Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 124155
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 11, 20262026-05-11T04:24:02+00:00 2026-05-11T04:24:02+00:00

Consider the following SQL Server 2005/2008 query: Select [UID], [DESC] From SomeTable Order By

  • 0

Consider the following SQL Server 2005/2008 query:

Select [UID], [DESC] From SomeTable Order By [Desc]; 

If Desc is a fairly long field (Varchar(125) with many entries > 70 chars) and you don’t need a strict sorting, would it would be more efficient to do this:

Select [UID], [DESC] From SomeTable Order By Substring([Desc], 0, 20); 

The advantage is that all comparisons are pretty short (20 characters, max). The disadvantage is that it incurs the Substring call. For present purposes, assume that you don’t want to put an index on this field as this is not a primary key and the above is a fairly rare operation. Which option would you choose?

Note 2: I’m asking mostly out of curiosity here. In my application, Desc is an indexed field and I am not using Substring. However, I briefly considered using Substring and it occurred to me that I didn’t truly know which of the above approaches would be more efficient.

Finaly, a bonus question: is it true that using Substring on an Indexed field would make the optimizer skip the index and really slow things down? I don’t think the optimizer is smart enough to use the Index if Substring is used (even with a zero base) but I am a bit too busy to test it out right now. However, if you know differently, please correct me!

Update/clarification: you should be assuming that the Desc field is not indexed for purposes of the original question. If it is indexed, the answer is pretty easy.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. 2026-05-11T04:24:03+00:00Added an answer on May 11, 2026 at 4:24 am

    Use of a non-clustered index implies an implicit JOIN.

    The index itself does not contain the non-indexed values, it contains only references to the TABLE‘s blocks.

    To get the non-indexed values, you need to scan over the index and read from these blocks in a nested loop.

    As a rule of thumb, INDEX SCAN WITH TABLE LOOKUP is about 10 times as costly as the TABLE SCAN.

    If you need all the results of an ordered query, especially as a part or a more complex query implying the nested loops, it’s sometimes more efficient to perform a TABLE SCAN and sort the results.

    Table needs to be sorted only once and results of the sort will be kept and reused. In this case, SUBSTRING may be more efficient.

    If you need 5% of ordered results or less, then the INDEX SCAN will be more efficient, in this case you need to sort on the whole column.

    Also, index lookup is always more responsive, as you get the first rows faster.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I am using MSSQL 2005 Server and I have the following SQL query. IF
Consider the following code: Dim sql = SELECT * FROM MyTable WHERE value1 =
Consider the following 2 queries: select tblA.a,tblA.b,tblA.c,tblA.d from tblA where tblA.a not in (select
My question is similar to Upgrading SQL Server 2000 to 2005 or 2008 -
Consider the following queries. select * from contact where firstname like '%some%' select *
Consider the following SQL: BEGIN TRAN SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTED INSERT Bands
Howdy. Consider the following: SQL> DECLARE 2 b1 BOOLEAN; 3 b2 BOOLEAN; 4 FUNCTION
Consider following example : public class SomeBusinessLayerService : DataService<MyEntityContainer> { [WebInvoke] void DoSomething(string someParam)
Consider following class class test { public: test(int x){ cout<< test \n; } };
Consider the following setup: A windows PC with a LAN interface and a WiFi

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.