU is not null
set @SEARCH_QUERY = @SEARCH_QUERY + @m_EU
exec sp_executeSQL @SEARCH_QUERY
Is there a best way to do it?
Thanks in advance.
sql-server-2012 ado.net
add a comment |
I'm making an ASP.NET website which users can select more than 20 different filters at the same time. Something like 'Product Type', 'Year', 'State-of-Usage', 'Color', 'Size' and so forth.
Many of these items are related to other tables. So, my query makes a 'SELECT' using WHERE and 'INNER JOIN' to 12 other tables.
The problem resides in parameters that can be present or not.
I mean, depending of the user choice, some parameters will be NULL or not and I can't utilize them in my query (like using ISNULL()) because I'm affraid of return a wrong result caused by this.
So, my solution is build the query string depending of the parameters received , I mean, the query will consider only those which have real values.
declare @SEARCH_QUERY nvarchar(max);
set @SEARCH_QUERY = 'select AcervoID, Categoria, Fabricante, Personagem, Estado,
IIF(LEN(Description) > 120, LEFT(Description,120) + ''...'', Description) [mDescription],
Value, Availability, ActiveLink, Title,
RIGHT([thumb], CHARINDEX('''', REVERSE([thumb])) -1) [Image],
E.UsoID, E.FontAwesome
from Acervo A
inner join Categorias C on C.CatID = A.Categoria
inner join Fabricantes F on F.FabID = A.Fabricante
inner join Personagem P on P.PersID = A.Personagem
inner join EstadoUso E on E.UsoID = A.Estado
where A.Ativo = ''true'' and A.Disponiveis > 0'
if @m_Cat >-1
set @SEARCH_QUERY = @SEARCH_QUERY + ' and A.Categoria = ' + convert(nvarchar(4),@m_Cat)
if @m_Fab >-1
set @SEARCH_QUERY = @SEARCH_QUERY + ' and A.fabricante = ' + convert(nvarchar(4),@m_Fab)
if @m_Pers > -1
set @SEARCH_QUERY = @SEARCH_QUERY + ' and A.Personagem = ' + convert(nvarchar(4),@m_Pers)
if @m_EU is not null
set @SEARCH_QUERY = @SEARCH_QUERY + @m_EU
exec sp_executeSQL @SEARCH_QUERY
Is there a best way to do it?
Thanks in advance.
sql-server-2012 ado.net
I'm making an ASP.NET website which users can select more than 20 different filters at the same time. Something like 'Product Type', 'Year', 'State-of-Usage', 'Color', 'Size' and so forth.
Many of these items are related to other tables. So, my query makes a 'SELECT' using WHERE and 'INNER JOIN' to 12 other tables.
The problem resides in parameters that can be present or not.
I mean, depending of the user choice, some parameters will be NULL or not and I can't utilize them in my query (like using ISNULL()) because I'm affraid of return a wrong result caused by this.
So, my solution is build the query string depending of the parameters received , I mean, the query will consider only those which have real values.
declare @SEARCH_QUERY nvarchar(max);
set @SEARCH_QUERY = 'select AcervoID, Categoria, Fabricante, Personagem, Estado,
IIF(LEN(Description) > 120, LEFT(Description,120) + ''...'', Description) [mDescription],
Value, Availability, ActiveLink, Title,
RIGHT([thumb], CHARINDEX('''', REVERSE([thumb])) -1) [Image],
E.UsoID, E.FontAwesome
from Acervo A
inner join Categorias C on C.CatID = A.Categoria
inner join Fabricantes F on F.FabID = A.Fabricante
inner join Personagem P on P.PersID = A.Personagem
inner join EstadoUso E on E.UsoID = A.Estado
where A.Ativo = ''true'' and A.Disponiveis > 0'
if @m_Cat >-1
set @SEARCH_QUERY = @SEARCH_QUERY + ' and A.Categoria = ' + convert(nvarchar(4),@m_Cat)
if @m_Fab >-1
set @SEARCH_QUERY = @SEARCH_QUERY + ' and A.fabricante = ' + convert(nvarchar(4),@m_Fab)
if @m_Pers > -1
set @SEARCH_QUERY = @SEARCH_QUERY + ' and A.Personagem = ' + convert(nvarchar(4),@m_Pers)
if @m_EU is not null
set @SEARCH_QUERY = @SEARCH_QUERY + @m_EU
exec sp_executeSQL @SEARCH_QUERY
Is there a best way to do it?
Thanks in advance.
sql-server-2012 ado.net
sql-server-2012 ado.net
edited 3 hours ago
asked 3 hours ago
David BS
1083
1083
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The basic form you have is correct, though you want to avoid concatenating parameters into the string the way you have. See:
Revisiting catch-all queries
#BackToBasics : An Updated "Kitchen Sink" Example
The efficiency part will depend ultimately on the supporting indexes you have for your queries, along with other local factors, like hardware, blocking, rows returned, etc.
Thank you. I will see the docs. I'm avoinding the usage of indexes because I'm not sure if they can really help or disturb the "inner join" operations. The main table has almost 120 fields and, at least, 60 of them are related to other tables. So, I'm a little bit worried with so many indexes to be created (and kept by MS-SQL engine) in an online system.
– David BS
1 hour ago
2
@DavidBS If your tables are that wide, take a look at this post: Do You Have Tables In Your Tables?. It might be time to normalize a bit.
– sp_BlitzErik
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "182"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f225980%2fmssql-query-efficiency-to-many-filters%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The basic form you have is correct, though you want to avoid concatenating parameters into the string the way you have. See:
Revisiting catch-all queries
#BackToBasics : An Updated "Kitchen Sink" Example
The efficiency part will depend ultimately on the supporting indexes you have for your queries, along with other local factors, like hardware, blocking, rows returned, etc.
Thank you. I will see the docs. I'm avoinding the usage of indexes because I'm not sure if they can really help or disturb the "inner join" operations. The main table has almost 120 fields and, at least, 60 of them are related to other tables. So, I'm a little bit worried with so many indexes to be created (and kept by MS-SQL engine) in an online system.
– David BS
1 hour ago
2
@DavidBS If your tables are that wide, take a look at this post: Do You Have Tables In Your Tables?. It might be time to normalize a bit.
– sp_BlitzErik
1 hour ago
add a comment |
The basic form you have is correct, though you want to avoid concatenating parameters into the string the way you have. See:
Revisiting catch-all queries
#BackToBasics : An Updated "Kitchen Sink" Example
The efficiency part will depend ultimately on the supporting indexes you have for your queries, along with other local factors, like hardware, blocking, rows returned, etc.
Thank you. I will see the docs. I'm avoinding the usage of indexes because I'm not sure if they can really help or disturb the "inner join" operations. The main table has almost 120 fields and, at least, 60 of them are related to other tables. So, I'm a little bit worried with so many indexes to be created (and kept by MS-SQL engine) in an online system.
– David BS
1 hour ago
2
@DavidBS If your tables are that wide, take a look at this post: Do You Have Tables In Your Tables?. It might be time to normalize a bit.
– sp_BlitzErik
1 hour ago
add a comment |
The basic form you have is correct, though you want to avoid concatenating parameters into the string the way you have. See:
Revisiting catch-all queries
#BackToBasics : An Updated "Kitchen Sink" Example
The efficiency part will depend ultimately on the supporting indexes you have for your queries, along with other local factors, like hardware, blocking, rows returned, etc.
The basic form you have is correct, though you want to avoid concatenating parameters into the string the way you have. See:
Revisiting catch-all queries
#BackToBasics : An Updated "Kitchen Sink" Example
The efficiency part will depend ultimately on the supporting indexes you have for your queries, along with other local factors, like hardware, blocking, rows returned, etc.
answered 2 hours ago
sp_BlitzErik
20.8k1262102
20.8k1262102
Thank you. I will see the docs. I'm avoinding the usage of indexes because I'm not sure if they can really help or disturb the "inner join" operations. The main table has almost 120 fields and, at least, 60 of them are related to other tables. So, I'm a little bit worried with so many indexes to be created (and kept by MS-SQL engine) in an online system.
– David BS
1 hour ago
2
@DavidBS If your tables are that wide, take a look at this post: Do You Have Tables In Your Tables?. It might be time to normalize a bit.
– sp_BlitzErik
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thank you. I will see the docs. I'm avoinding the usage of indexes because I'm not sure if they can really help or disturb the "inner join" operations. The main table has almost 120 fields and, at least, 60 of them are related to other tables. So, I'm a little bit worried with so many indexes to be created (and kept by MS-SQL engine) in an online system.
– David BS
1 hour ago
2
@DavidBS If your tables are that wide, take a look at this post: Do You Have Tables In Your Tables?. It might be time to normalize a bit.
– sp_BlitzErik
1 hour ago
Thank you. I will see the docs. I'm avoinding the usage of indexes because I'm not sure if they can really help or disturb the "inner join" operations. The main table has almost 120 fields and, at least, 60 of them are related to other tables. So, I'm a little bit worried with so many indexes to be created (and kept by MS-SQL engine) in an online system.
– David BS
1 hour ago
Thank you. I will see the docs. I'm avoinding the usage of indexes because I'm not sure if they can really help or disturb the "inner join" operations. The main table has almost 120 fields and, at least, 60 of them are related to other tables. So, I'm a little bit worried with so many indexes to be created (and kept by MS-SQL engine) in an online system.
– David BS
1 hour ago
2
2
@DavidBS If your tables are that wide, take a look at this post: Do You Have Tables In Your Tables?. It might be time to normalize a bit.
– sp_BlitzErik
1 hour ago
@DavidBS If your tables are that wide, take a look at this post: Do You Have Tables In Your Tables?. It might be time to normalize a bit.
– sp_BlitzErik
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f225980%2fmssql-query-efficiency-to-many-filters%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown