I've heard that SELECT * is generally bad practice to use when writing SQL commands because it is more efficient to SELECT columns you specifically need.
If I need to SELECT every column in a table, should I use
SELECT * FROM TABLE
or
SELECT column1, colum2, column3, etc. FROM TABLE
Does the efficiency really matter in this case? I'd think SELECT * would be more optimal internally if you really need all of the data, but I'm saying this with no real understanding of database.
I'm curious to know what the best practice is in this case.
UPDATE: I probably should specify that the only situation where I would really want to do a SELECT * is when I'm selecting data from one table where I know all columns will always need to be retrieved, even when new columns are added.
Given the responses I've seen however, this still seems like a bad idea and SELECT * should never be used for a lot more technical reasons that I ever though about.
One reason that selecting specific columns is better is that it raises the probability that SQL Server can access the data from indexes rather than querying the table data.
Here's a post I wrote about it: The real reason select queries are bad index coverage
It's also less fragile to change, since any code that consumes the data will be getting the same data structure regardless of changes you make to the table schema in the future.
Given your specification that you are selecting all columns, there is little difference at this time. Realize, however, that database schemas do change. If you use SELECT * you are going to get any new columns added to the table, even though in all likelihood, your code is not prepared to use or present that new data. This means that you are exposing your system to unexpected performance and functionality changes.
You may be willing to dismiss this as a minor cost, but realize that columns that you don't need still must be:
Read from database
Sent across the network
Marshalled into your process
(for ADO-type technologies) Saved in a data-table in-memory
Ignored and discarded / garbage-collected
Item #1 has many hidden costs including eliminating some potential covering index, causing data-page loads (and server cache thrashing), incurring row / page / table locks that might be otherwise avoided.
Balance this against the potential savings of specifying the columns versus an * and the only potential savings are:
Programmer doesn't need to revisit the SQL to add columns
The network-transport of the SQL is smaller / faster
SQL Server query parse / validation time
SQL Server query plan cache
For item 1, the reality is that you're going to add / change code to use any new column you might add anyway, so it is a wash.
For item 2, the difference is rarely enough to push you into a different packet-size or number of network packets. If you get to the point where SQL statement transmission time is the predominant issue, you probably need to reduce the rate of statements first.
For item 3, there is NO savings as the expansion of the * has to happen anyway, which means consulting the table(s) schema anyway. Realistically, listing the columns will incur the same cost because they have to be validated against the schema. In other words this is a complete wash.
For item 4, when you specify specific columns, your query plan cache could get larger but only if you are dealing with different sets of columns (which is not what you've specified). In this case, you do want different cache entries because you want different plans as needed.
So, this all comes down, because of the way you specified the question, to the issue resiliency in the face of eventual schema modifications. If you're burning this schema into ROM (it happens), then an * is perfectly acceptable.
However, my general guideline is that you should only select the columns you need, which means that sometimes it will look like you are asking for all of them, but DBAs and schema evolution mean that some new columns might appear that could greatly affect the query.
My advice is that you should ALWAYS SELECT specific columns. Remember that you get good at what you do over and over, so just get in the habit of doing it right.
If you are wondering why a schema might change without code changing, think in terms of audit logging, effective/expiration dates and other similar things that get added by DBAs for systemically for compliance issues. Another source of underhanded changes is denormalizations for performance elsewhere in the system or user-defined fields.
You should only select the columns that you need. Even if you need all columns it's still better to list column names so that the sql server does not have to query system table for columns.
Also, your application might break if someone adds columns to the table. Your program will get columns it didn't expect too and it might not know how to process them.
Apart from this if the table has a binary column then the query will be much more slower and use more network resources.
There are four big reasons that select * is a bad thing:
The most significant practical reason is that it forces the user to magically know the order in which columns will be returned. It's better to be explicit, which also protects you against the table changing, which segues nicely into...
If a column name you're using changes, it's better to catch it early (at the point of the SQL call) rather than when you're trying to use the column that no longer exists (or has had its name changed, etc.)
Listing the column names makes your code far more self-documented, and so probably more readable.
If you're transferring over a network (or even if you aren't), columns you don't need are just waste.
Specifying the column list is usually the best option because your application won't be affected if someone adds/inserts a column to the table.
Specifying column names is definitely faster - for the server. But if
performance is not a big issue (for example, this is a website content database with hundreds, maybe thousands - but not millions - of rows in each table); AND
your job is to create many small, similar applications (e.g. public-facing content-managed websites) using a common framework, rather than creating a complex one-off application; AND
flexibility is important (lots of customization of the db schema for each site);
then you're better off sticking with SELECT *. In our framework, heavy use of SELECT * allows us to introduce a new website managed content field to a table, giving it all of the benefits of the CMS (versioning, workflow/approvals, etc.), while only touching the code at a couple of points, instead of a couple dozen points.
I know the DB gurus are going to hate me for this - go ahead, vote me down - but in my world, developer time is scarce and CPU cycles are abundant, so I adjust accordingly what I conserve and what I waste.
SELECT * is a bad practice even if the query is not sent over a network.
Selecting more data than you need makes the query less efficient - the server has to read and transfer extra data, so it takes time and creates unnecessary load on the system (not only the network, as others mentioned, but also disk, CPU etc.). Additionally, the server is unable to optimize the query as well as it might (for example, use covering index for the query).
After some time your table structure might change, so SELECT * will return a different set of columns. So, your application might get a dataset of unexpected structure and break somewhere downstream. Explicitly stating the columns guarantees that you either get a dataset of known structure, or get a clear error on the database level (like 'column not found').
Of course, all this doesn't matter much for a small and simple system.
Lots of good reasons answered here so far, here's another one that hasn't been mentioned.
Explicitly naming the columns will help you with maintenance down the road. At some point you're going to be making changes or troubleshooting, and find yourself asking "where the heck is that column used".
If you've got the names listed explicitly, then finding every reference to that column -- through all your stored procedures, views, etc -- is simple. Just dump a CREATE script for your DB schema, and text search through it.
Performance wise, SELECT with specific columns can be faster (no need to read in all the data). If your query really does use ALL the columns, SELECT with explicit parameters is still preferred. Any speed difference will be basically unnoticeable and near constant-time. One day your schema will change, and this is good insurance to prevent problems due to this.
definitely defining the columns, because SQL Server will not have to do a lookup on the columns to pull them. If you define the columns, then SQL can skip that step.
It's always better to specify the columns you need, if you think about it one time, SQL doesn't have to think "wtf is *" every time you query. On top of that, someone later may add columns to the table that you actually do not need in your query and you'll be better off in that case by specifying all of your columns.
The problem with "select *" is the possibility of bringing data you don't really need. During the actual database query, the selected columns don't really add to the computation. What's really "heavy" is the data transport back to your client, and any column that you don't really need is just wasting network bandwidth and adding to the time you're waiting for you query to return.
Even if you do use all the columns brought from a "select *...", that's just for now. If in the future you change the table/view layout and add more columns, you'll start bring those in your selects even if you don't need them.
Another point in which a "select *" statement is bad is on view creation. If you create a view using "select *" and later add columns to your table, the view definition and the data returned won't match, and you'll need to recompile your views in order for them to work again.
I know that writing a "select *" is tempting, 'cause I really don't like to manually specify all the fields on my queries, but when your system start to evolve, you'll see that it's worth to spend this extra time/effort in specifying the fields rather than spending much more time and effort removing bugs on your views or optimizing your app.
While explicitly listing columns is good for performance, don't get crazy.
So if you use all the data, try SELECT * for simplicity (imagine having many columns and doing a JOIN... query may get awful). Then - measure. Compare with query with column names listed explicitly.
Don't speculate about performance, measure it!
Explicit listing helps most when you have some column containing big data (like body of a post or article), and don't need it in given query. Then by not returning it in your answer DB server can save time, bandwidth, and disk throughput. Your query result will also be smaller, which is good for any query cache.
You should really be selecting only the fields you need, and only the required number, i.e.
SELECT Field1, Field2 FROM SomeTable WHERE --(constraints)
Outside of the database, dynamic queries run the risk of injection attacks and malformed data. Typically you get round this using stored procedures or parameterised queries. Also (although not really that much of a problem) the server has to generate an execution plan each time a dynamic query is executed.
It is NOT faster to use explicit field names versus *, if and only if, you need to get the data for all fields.
Your client software shouldn't depend on the order of the fields returned, so that's a nonsense too.
And it's possible (though unlikely) that you need to get all fields using * because you don't yet know what fields exist (think very dynamic database structure).
Another disadvantage of using explicit field names is that if there are many of them and they're long then it makes reading the code and/or the query log more difficult.
So the rule should be: if you need all the fields, use *, if you need only a subset, name them explicitly.
The result is too huge. It is slow to generate and send the result from the SQL engine to the client.
The client side, being a generic programming environment, is not and should not be designed to filter and process the results (e.g. the WHERE clause, ORDER clause), as the number of rows can be huge (e.g. tens of millions of rows).
Naming each column you expect to get in your application also ensures your application won't break if someone alters the table, as long as your columns are still present (in any order).
Performance wise I have seen comments that both are equal. but usability aspect there are some +'s and -'s
When you use a (select *) in a query and if some one alter the table and add new fields which do not need for the previous query it is an unnecessary overhead. And what if the newly added field is a blob or an image field??? your query response time is going to be really slow then.
In other hand if you use a (select col1,col2,..) and if the table get altered and added new fields and if those fields are needed in the result set, you always need to edit your select query after table alteration.
But I suggest always to use select col1,col2,... in your queries and alter the query if the table get altered later...
This is an old post, but still valid. For reference, I have a very complicated query consisting of:
12 tables
6 Left joins
9 inner joins
108 total columns on all 12 tables
I only need 54 columns
A 4 column Order By clause
When I execute the query using Select *, it takes an average of 2869ms.
When I execute the query using Select , it takes an average of 1513ms.
Total rows returned is 13,949.
There is no doubt selecting column names means faster performance over Select *
Select is equally efficient (in terms of velocity) if you use * or columns.
The difference is about memory, not velocity. When you select several columns SQL Server must allocate memory space to serve you the query, including all data for all the columns that you've requested, even if you're only using one of them.
What does matter in terms of performance is the excecution plan which in turn depends heavily on your WHERE clause and the number of JOIN, OUTER JOIN, etc ...
For your question just use SELECT *. If you need all the columns there's no performance difference.
It depends on the version of your DB server, but modern versions of SQL can cache the plan either way. I'd say go with whatever is most maintainable with your data access code.
One reason it's better practice to spell out exactly which columns you want is because of possible future changes in the table structure.
If you are reading in data manually using an index based approach to populate a data structure with the results of your query, then in the future when you add/remove a column you will have headaches trying to figure out what went wrong.
As to what is faster, I'll defer to others for their expertise.
As with most problems, it depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to create a db grid that will allow all columns in any table, then "Select *" is the answer. However, if you will only need certain columns and adding or deleting columns from the query is done infrequently, then specify them individually.
It also depends on the amount of data you want to transfer from the server. If one of the columns is a defined as memo, graphic, blob, etc. and you don't need that column, you'd better not use "Select *" or you'll get a whole bunch of data you don't want and your performance could suffer.
To add on to what everyone else has said, if all of your columns that you are selecting are included in an index, your result set will be pulled from the index instead of looking up additional data from SQL.
SELECT * is necessary if one wants to obtain metadata such as the number of columns.
Gonna get slammed for this, but I do a select * because almost all my data is retrived from SQL Server Views that precombine needed values from multiple tables into a single easy to access View.
I do then want all the columns from the view which won't change when new fields are added to underlying tables. This has the added benefit of allowing me to change where data comes from. FieldA in the View may at one time be calculated and then I may change it to be static. Either way the View supplies FieldA to me.
The beauty of this is that it allows my data layer to get datasets. It then passes them to my BL which can then create objects from them. My main app only knows and interacts with the objects. I even allow my objects to self-create when passed a datarow.
Of course, I'm the only developer, so that helps too :)
What everyone above said, plus:
If you're striving for readable maintainable code, doing something like:
SELECT foo, bar FROM widgets;
is instantly readable and shows intent. If you make that call you know what you're getting back. If widgets only has foo and bar columns, then selecting * means you still have to think about what you're getting back, confirm the order is mapped correctly, etc. However, if widgets has more columns but you're only interested in foo and bar, then your code gets messy when you query for a wildcard and then only use some of what's returned.
And remember if you have an inner join by definition you do not need all the columns as the data in the join columns is repeated.
It's not like listing columns in SQl server is hard or even time-consuming. You just drag them over from the object browser (you can get all in one go by dragging from the word columns). To put a permanent performance hit on your system (becasue this can reduce the use of indexes and becasue sending unneeded data over the network is costly) and make it more likely that you will have unexpected problems as the database changes (sometimes columns get added that you do not want the user to see for instance) just to save less than a minute of development time is short-sighted and unprofessional.
Absolutely define the columns you want to SELECT every time. There is no reason not to and the performance improvement is well worth it.
They should never have given the option to "SELECT *"
If you need every column then just use SELECT * but remember that the order could potentially change so when you are consuming the results access them by name and not by index.
I would ignore comments about how * needs to go get the list - chances are parsing and validating named columns is equal to the processing time if not more. Don't prematurely optimize ;-)
This question already has answers here:
Many database rows vs one comma separated values row
(4 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I'm interested how and why many to many relationship is better than storing the information in one row.
Example: I have two tables, Users and Movies (very big data). I need to establish a relationship "view".
I have two ideas:
Make another column in Users table called "views", where I will store the ids of the movies this user has viewed, in a string. for example: "2,5,7...". Then I will process this information in PHP.
Make new table users_movies (many to many), with columns user_id and movie_id. row with user_id=5 and movie_id=7 means that user 5 has viewed movie 7.
I'm interested which of this methods is better and WHY. Please consider that the data is quite big.
The second method is better in just about every way. Not only will you utilize your DBs indexes to find records faster, it will make modification far far easier.
Approach 1) could answer the question "Which movies has User X viewed" by just having an SQL like "...field_in_set(movie_id, user_movielist) ...". But the other way round ("Which user do have viewed movie x") won't work on an sql basis.
That's why I always would go for approach 2): clear normalized structure, both ways are simple joins.
It's just about the needs you have. If you need performance then you must accept redundancy of the information and add a column. If your main goal is to respect the Normalization paradigma then you should not have redundancy at all.
When I have to do this type of choice I try to estimate the space loss of redundancy vs the frequency of the query of interest and its performance.
A few more thoughts.
In your first situation if you look up a particular user you can easily get the list of ids for the films they have seen. But then would need a separate query to get the details such as the titles of those movies. This might be one query using IN with the list of ids, or one query per film id. This would be inefficient and clunky.
With MySQL there is a possible fudge to join in this situation using the FIND_IN_SET() function (although a down side of this is you are straying in to non standard SQL). You could join your table of films to the users using ON FIND_IN_SET(film.id, users.film_id) > 0 . However this is not going to use an index for the join, and involves a function (which while quick for what it does, will be slow when performed on thousands of rows).
If you wanted to find all the users who had view any film a particular user had viewed then it is a bit more difficult. You can't just use FIND_IN_SET as it requires a single string and a comma separated list. As a single query you would need to join the particular user to the film table to get a lot of intermediate rows, and then join that back against the users again (using FIND_IN_SET) to find the other users.
There are ways in SQL to split up a comma separated list of values, but they are messy and anyone who has to maintain such code will hate it!
These are all fudges. With the 2nd solution these easy to do, and any resulting joins can easily use indexes (and possibly the whole queries can just use indexes without touching the actual data).
A further issue with the first solution is data integretity. You will have to manually check that a film doesn't appear twice for a user (with the 2nd solution this can easily be enforced using a unique key). You also cannot just add a foreign key to ensure that any film id for a user does actually exist. Further you will have to manually ensure that nothing enters a character string in your delimited list of ids.
I want to list the recent activities of a user on my site without doing too many queries. I have a table where I list all the things the user did with the date.
page_id - reference_id - reference_table - created_at - updated_at
The reference_id is the ID I need to search for in the reference_table (example: comments). If I would do a SELECT on my activity table I would then have to query:
SELECT * FROM reference_table where id = reference_id LIMIT 1
An activity can be a comment, a page update or a subscription. Depending which one it is, I need to fetch different data from other tables in my database
For example if it is a comment, I need to fetch the author's name, the comment, if it is a reply I need to fetch the orignal comment username, etc.
I've looked into UNION keyword to union all my tables but I'm getting the error
1222 - The used SELECT statements have a different number of columns
and it seems rather complicated to make it work because the amount of columns has to match and none of my table has the same amount of tables and I'm not to fond of create column for the fun of it.
I've also looked into the CASE statement which also requires the amount of columns to match if I remember correctly (I could be wrong for this one though).
Does anyone has an idea of how I could list the recent activities of a user without doing too many queries?
I am using PHP and MySQL.
You probably want to split out the different activities into different tables. This will give you more flexiblity on how you query the data.
If you choose to use UNION, make sure that the you use the same number of columns in each select query that the UNION is comprised of.
EDIT:
I was down-voted for my response, so perhaps I can give a better explanation.
Split Table into Separate Tables and UNION
I recommended this technique, because it will allow you to be more explicit about the resources for which you are querying. Having a single table for inserting is convenient, but you will always have to do separate queries to join with other tables to get meaningful information. Also, you database schema will be obfuscated by a single column being a foreign key for different tables depending on the data stored in that row.
You could have tables for comment, update and subscription. These would have their own data which could be queried on individually. If, say, you wanted to look at ALL user activity, you could somewhat easily use a UNION as follows:
(SELECT 'comment', title, comment_id AS id, created FROM comment)
UNION
(SELECT 'update', title, update_id as id, created FROM update)
UNION
(SELECT 'subscription', title, subscription_id as id, created
FROM subscription)
ORDER BY created desc
This will provide you with a listing view. You could then link to the details of each type or load it on an ajax call.
You could accomplish this with the method that you are currently using, but this will actually eliminate the need for the 'reference_table' and will accomplish the same thing in a cleaner way (IMO).
The problem is that UNION should be used just to get similar recordsets together. If you try to unify two different queries (for example, with different columns being fetched) it's an error.
If the nature of the queries is different (having different column count, or data types) you'll need to make several different queries and treat them all separately.
Another approach (less elegant, I guess) would be LEFT JOINing your activities table with all the others, so you'll end up with a recordset with a lot of columns, and you'll need to check for each row which columns should be used depending on the activity nature.
Again, I'd rather stick with the first one, since the second procudes a rather sparse recorset.
With UNION you don't have to get all of the columns from each table, just as long as all of the columns have the same datatypes.
So you could do something like this:
SELECT name, comment as description
FROM Comments
UNION
SELECT name, reply as description
FROM Replies
And it wouldn't matter if Comments and Replies have the same number of columns.
This really depends on the amount of traffic on your site. The union approach is a straightforward and possibly the correct one, logically, but you'll suffer on the performance if your site is heavily loaded since the indexing of a UNIONed query is hard.
Joining might be good, but again, in terms of performance and code clarity, it's not the best of ways.
Another totally different approach is to create an 'activities' table, which will be updated with activity (in addition to the real activity, just for this purpose). In old terms of DB correctness, you should avoid this approach since it will create duplicate data on your system, I, however, found it very useful in terms of performance.
[Another side note about the UNION approach if you decide to take it: if you have difference in parameters length, you can SELECT bogus parameters on some of the unions, for example.. (SELECT UserId,UserName FROM users) UNION (SELECT 0,UserName from notes)