Adding an additional “order by” column gives me a much worse planHelp optimizing MySQL slow queryOptimizing ORDER BY for simple MySQL queryDatabase Implementations of ORDER BY in a Subqueryquery performance gains by removing operator hash match inner joinWhy are these two queries having such different executions?How can I update statistics adding the data of the last day only?left outer join - sort operations in the query plan - any ways of tuning this simple query?Why does changing the declared join column order introduce a sort?When can SARGable predicates be pushed into a CTE or derived table?Why does the location of a join change performance?

How to pass a string to a command that expects a file?

Adding an additional "order by" column gives me a much worse plan

Peter's Strange Word

Examples of a statistic that is not independent of sample's distribution?

Why would a jet engine that runs at temps excess of 2000°C melt when it crashes?

Virginia employer terminated employee and wants signing bonus returned

Single word request: Harming the benefactor

Accountant/ lawyer will not return my call

Algorithm to convert a fixed-length string to the smallest possible collision-free representation?

How do I express some one as a black person?

Is it possible to have an Abelian group under two different binary operations but the binary operations are not distributive?

How did the power source of Mar-Vell's aircraft end up with her?

Why don't MCU characters ever seem to have language issues?

Moving plot label

Set and print content of environment variable in cmd.exe subshell?

Is there an equal sign with wider gap?

Making a sword in the stone, in a medieval world without magic

Am I not good enough for you?

Rejected in 4th interview round citing insufficient years of experience

Force user to remove USB token

Best approach to update all entries in a list that is paginated?

Grey hair or white hair

How much attack damage does the AC boost from a shield prevent on average?

Why would one plane in this picture not have gear down yet?



Adding an additional “order by” column gives me a much worse plan


Help optimizing MySQL slow queryOptimizing ORDER BY for simple MySQL queryDatabase Implementations of ORDER BY in a Subqueryquery performance gains by removing operator hash match inner joinWhy are these two queries having such different executions?How can I update statistics adding the data of the last day only?left outer join - sort operations in the query plan - any ways of tuning this simple query?Why does changing the declared join column order introduce a sort?When can SARGable predicates be pushed into a CTE or derived table?Why does the location of a join change performance?













2















in other words, how can I get rid of the sort operator on the picture below?



enter image description here



the picture above shows the execution plan of the following 2 selects together:



 SELECT TOP 1 so.OrgType, 
ch.Status,
rcs.DBSstatusDescription,
cid.ApplicationId
FROM tbl_application_crb_initialData cid

INNER JOIN tbl_season_organisationId so
ON cid.OrganisationId = so.OrgId

LEFT JOIN tbl_crbHistory ch
ON cid.ClientReference = ch.ClientReference

LEFT JOIN ref_crbStatus rcs
ON ch.Status = rcs.statusId

ORDER BY cid.DateAdded DESC, ch.DateAdded DESC

SELECT TOP 1 so.OrgType,
ch.Status,
rcs.DBSstatusDescription,
cid.ApplicationId
FROM tbl_application_crb_initialData cid

INNER JOIN tbl_season_organisationId so
ON cid.OrganisationId = so.OrgId

LEFT JOIN tbl_crbHistory ch
ON cid.ClientReference = ch.ClientReference

LEFT JOIN ref_crbStatus rcs
ON ch.Status = rcs.statusId

ORDER BY cid.DateAdded DESC--, ch.DateAdded DESC


the only difference is that on the second query, there is only one column in the order by.



would it make a difference, as I am using top 1?



I believe all the needed info are on the indexes and table definitions that can be seen on the query plan.



if anything else would help to get rid of that sort just let me know, tomorrow I will post all the possible info.










share|improve this question
























  • Those cost % are just estimates and can actually end up being WAY, WAY off. Is the top query actually noticeably slower?

    – Aaron Bertrand
    4 hours ago











  • @AaronBertrand - CPU time 756, Elapsed Time 222, Reads 2357 vs CPU time 0, Elapsed Time 0, Reads 10 from the stats in the plan - most of the tables are pretty small though. Table cardinalities 11, 19, 67,591, 232,528

    – Martin Smith
    3 hours ago







  • 1





    @MartinSmith Thanks, I didn’t look at the plan (mobile), just try my best to make sure drive-by readers don’t put too much weight into those percentages. Sometimes they’re useful, sometimes they’re extremely misleading.

    – Aaron Bertrand
    2 hours ago















2















in other words, how can I get rid of the sort operator on the picture below?



enter image description here



the picture above shows the execution plan of the following 2 selects together:



 SELECT TOP 1 so.OrgType, 
ch.Status,
rcs.DBSstatusDescription,
cid.ApplicationId
FROM tbl_application_crb_initialData cid

INNER JOIN tbl_season_organisationId so
ON cid.OrganisationId = so.OrgId

LEFT JOIN tbl_crbHistory ch
ON cid.ClientReference = ch.ClientReference

LEFT JOIN ref_crbStatus rcs
ON ch.Status = rcs.statusId

ORDER BY cid.DateAdded DESC, ch.DateAdded DESC

SELECT TOP 1 so.OrgType,
ch.Status,
rcs.DBSstatusDescription,
cid.ApplicationId
FROM tbl_application_crb_initialData cid

INNER JOIN tbl_season_organisationId so
ON cid.OrganisationId = so.OrgId

LEFT JOIN tbl_crbHistory ch
ON cid.ClientReference = ch.ClientReference

LEFT JOIN ref_crbStatus rcs
ON ch.Status = rcs.statusId

ORDER BY cid.DateAdded DESC--, ch.DateAdded DESC


the only difference is that on the second query, there is only one column in the order by.



would it make a difference, as I am using top 1?



I believe all the needed info are on the indexes and table definitions that can be seen on the query plan.



if anything else would help to get rid of that sort just let me know, tomorrow I will post all the possible info.










share|improve this question
























  • Those cost % are just estimates and can actually end up being WAY, WAY off. Is the top query actually noticeably slower?

    – Aaron Bertrand
    4 hours ago











  • @AaronBertrand - CPU time 756, Elapsed Time 222, Reads 2357 vs CPU time 0, Elapsed Time 0, Reads 10 from the stats in the plan - most of the tables are pretty small though. Table cardinalities 11, 19, 67,591, 232,528

    – Martin Smith
    3 hours ago







  • 1





    @MartinSmith Thanks, I didn’t look at the plan (mobile), just try my best to make sure drive-by readers don’t put too much weight into those percentages. Sometimes they’re useful, sometimes they’re extremely misleading.

    – Aaron Bertrand
    2 hours ago













2












2








2


1






in other words, how can I get rid of the sort operator on the picture below?



enter image description here



the picture above shows the execution plan of the following 2 selects together:



 SELECT TOP 1 so.OrgType, 
ch.Status,
rcs.DBSstatusDescription,
cid.ApplicationId
FROM tbl_application_crb_initialData cid

INNER JOIN tbl_season_organisationId so
ON cid.OrganisationId = so.OrgId

LEFT JOIN tbl_crbHistory ch
ON cid.ClientReference = ch.ClientReference

LEFT JOIN ref_crbStatus rcs
ON ch.Status = rcs.statusId

ORDER BY cid.DateAdded DESC, ch.DateAdded DESC

SELECT TOP 1 so.OrgType,
ch.Status,
rcs.DBSstatusDescription,
cid.ApplicationId
FROM tbl_application_crb_initialData cid

INNER JOIN tbl_season_organisationId so
ON cid.OrganisationId = so.OrgId

LEFT JOIN tbl_crbHistory ch
ON cid.ClientReference = ch.ClientReference

LEFT JOIN ref_crbStatus rcs
ON ch.Status = rcs.statusId

ORDER BY cid.DateAdded DESC--, ch.DateAdded DESC


the only difference is that on the second query, there is only one column in the order by.



would it make a difference, as I am using top 1?



I believe all the needed info are on the indexes and table definitions that can be seen on the query plan.



if anything else would help to get rid of that sort just let me know, tomorrow I will post all the possible info.










share|improve this question
















in other words, how can I get rid of the sort operator on the picture below?



enter image description here



the picture above shows the execution plan of the following 2 selects together:



 SELECT TOP 1 so.OrgType, 
ch.Status,
rcs.DBSstatusDescription,
cid.ApplicationId
FROM tbl_application_crb_initialData cid

INNER JOIN tbl_season_organisationId so
ON cid.OrganisationId = so.OrgId

LEFT JOIN tbl_crbHistory ch
ON cid.ClientReference = ch.ClientReference

LEFT JOIN ref_crbStatus rcs
ON ch.Status = rcs.statusId

ORDER BY cid.DateAdded DESC, ch.DateAdded DESC

SELECT TOP 1 so.OrgType,
ch.Status,
rcs.DBSstatusDescription,
cid.ApplicationId
FROM tbl_application_crb_initialData cid

INNER JOIN tbl_season_organisationId so
ON cid.OrganisationId = so.OrgId

LEFT JOIN tbl_crbHistory ch
ON cid.ClientReference = ch.ClientReference

LEFT JOIN ref_crbStatus rcs
ON ch.Status = rcs.statusId

ORDER BY cid.DateAdded DESC--, ch.DateAdded DESC


the only difference is that on the second query, there is only one column in the order by.



would it make a difference, as I am using top 1?



I believe all the needed info are on the indexes and table definitions that can be seen on the query plan.



if anything else would help to get rid of that sort just let me know, tomorrow I will post all the possible info.







sql-server query-performance sql-server-2016 optimization order-by






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









Martin Smith

63.6k10171255




63.6k10171255










asked 5 hours ago









marcello miorellimarcello miorelli

5,8971962138




5,8971962138












  • Those cost % are just estimates and can actually end up being WAY, WAY off. Is the top query actually noticeably slower?

    – Aaron Bertrand
    4 hours ago











  • @AaronBertrand - CPU time 756, Elapsed Time 222, Reads 2357 vs CPU time 0, Elapsed Time 0, Reads 10 from the stats in the plan - most of the tables are pretty small though. Table cardinalities 11, 19, 67,591, 232,528

    – Martin Smith
    3 hours ago







  • 1





    @MartinSmith Thanks, I didn’t look at the plan (mobile), just try my best to make sure drive-by readers don’t put too much weight into those percentages. Sometimes they’re useful, sometimes they’re extremely misleading.

    – Aaron Bertrand
    2 hours ago

















  • Those cost % are just estimates and can actually end up being WAY, WAY off. Is the top query actually noticeably slower?

    – Aaron Bertrand
    4 hours ago











  • @AaronBertrand - CPU time 756, Elapsed Time 222, Reads 2357 vs CPU time 0, Elapsed Time 0, Reads 10 from the stats in the plan - most of the tables are pretty small though. Table cardinalities 11, 19, 67,591, 232,528

    – Martin Smith
    3 hours ago







  • 1





    @MartinSmith Thanks, I didn’t look at the plan (mobile), just try my best to make sure drive-by readers don’t put too much weight into those percentages. Sometimes they’re useful, sometimes they’re extremely misleading.

    – Aaron Bertrand
    2 hours ago
















Those cost % are just estimates and can actually end up being WAY, WAY off. Is the top query actually noticeably slower?

– Aaron Bertrand
4 hours ago





Those cost % are just estimates and can actually end up being WAY, WAY off. Is the top query actually noticeably slower?

– Aaron Bertrand
4 hours ago













@AaronBertrand - CPU time 756, Elapsed Time 222, Reads 2357 vs CPU time 0, Elapsed Time 0, Reads 10 from the stats in the plan - most of the tables are pretty small though. Table cardinalities 11, 19, 67,591, 232,528

– Martin Smith
3 hours ago






@AaronBertrand - CPU time 756, Elapsed Time 222, Reads 2357 vs CPU time 0, Elapsed Time 0, Reads 10 from the stats in the plan - most of the tables are pretty small though. Table cardinalities 11, 19, 67,591, 232,528

– Martin Smith
3 hours ago





1




1





@MartinSmith Thanks, I didn’t look at the plan (mobile), just try my best to make sure drive-by readers don’t put too much weight into those percentages. Sometimes they’re useful, sometimes they’re extremely misleading.

– Aaron Bertrand
2 hours ago





@MartinSmith Thanks, I didn’t look at the plan (mobile), just try my best to make sure drive-by readers don’t put too much weight into those percentages. Sometimes they’re useful, sometimes they’re extremely misleading.

– Aaron Bertrand
2 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3














Your question is missing a lot of detail but I can reproduce something similar.



Setup



CREATE TABLE T1(X INT PRIMARY KEY, Y INT INDEX IX)

CREATE TABLE T2(X INT, Y INT , PRIMARY KEY(X, Y))

INSERT INTO T2
OUTPUT INSERTED.* INTO T1
SELECT TOP 1000000 ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY @@SPID), ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY @@SPID)
FROM sys.all_objects o1, sys.all_objects o2;


Query 1



SELECT TOP 1 T1.Y AS T1Y, T2.Y AS T2Y
FROM T1 JOIN T2 ON T1.X = T2.X
ORDER BY T1.Y;


enter image description here



Query 2



SELECT TOP 1 T1.Y AS T1Y, T2.Y AS T2Y
FROM T1 JOIN T2 ON T1.X = T2.X
ORDER BY T1.Y, T2.Y


enter image description here



Query 3



WITH T AS
(
SELECT TOP 1 WITH TIES T1.Y AS T1Y, T2.Y AS T2Y
FROM T1 JOIN T2 ON T1.X = T2.X
ORDER BY T1.Y
)
SELECT TOP 1 *
FROM T
ORDER BY T2Y


enter image description here



Query 1 just picks off the TOP 1 from the index in the desired sort order and does the needed joins on the other table for that row. If the join is successful it stops there otherwise it tries the next one in index order until it finds a row that matches or runs out of rows.



Query 2 When adding the new sort column this plan is no longer valid as there could be multiple matches tied with the TOP 1 value and SQL Server decides to join the whole lot and then get the TOP 1 from that.



Query 3 This encourages SQL Server to stick with the first strategy and then just does a TOP 1 Sort on any rows tied with the same value for the first sort key.



For my example data Query 3 works out better than Query 2 but if you have many duplicates tied for the value of the first sort key your milage may differ.



You can try this rewrite and see how it fares



WITH T
AS (SELECT TOP 1 WITH TIES so.OrgType,
ch.Status,
rcs.DBSstatusDescription,
cid.ApplicationId,
ch.DateAdded AS chDateAdded
FROM tbl_application_crb_initialData cid
INNER JOIN tbl_season_organisationId so
ON cid.OrganisationId = so.OrgId
LEFT JOIN tbl_crbHistory ch
ON cid.ClientReference = ch.ClientReference
LEFT JOIN ref_crbStatus rcs
ON ch.Status = rcs.statusId
ORDER BY cid.DateAdded DESC)
SELECT TOP 1 OrgType,
Status,
DBSstatusDescription,
ApplicationId
FROM T
ORDER BY chDateAdded DESC





share|improve this answer
























    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
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f231950%2fadding-an-additional-order-by-column-gives-me-a-much-worse-plan%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









    3














    Your question is missing a lot of detail but I can reproduce something similar.



    Setup



    CREATE TABLE T1(X INT PRIMARY KEY, Y INT INDEX IX)

    CREATE TABLE T2(X INT, Y INT , PRIMARY KEY(X, Y))

    INSERT INTO T2
    OUTPUT INSERTED.* INTO T1
    SELECT TOP 1000000 ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY @@SPID), ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY @@SPID)
    FROM sys.all_objects o1, sys.all_objects o2;


    Query 1



    SELECT TOP 1 T1.Y AS T1Y, T2.Y AS T2Y
    FROM T1 JOIN T2 ON T1.X = T2.X
    ORDER BY T1.Y;


    enter image description here



    Query 2



    SELECT TOP 1 T1.Y AS T1Y, T2.Y AS T2Y
    FROM T1 JOIN T2 ON T1.X = T2.X
    ORDER BY T1.Y, T2.Y


    enter image description here



    Query 3



    WITH T AS
    (
    SELECT TOP 1 WITH TIES T1.Y AS T1Y, T2.Y AS T2Y
    FROM T1 JOIN T2 ON T1.X = T2.X
    ORDER BY T1.Y
    )
    SELECT TOP 1 *
    FROM T
    ORDER BY T2Y


    enter image description here



    Query 1 just picks off the TOP 1 from the index in the desired sort order and does the needed joins on the other table for that row. If the join is successful it stops there otherwise it tries the next one in index order until it finds a row that matches or runs out of rows.



    Query 2 When adding the new sort column this plan is no longer valid as there could be multiple matches tied with the TOP 1 value and SQL Server decides to join the whole lot and then get the TOP 1 from that.



    Query 3 This encourages SQL Server to stick with the first strategy and then just does a TOP 1 Sort on any rows tied with the same value for the first sort key.



    For my example data Query 3 works out better than Query 2 but if you have many duplicates tied for the value of the first sort key your milage may differ.



    You can try this rewrite and see how it fares



    WITH T
    AS (SELECT TOP 1 WITH TIES so.OrgType,
    ch.Status,
    rcs.DBSstatusDescription,
    cid.ApplicationId,
    ch.DateAdded AS chDateAdded
    FROM tbl_application_crb_initialData cid
    INNER JOIN tbl_season_organisationId so
    ON cid.OrganisationId = so.OrgId
    LEFT JOIN tbl_crbHistory ch
    ON cid.ClientReference = ch.ClientReference
    LEFT JOIN ref_crbStatus rcs
    ON ch.Status = rcs.statusId
    ORDER BY cid.DateAdded DESC)
    SELECT TOP 1 OrgType,
    Status,
    DBSstatusDescription,
    ApplicationId
    FROM T
    ORDER BY chDateAdded DESC





    share|improve this answer





























      3














      Your question is missing a lot of detail but I can reproduce something similar.



      Setup



      CREATE TABLE T1(X INT PRIMARY KEY, Y INT INDEX IX)

      CREATE TABLE T2(X INT, Y INT , PRIMARY KEY(X, Y))

      INSERT INTO T2
      OUTPUT INSERTED.* INTO T1
      SELECT TOP 1000000 ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY @@SPID), ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY @@SPID)
      FROM sys.all_objects o1, sys.all_objects o2;


      Query 1



      SELECT TOP 1 T1.Y AS T1Y, T2.Y AS T2Y
      FROM T1 JOIN T2 ON T1.X = T2.X
      ORDER BY T1.Y;


      enter image description here



      Query 2



      SELECT TOP 1 T1.Y AS T1Y, T2.Y AS T2Y
      FROM T1 JOIN T2 ON T1.X = T2.X
      ORDER BY T1.Y, T2.Y


      enter image description here



      Query 3



      WITH T AS
      (
      SELECT TOP 1 WITH TIES T1.Y AS T1Y, T2.Y AS T2Y
      FROM T1 JOIN T2 ON T1.X = T2.X
      ORDER BY T1.Y
      )
      SELECT TOP 1 *
      FROM T
      ORDER BY T2Y


      enter image description here



      Query 1 just picks off the TOP 1 from the index in the desired sort order and does the needed joins on the other table for that row. If the join is successful it stops there otherwise it tries the next one in index order until it finds a row that matches or runs out of rows.



      Query 2 When adding the new sort column this plan is no longer valid as there could be multiple matches tied with the TOP 1 value and SQL Server decides to join the whole lot and then get the TOP 1 from that.



      Query 3 This encourages SQL Server to stick with the first strategy and then just does a TOP 1 Sort on any rows tied with the same value for the first sort key.



      For my example data Query 3 works out better than Query 2 but if you have many duplicates tied for the value of the first sort key your milage may differ.



      You can try this rewrite and see how it fares



      WITH T
      AS (SELECT TOP 1 WITH TIES so.OrgType,
      ch.Status,
      rcs.DBSstatusDescription,
      cid.ApplicationId,
      ch.DateAdded AS chDateAdded
      FROM tbl_application_crb_initialData cid
      INNER JOIN tbl_season_organisationId so
      ON cid.OrganisationId = so.OrgId
      LEFT JOIN tbl_crbHistory ch
      ON cid.ClientReference = ch.ClientReference
      LEFT JOIN ref_crbStatus rcs
      ON ch.Status = rcs.statusId
      ORDER BY cid.DateAdded DESC)
      SELECT TOP 1 OrgType,
      Status,
      DBSstatusDescription,
      ApplicationId
      FROM T
      ORDER BY chDateAdded DESC





      share|improve this answer



























        3












        3








        3







        Your question is missing a lot of detail but I can reproduce something similar.



        Setup



        CREATE TABLE T1(X INT PRIMARY KEY, Y INT INDEX IX)

        CREATE TABLE T2(X INT, Y INT , PRIMARY KEY(X, Y))

        INSERT INTO T2
        OUTPUT INSERTED.* INTO T1
        SELECT TOP 1000000 ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY @@SPID), ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY @@SPID)
        FROM sys.all_objects o1, sys.all_objects o2;


        Query 1



        SELECT TOP 1 T1.Y AS T1Y, T2.Y AS T2Y
        FROM T1 JOIN T2 ON T1.X = T2.X
        ORDER BY T1.Y;


        enter image description here



        Query 2



        SELECT TOP 1 T1.Y AS T1Y, T2.Y AS T2Y
        FROM T1 JOIN T2 ON T1.X = T2.X
        ORDER BY T1.Y, T2.Y


        enter image description here



        Query 3



        WITH T AS
        (
        SELECT TOP 1 WITH TIES T1.Y AS T1Y, T2.Y AS T2Y
        FROM T1 JOIN T2 ON T1.X = T2.X
        ORDER BY T1.Y
        )
        SELECT TOP 1 *
        FROM T
        ORDER BY T2Y


        enter image description here



        Query 1 just picks off the TOP 1 from the index in the desired sort order and does the needed joins on the other table for that row. If the join is successful it stops there otherwise it tries the next one in index order until it finds a row that matches or runs out of rows.



        Query 2 When adding the new sort column this plan is no longer valid as there could be multiple matches tied with the TOP 1 value and SQL Server decides to join the whole lot and then get the TOP 1 from that.



        Query 3 This encourages SQL Server to stick with the first strategy and then just does a TOP 1 Sort on any rows tied with the same value for the first sort key.



        For my example data Query 3 works out better than Query 2 but if you have many duplicates tied for the value of the first sort key your milage may differ.



        You can try this rewrite and see how it fares



        WITH T
        AS (SELECT TOP 1 WITH TIES so.OrgType,
        ch.Status,
        rcs.DBSstatusDescription,
        cid.ApplicationId,
        ch.DateAdded AS chDateAdded
        FROM tbl_application_crb_initialData cid
        INNER JOIN tbl_season_organisationId so
        ON cid.OrganisationId = so.OrgId
        LEFT JOIN tbl_crbHistory ch
        ON cid.ClientReference = ch.ClientReference
        LEFT JOIN ref_crbStatus rcs
        ON ch.Status = rcs.statusId
        ORDER BY cid.DateAdded DESC)
        SELECT TOP 1 OrgType,
        Status,
        DBSstatusDescription,
        ApplicationId
        FROM T
        ORDER BY chDateAdded DESC





        share|improve this answer















        Your question is missing a lot of detail but I can reproduce something similar.



        Setup



        CREATE TABLE T1(X INT PRIMARY KEY, Y INT INDEX IX)

        CREATE TABLE T2(X INT, Y INT , PRIMARY KEY(X, Y))

        INSERT INTO T2
        OUTPUT INSERTED.* INTO T1
        SELECT TOP 1000000 ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY @@SPID), ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY @@SPID)
        FROM sys.all_objects o1, sys.all_objects o2;


        Query 1



        SELECT TOP 1 T1.Y AS T1Y, T2.Y AS T2Y
        FROM T1 JOIN T2 ON T1.X = T2.X
        ORDER BY T1.Y;


        enter image description here



        Query 2



        SELECT TOP 1 T1.Y AS T1Y, T2.Y AS T2Y
        FROM T1 JOIN T2 ON T1.X = T2.X
        ORDER BY T1.Y, T2.Y


        enter image description here



        Query 3



        WITH T AS
        (
        SELECT TOP 1 WITH TIES T1.Y AS T1Y, T2.Y AS T2Y
        FROM T1 JOIN T2 ON T1.X = T2.X
        ORDER BY T1.Y
        )
        SELECT TOP 1 *
        FROM T
        ORDER BY T2Y


        enter image description here



        Query 1 just picks off the TOP 1 from the index in the desired sort order and does the needed joins on the other table for that row. If the join is successful it stops there otherwise it tries the next one in index order until it finds a row that matches or runs out of rows.



        Query 2 When adding the new sort column this plan is no longer valid as there could be multiple matches tied with the TOP 1 value and SQL Server decides to join the whole lot and then get the TOP 1 from that.



        Query 3 This encourages SQL Server to stick with the first strategy and then just does a TOP 1 Sort on any rows tied with the same value for the first sort key.



        For my example data Query 3 works out better than Query 2 but if you have many duplicates tied for the value of the first sort key your milage may differ.



        You can try this rewrite and see how it fares



        WITH T
        AS (SELECT TOP 1 WITH TIES so.OrgType,
        ch.Status,
        rcs.DBSstatusDescription,
        cid.ApplicationId,
        ch.DateAdded AS chDateAdded
        FROM tbl_application_crb_initialData cid
        INNER JOIN tbl_season_organisationId so
        ON cid.OrganisationId = so.OrgId
        LEFT JOIN tbl_crbHistory ch
        ON cid.ClientReference = ch.ClientReference
        LEFT JOIN ref_crbStatus rcs
        ON ch.Status = rcs.statusId
        ORDER BY cid.DateAdded DESC)
        SELECT TOP 1 OrgType,
        Status,
        DBSstatusDescription,
        ApplicationId
        FROM T
        ORDER BY chDateAdded DESC






        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 2 hours ago

























        answered 4 hours ago









        Martin SmithMartin Smith

        63.6k10171255




        63.6k10171255



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f231950%2fadding-an-additional-order-by-column-gives-me-a-much-worse-plan%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Are there any comparative studies done between Ashtavakra Gita and Buddhim?How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?Can you criticise or improve Ven. Bodhi's description of MahayanaWas the doctrine of 'Anatta', accepted as doctrine by modern Buddhism, actually taught by the Buddha?Relationship between Buddhism, Hinduism and Yoga?Comparison of Nirvana, Tao and Brahman/AtmaIs there a distinction between “ego identity” and “craving/hating”?Are there many differences between Taoism and Buddhism?Loss of “faith” in buddhismSimilarity between creation in Abrahamic religions and beginning of life in Earth mentioned Agganna Sutta?Are there studies about the difference between meditating in the morning versus in the evening?Can one follow Hinduism and Buddhism at the same time?Are there any prohibitions on participating in other religion's practices?Psychology of 'flow'

            Where else does the Shulchan Aruch quote an authority by name?Parashat Metzora+HagadolPesach/PassoverShulchan Aruch UTF-8Anonymous glosses in the Shulchan AruchWhy is the Shulchan Aruch definitive?Siman 32, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch: UntranslatedLitvaks/Yeshivish and Shulchan AruchBuying a Shulchan AruchEnglish version of SHULCHAN ARUCHIs there any place where Shulchan Aruch rules with the Rosh against the Rif and Rambam?Are there practices where Sepharadim do not hold by Shulchan Aruch?5th part of the shulchan aruch

            fallocate: fallocate failed: Text file busy in Ubuntu 17.04? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)defragmenting and increasing performance of old lubuntu system with swap partitionIssue with increasing the root partition from the swapthis /usr/bin/dpkg returned error || ubuntu-16.04, 64bitDefault 17.04 swap file locationHow to Resize Ubuntu 17.04 Zesty Swap file size?Ubuntu freezes from online formsMy Laptop is not starting after upgrade ubuntu 16.04 (Kernel 4.8.0-38 to 04.10.0-36)hcp: ERROR: FALLOCATE FAILED!Not sure my swap is being usedWine 3.0 asking for more virtual free swap