I noticed that I don't need several of the fields that I'm selecting in my sql statement. Since this statement has several joins, will the performance speed up significantly if fewer fields are selected?
Remeber his question was.. "will the performance speed up significantly". What if he dropped 5 fields from his select list but still needed all of the joins. What if the fields he dropped were boolean data types and the query returned only 10 rows. <BR><BR>Do you still want to tell him that the performance will speed up significantly? Think about it.
If the query only returned 10 rows then it probably didn't take that long to begin with. Let's say 1 second. So, if cutting off those fields decreased it to .85 seconds then he's saving 15%. A 15% increase is significant. Wouldn't you want a 15% raise?
I'm not really arguing with you because of course cutting out irrelevant fields is good advice, but what if the query originally took 80 milliseconds and then got cut to 50? You might say that was significant to SQL Server, but to a user it would be invisible. <BR><BR>When you're talking about increasing the speed of the whole thing the most important aspects would be the number of joins and the size of the data being selected, not necesarily the number of fields. To even consider what "significant" would mean you have to consider these factors right?
I understand you aren't arguing and I'm quite fond of debating so I'm up for it. <BR><BR>I suppose it's how you look at it. The great thing about numbers is that you can always spin them. Example: Bill Clinton and GWB Both say *they* passed the biggest increase in education spending ever in a single year. They are *both* right, sort-of. Clinton passed the biggest percentage increase and GWB passed the biggest dollar increase. <BR><BR>The point is this: If you cut it from 80MS to 50MS then you're talking a SIGNIFICANT perecentage. I can argue that yes, it is significant and once your app reaches (real) critical mass it will make a noticible difference in server load. <BR><BR>I guess the point is "significant" is in the eye of the beholder. <BR><BR>