Sql: Joining view on computed columns vs performance










0















I have some Sql tables with a primary key that's includes more column. I created a view on this
tables and I added a computed column that is a concatenation of table's primary key, separated by a separator. (for example: ColumnA$ColumnB$ColumnC is concatenation of Column A, B e C that's table key).
When I use this view I filter on computed column to work with primary key.
In other case I have a query that put in join more view. Foreign key on the view is computed like primary key and the joins are on computed column.



The scope of this work is to simplified key to simplified integration with other software.



Could this execution scenario affect significatly performance?



Thanks in advance
Luca










share|improve this question


























    0















    I have some Sql tables with a primary key that's includes more column. I created a view on this
    tables and I added a computed column that is a concatenation of table's primary key, separated by a separator. (for example: ColumnA$ColumnB$ColumnC is concatenation of Column A, B e C that's table key).
    When I use this view I filter on computed column to work with primary key.
    In other case I have a query that put in join more view. Foreign key on the view is computed like primary key and the joins are on computed column.



    The scope of this work is to simplified key to simplified integration with other software.



    Could this execution scenario affect significatly performance?



    Thanks in advance
    Luca










    share|improve this question
























      0












      0








      0








      I have some Sql tables with a primary key that's includes more column. I created a view on this
      tables and I added a computed column that is a concatenation of table's primary key, separated by a separator. (for example: ColumnA$ColumnB$ColumnC is concatenation of Column A, B e C that's table key).
      When I use this view I filter on computed column to work with primary key.
      In other case I have a query that put in join more view. Foreign key on the view is computed like primary key and the joins are on computed column.



      The scope of this work is to simplified key to simplified integration with other software.



      Could this execution scenario affect significatly performance?



      Thanks in advance
      Luca










      share|improve this question














      I have some Sql tables with a primary key that's includes more column. I created a view on this
      tables and I added a computed column that is a concatenation of table's primary key, separated by a separator. (for example: ColumnA$ColumnB$ColumnC is concatenation of Column A, B e C that's table key).
      When I use this view I filter on computed column to work with primary key.
      In other case I have a query that put in join more view. Foreign key on the view is computed like primary key and the joins are on computed column.



      The scope of this work is to simplified key to simplified integration with other software.



      Could this execution scenario affect significatly performance?



      Thanks in advance
      Luca







      sql-server view database-performance






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Nov 13 '18 at 11:06









      Luca MurzioLuca Murzio

      163




      163






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          Better idea would be to keep these columns separately just as you have them natively in your tables, then you can create your index/PK based on all 3 columns not just a concentrated single one. For the performance I would probably suggest here to use indexed view here. Other way if we talk about 3 string columns you can use some hashing techniques as long as you can handle that extreme minimum hashing duplication exception on your application end.






          share|improve this answer























          • Materialized view isn't possibile in my framework, I will evaluate hashing to understand if it is good for my problem.

            – Luca Murzio
            Nov 14 '18 at 7:46










          Your Answer






          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
          StackExchange.snippets.init();
          );
          );
          , "code-snippets");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "1"
          ;
          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: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          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%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53279648%2fsql-joining-view-on-computed-columns-vs-performance%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









          1














          Better idea would be to keep these columns separately just as you have them natively in your tables, then you can create your index/PK based on all 3 columns not just a concentrated single one. For the performance I would probably suggest here to use indexed view here. Other way if we talk about 3 string columns you can use some hashing techniques as long as you can handle that extreme minimum hashing duplication exception on your application end.






          share|improve this answer























          • Materialized view isn't possibile in my framework, I will evaluate hashing to understand if it is good for my problem.

            – Luca Murzio
            Nov 14 '18 at 7:46















          1














          Better idea would be to keep these columns separately just as you have them natively in your tables, then you can create your index/PK based on all 3 columns not just a concentrated single one. For the performance I would probably suggest here to use indexed view here. Other way if we talk about 3 string columns you can use some hashing techniques as long as you can handle that extreme minimum hashing duplication exception on your application end.






          share|improve this answer























          • Materialized view isn't possibile in my framework, I will evaluate hashing to understand if it is good for my problem.

            – Luca Murzio
            Nov 14 '18 at 7:46













          1












          1








          1







          Better idea would be to keep these columns separately just as you have them natively in your tables, then you can create your index/PK based on all 3 columns not just a concentrated single one. For the performance I would probably suggest here to use indexed view here. Other way if we talk about 3 string columns you can use some hashing techniques as long as you can handle that extreme minimum hashing duplication exception on your application end.






          share|improve this answer













          Better idea would be to keep these columns separately just as you have them natively in your tables, then you can create your index/PK based on all 3 columns not just a concentrated single one. For the performance I would probably suggest here to use indexed view here. Other way if we talk about 3 string columns you can use some hashing techniques as long as you can handle that extreme minimum hashing duplication exception on your application end.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Nov 13 '18 at 12:00









          Bartosz XBartosz X

          1,0871020




          1,0871020












          • Materialized view isn't possibile in my framework, I will evaluate hashing to understand if it is good for my problem.

            – Luca Murzio
            Nov 14 '18 at 7:46

















          • Materialized view isn't possibile in my framework, I will evaluate hashing to understand if it is good for my problem.

            – Luca Murzio
            Nov 14 '18 at 7:46
















          Materialized view isn't possibile in my framework, I will evaluate hashing to understand if it is good for my problem.

          – Luca Murzio
          Nov 14 '18 at 7:46





          Materialized view isn't possibile in my framework, I will evaluate hashing to understand if it is good for my problem.

          – Luca Murzio
          Nov 14 '18 at 7:46

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


          • 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%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53279648%2fsql-joining-view-on-computed-columns-vs-performance%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







          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          Barbados

          How to read a connectionString WITH PROVIDER in .NET Core?

          Node.js Script on GitHub Pages or Amazon S3