问题
I am attempting to refactor several old pieces of code... I have refactored the current piece below and have highlighted the NOT IN
statement causing performance issues. I am attempting to rewrite the NOT IN
section with a left outer join.
Can anyone help, or suggest a better way if possible?
SELECT
left(unique_id,16) AS casino_id ,
right(unique_id,24) AS game_id
FROM (
SELECT
distinct o.casino_id + g.game_id AS unique_id
FROM
game g INNER JOIN Bet b
ON g.game_id = b.game_id
INNER JOIN CasinoUser u
ON b.user_id = u.user_id
INNER JOIN onewalletcasino o
ON u.casino_id = o.casino_id
WHERE
game_start between dateadd(mi, -180, getdate())
and dateadd(mi, -5, getdate())
and b.[status] <> 'P'
) t
WHERE
unique_id NOT in
( SELECT casino_id + game_id AS casino_id
FROM
thirdpartysettlecalled
WHERE
[status] = 'Y')
ORDER BY casino_id
回答1:
You have a column concatenation which prevents any use of indexes
Try NOT EXISTS which will support the 2 columns separately
SELECT distinct
o.casino_id, g.game_id
FROM
game g
INNER JOIN
Bet b ON g.game_id = b.game_id
INNER JOIN
CasinoUser u ON b.user_id = u.user_id
INNER JOIN
onewalletcasino o ON u.casino_id = o.casino_id
WHERE
game_start between dateadd(mi, -180, getdate())
and dateadd(mi, -5, getdate())
and
b.[status] <> 'P'
AND
NOT EXISTS (SELECT *
FROM
thirdpartysettlecalled tp
WHERE
tp.[status] = 'Y'
AND
tp.casino_id = o.casino_id AND tp.game_id = g.game_id)
ORDER BY
casino_id
After that, check your indexes or course...
This is a good use of EXCEPT too (ORDER BY goes at end like UNION: thanks to @Damien_The_Unbeliever)
SELECT distinct
o.casino_id, g.game_id
FROM
game g
INNER JOIN
Bet b ON g.game_id = b.game_id
INNER JOIN
CasinoUser u ON b.user_id = u.user_id
INNER JOIN
onewalletcasino o ON u.casino_id = o.casino_id
WHERE
game_start between dateadd(mi, -180, getdate())
and dateadd(mi, -5, getdate())
and
b.[status] <> 'P'
EXCEPT
SELECT tp.casino_id, tp.game_id
FROM thirdpartysettlecalled tp
WHERE tp.[status] = 'Y'
ORDER BY
casino_id
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6774259/sql-not-in-possibly-performance-issues