Grant Fritchey lays down the law on views:

One day, it’s going to happen. I’m going to hear some crazy theory about how SQL Server works and I’m going to literally explode. Instead of some long silly rant with oddball literary & pop culture references you’ll get a screed the size of Ulysses (and about as much fun to read). However, for the moment, like Robin Williams describing a dance move, I’m going to keep it all inside. Here’s our query:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SELECT soh.SalesOrderNumber,        sod.OrderQty,        sod.UnitPrice,        p.Name FROM Sales.SalesOrderHeader AS soh     JOIN Sales.SalesOrderDetail AS sod         ON sod.SalesOrderID = soh.SalesOrderID     JOIN Production.Product AS p         ON p.ProductID = sod.ProductID;

No, no where clause because we have to compare this to this, our view:

Grant used up much of his strategic reserve of GIFs in that post, so check it out.

Erik Darling notes that scalar functions can cause multi-table blocking:

Someone had tried to be clever. Looking at the code running, if you’ve been practicing SQL Server for a while, usually means one thing.

A Scalar Valued Function was running!

In this case, here’s what it looked like:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

CREATE OR ALTER FUNCTION dbo.BadIdea ( @uid INT ) RETURNS BIGINT WITH RETURNS NULL ON NULL INPUT, SCHEMABINDING AS     BEGIN         DECLARE @BCount BIGINT;         SELECT   @BCount = COUNT_BIG(*)         FROM     dbo.Badges AS b         WHERE    b.UserId = @uid         GROUP BY b.UserId;         RETURN @BCount;     END;

Someone had added that function as a computed column to the Users table:

Spoilers:  this was a bad idea.

Itzik Ben-Gan has started a series of articles on optimizing queries which use grouping and aggregating with a reverse-engineering of the stream aggregate algorithm:

As you may already know, when SQL Server optimizes a query, it evaluates multiple candidate plans, and eventually picks the one with the lowest estimated cost. The estimated plan cost is the sum of all the operators’ estimated costs. In turn, each operator’s estimated cost is the sum of the estimated I/O cost and estimated CPU cost. The cost unit is meaningless in its own right. Its relevance is in the comparison that the optimizer makes between candidate plans. That is, the costing formulas were designed with the goal that, between candidate plans, the one with the lowest cost will (hopefully) represent the one that will finish more quickly. A terribly complex task to do accurately!

The more the costing formulas adequately take into account the factors that truly affect the algorithm’s performance and scaling, the more accurate they are, and the more likely that given accurate cardinality estimates, the optimizer will choose the optimal plan. At any rate, if you want to understand why the optimizer chooses one algorithm versus another you need to understand two main things: one is how the algorithms work and scale, and another is SQL Server’s costing model.

So back to the plan in Figure 1; let’s try and understand how the costs are computed. As a policy, Microsoft will not reveal the internal costing formulas that they use. When I was a kid I was fascinated with taking things apart. Watches, radios, cassette tapes (yes, I’m that old), you name it. I wanted to know how things were made. Similarly, I see value in reverse engineering the formulas since if I manage to predict the cost reasonably accurately, it probably means that I understand the algorithm well. During the process you get to learn a lot.

Our query ingests 1,000,000 rows. Even with this number of rows, the I/O cost seems to be negligible compared to the CPU cost, so it is probably safe to ignore it.

As for the CPU cost, you want to try and figure out which factors affect it and in what way.

I give this my highest recommendation.