We’re seeing a huge difference between these queries.
The slow query
SELECT MIN(col) AS Firstdate, MAX(col) AS Lastdate
FROM table WHERE status = 'OK' AND fk = 4193
Table ‘table’. Scan count 2, logical reads 2458969, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 1966 ms, elapsed time = 1955 ms.
The fast query
SELECT count(*), MIN(col) AS Firstdate, MAX(col) AS Lastdate
FROM table WHERE status = 'OK' AND fk = 4193
Table ‘table’. Scan count 1, logical reads 5803, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 9 ms.
Question
What is the reason between the huge performance difference between the queries?
Update
A little update based on questions given as comments:
The order of execution or repeated execution changes nothing performance wise.
There are no extra parameters used and the (test)database is not doing anything else during execution.
Slow query
|--Nested Loops(Inner Join)
|--Stream Aggregate(DEFINE:([Expr1003]=MIN([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[startdate])))
| |--Top(TOP EXPRESSION:((1)))
| |--Nested Loops(Inner Join, OUTER REFERENCES:([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[id], [Expr1008]) WITH ORDERED PREFETCH)
| |--Index Scan(OBJECT:([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[startdate]), ORDERED FORWARD)
| |--Clustered Index Seek(OBJECT:([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[PK_table]), SEEK:([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[id]=[DBTest].[dbo].[table].[id]), WHERE:([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[FK]=(5806) AND [DBTest].[dbo].[table].[status]<>'A') LOOKUP ORDERED FORWARD)
|--Stream Aggregate(DEFINE:([Expr1004]=MAX([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[startdate])))
|--Top(TOP EXPRESSION:((1)))
|--Nested Loops(Inner Join, OUTER REFERENCES:([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[id], [Expr1009]) WITH ORDERED PREFETCH)
|--Index Scan(OBJECT:([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[startdate]), ORDERED BACKWARD)
|--Clustered Index Seek(OBJECT:([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[PK_table]), SEEK:([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[id]=[DBTest].[dbo].[table].[id]), WHERE:([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[FK]=(5806) AND [DBTest].[dbo].[table].[status]<>'A') LOOKUP ORDERED FORWARD)
Fast query
|--Compute Scalar(DEFINE:([Expr1003]=CONVERT_IMPLICIT(int,[Expr1012],0)))
|--Stream Aggregate(DEFINE:([Expr1012]=Count(*), [Expr1004]=MIN([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[startdate]), [Expr1005]=MAX([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[startdate])))
|--Nested Loops(Inner Join, OUTER REFERENCES:([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[id], [Expr1011]) WITH UNORDERED PREFETCH)
|--Index Seek(OBJECT:([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[FK]), SEEK:([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[FK]=(5806)) ORDERED FORWARD)
|--Clustered Index Seek(OBJECT:([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[PK_table]), SEEK:([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[id]=[DBTest].[dbo].[table].[id]), WHERE:([DBTest].[dbo].[table].[status]<'A' OR [DBTest].[dbo].[table].[status]>'A') LOOKUP ORDERED FORWARD)

Answer
The answer given below by Martin Smith seems to explain the problem. The super short version is that the MS-SQL query-analyser wrongly uses a query plan in the slow query which causes a complete table scan.
Adding a Count(*), the query hint with(FORCESCAN) or a combined index on the startdate,FK and status columns fixes the performance issue.
The SQL Server cardinality estimator makes various modelling assumptions such as
There are 810,064 rows in the table.
You have the query
1,893 (0.23%) rows meet the
fk = 4193predicate, and of those two fail thestatus <> 'A'part so overall 1,891 match and need to be aggregated.You also have two indexes neither of which cover the whole query.
For your fast query it uses an index on
fkto directly find rows wherefk = 4193then needs to do 1,893 key lookups to find each row in the clustered index to check thestatuspredicate and retrieve thestartdatefor aggregation.When you remove the
COUNT(*)from theSELECTlist SQL Server no longer has to process every qualifying row. As a result it considers another option.You have an index on
startdateso it could start scanning that from the beginning, doing key lookups back to the base table and as soon as it finds the first matching row stop as it has found theMIN(startdate), Similarly theMAXcan be found with another scan starting the other end of the index and working backwards.SQL Server estimates that each of these scans will end up processing 590 rows before they hit upon one that matches the predicate. Giving 1,180 total lookups vs 1,893 so it chooses this plan.
The 590 figure is just
table_size / estimated_number_of_rows_that_match. i.e. the cardinality estimator assumes that the matching rows will be evenly distributed throughout the table.Unfortunately the 1,891 rows that meet the predicate are not randomly distributed with respect to
startdate. In fact they are all condensed into a single 8,205 row segment towards the end of the index meaning that the scan to get to theMIN(startdate)ends up doing 801,859 key lookups before it can stop.This can be reproduced below.
You could consider using query hints to force the plan to use the index on
fkrather thanstartdateor add the suggested missing index highlighted in the execution plan on(fk,status) INCLUDE (startdate)to avoid this issue.