Relative Performance: Native SQL vs User Functions

Hi all,
I'm interested in knowing, for a fact, what the performance overhead of
using a functional-language based query e.g.
select * from customers where dbo.ufn_stringcontains(custname, 'ar')=1
is over a conventional SQL statement:
select * from addrb4 where custname like '%'+'ar'+'%'
From the execution plan in my SQL2000 query analyser, it shows the
functional query is slightly better costing the batch of 49.97%. However,
both queries take 28 seconds to execute. I was expecting the functional
query to be slower so I'm a bit surprised.
I know the perfomance of the functional query depends on how complex the
function is. In my applications, the functions will be quite simple and where
they will be complex, a convenctional equivalent will equally complex to
build.
Your opinions, experience and test runs are welcome.
--
NB: declaration for ufn_stringcontains:
create function ufn_stringontains (@.m varchar(8000) , @.s varchar(8000) )
returns bit
as
begin
declare @.ret bit
if (@.m like '%'+@.s+'%')
set @.ret=1
else
set @.ret=0
return @.ret
endBecause of the like you are using, a table scan in involved, resulting in
mostly IO.
Try running the same query and function, but using only like to the right of
the search string (select * from addrb4 where custname like 'ar'+'%') and
have an index on custname.
You will find that the difference becomes clearer as soon as more records
can be eliminated by a index seek or scan.
Functions are faster sometimes, and sometimes they destroy performance. It
varies and there is no hard and fast rule.
Regards
Mike
"Sienko" wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm interested in knowing, for a fact, what the performance overhead of
> using a functional-language based query e.g.
> select * from customers where dbo.ufn_stringcontains(custname, 'ar')=1
> is over a conventional SQL statement:
> select * from addrb4 where custname like '%'+'ar'+'%'
> From the execution plan in my SQL2000 query analyser, it shows the
> functional query is slightly better costing the batch of 49.97%. However,
> both queries take 28 seconds to execute. I was expecting the functional
> query to be slower so I'm a bit surprised.
> I know the perfomance of the functional query depends on how complex the
> function is. In my applications, the functions will be quite simple and where
> they will be complex, a convenctional equivalent will equally complex to
> build.
> Your opinions, experience and test runs are welcome.
> --
> NB: declaration for ufn_stringcontains:
> create function ufn_stringontains (@.m varchar(8000) , @.s varchar(8000) )
> returns bit
> as
> begin
> declare @.ret bit
> if (@.m like '%'+@.s+'%')
> set @.ret=1
> else
> set @.ret=0
> return @.ret
> end
>|||"Sienko" <Sienko@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0ABAE066-2E11-4679-9AAA-8E9B8A636DD2@.microsoft.com...
> create function ufn_stringontains (@.m varchar(8000) , @.s varchar(8000) )
> returns bit
> as
> begin
> declare @.ret bit
> if (@.m like '%'+@.s+'%')
> set @.ret=1
> else
> set @.ret=0
> return @.ret
> end
You could speed it up a tad by doing early returns:
if (@.m like '%'+@.s+'%' )
return 1
else
return 0
Personally, I find this style easier to understand, as well.