Question

What are the advantages of using the new LAG and LEAD functions in SQL Server 2012?
Is it simply a matter of easier to write ans simpler to debug queries or is there also a performance improvement?

This is important for me, since we require this type of functionality very often and I need to know if we should recommend an upgrade in the near future.
If it’s only easier queries, it wont be worth the hassle (and costs) of upgrading.

Answer 1

To demonstrate a difference in the execution plan, I’ve used the winning solution from Dave’s SQL Authority blog:

• Solution to Puzzle – Simulate LEAD() and LAG() without Using SQL Server 2012 Analytic Function

;WITH T1
AS (SELECT row_number() OVER (ORDER BY SalesOrderDetailID) N
         , s.SalesOrderID
         , s.SalesOrderDetailID
    FROM
        TempDB.dbo.LAG s
    WHERE
        SalesOrderID IN (20120303, 20120515, 20120824, 20121031))
SELECT SalesOrderID
     , SalesOrderDetailID AS CurrentSalesOrderDetailID
/*   , CASE
           WHEN N % 2 = 1 THEN
               max(CASE
                   WHEN N % 2 = 0 THEN
                       SalesOrderDetailID
               END) OVER (PARTITION BY (N + 1) / 2)
           ELSE
               max(CASE
                   WHEN N % 2 = 1 THEN
                       SalesOrderDetailID
               END) OVER (PARTITION BY N / 2)
       END LeadVal */
     , CASE
           WHEN N % 2 = 1 THEN
               max(CASE
                   WHEN N % 2 = 0 THEN
                       SalesOrderDetailID
               END) OVER (PARTITION BY N / 2)
           ELSE
               max(CASE
                   WHEN N % 2 = 1 THEN
                       SalesOrderDetailID
               END) OVER (PARTITION BY (N + 1) / 2)
       END PreviousSalesOrderDetailID
FROM
    T1
ORDER BY
    SalesOrderID
  , SalesOrderDetailID;



SELECT SalesOrderID
     , SalesOrderDetailID AS CurrentSalesOrderDetailID
     , LAG(SalesOrderDetailID, 1, 0) OVER (ORDER BY SalesOrderID, SalesOrderDetailID) AS PreviousSalesOrderDetailID
FROM TempDB.dbo.LAG
WHERE SalesOrderID  IN (20120303, 20120515, 20120824, 20121031);





Warning: Null value is eliminated by an aggregate or other SET operation.

(10204 row(s) affected)
Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 6, logical reads 81638, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LAG'. Scan count 4, logical reads 48, 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 = 297 ms,  elapsed time = 332 ms.

--- versus ---

(10204 row(s) affected)
Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LAG'. Scan count 4, logical reads 48, 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 = 78 ms,  elapsed time = 113 ms.

Next to being way more elegant, it consumes much less resources.

Here’s the comparison of graphical execution plans:

Execution plans show one clear winner in this specific case.
Dave’s page has many possible different ways to get LEAD/LAG functionality. Maybe some of them would beat the SQL Server’s internal solution. Or, maybe not.