Automatic Sample Sizes for Statistics Updates

I mentioned in my previous post about manually updating statistics that you can specify whether they’re updated using a full scan, or you can specify an amount of data to sample, either a percentage of the table size, or a fixed number of rows. You can also choose not to specify this, and SQL Server will decide for you whether to do a full scan, or to sample a certain amount of data.

I thought it would be interesting to look at what the sample sizes are that SQL will choose to use, depending on the amount of data in your table. Note that this occurs if you update statistics without specifying how they should be sampled as below:

UPDATE STATISTICS dbo.Test _WA_Sys_00000002_3AD6B8E2;

This is also the behaviour you will get when SQL updates statistics through the auto-stats mechanism. The fact that auto-stats may sample at a lower rate than is optimal for a given table and the queries against it is another reason you may choose to perform manual statistics updates.

To test this, I created a table and progressively pumped data in. Then after I inserted each batch of rows:

  • I Ran a stats update capturing the CPU time taken
  • Checked the statistics to see what sample size was used in the update
  • Checked the size of the index

Here’s some of the code I used for the test:

--Drop table if exists

--Create table for Testing
   TextValue VARCHAR(20) NULL

--Create index on TextValue
CREATE INDEX IX_Test_TextValue ON dbo.Test(TextValue);

--Insert a bunch of rows
INSERT INTO dbo.Test(TEXTValue) 
SELECT TOP 100000 'blah'
FROM sys.objects a, sys.objects b, sys.objects c, sys.objects d;  

--Update statistics without specifying how many rows to sample
UPDATE STATISTICS dbo.Test IX_Test_TextValue;

--View the statistics

--Check the size of the index
SELECT                  AS IndexName,
    SUM(s.used_page_count)   AS Pages
FROM sys.dm_db_partition_stats  AS s 
JOIN sys.indexes                AS i
ON s.[object_id] = i.[object_id] AND s.index_id = i.index_id
WHERE = 'IX_Test_TextValue'


The results of my testing are shown in the below table:


You can see that we have a full sample being taken for the statistics updates up to 4000,000 records (896 pages) but that once the table size hits 500,000 sampling is happening. If you look at the number of pages you will see we now have over 1,000 pages, 1000 pages being about 8MB of data, which is the threshold that sampling kicks in.

I wasn’t able to find a nice neat formula to determine the sampling rate based on table size, but if we look at the above figures there are still some insights to be gained. The main one is that you’ll notice that even as we double the table size, the number of rows sampled doesn’t go up by much. For instance from 500,000 to a million rows, only 10,000 more rows are sampled. This also means that even for pretty large tables, the update isn’t taking long – another reason why it’s worth leaving auto stats updates enabled and running synchronously with queries – they’re generally not going to take that long.

Another insight is that the percentage of rows sampled drops off very quickly. As the sample size doesn’t really increase that much even when the table size doubles – the percentage sampled has almost halved each time.

How to be a bad interviewer


In the monthly SQL blogging party that is T-SQL Tuesday (brainchild of Adam Machanic), Kendra Little has invited us this month to talk about interview patterns/anti-patterns.

Before my current role which I’ve been in for just over 5 years, I spent most of my career as a contractor, performing shorter roles that lasted from 2 weeks to 2 years. As such I was frequently interviewing several times a year and I’ve often sat on the other side if the table as well.

In my experience it’s been far more often to find bad, arrogant or disrespectful interviewers than the other way round. My biggest advice to candidates is to know your worth, realise that the interview process is as much for you to find out whether this is going to be a decent place to work as the other way round.

You’re not obligated to accept a job once it’s offered, and if you’ve had to put up with a lot of rubbish during the application process then seriously consider if it’s just going to get worse once you’re in the role.

As an employer, you want the best people, particularly in IT where people are the company’s biggest asset. You need to make sure that your recruitment process is not just about assessing the candidates, but also showing them that your company is going to be a great place to work.

If you do want to put people off then here’s some of the interviewer “anti-patterns” I’ve experienced over my career that made me ask the question “Would I really want to work at this place?”

Maybe hitting one or two is okay, but beyond that you need to consider your self respect.

Expecting a candidate to fill in a lengthy application form

What’s wrong with a CV? Why is your company so special that I need to sit there for hours with some awful form in Word? You know what? I don’t think I’m that bothered.

Not responding to my application

I sent you my CV and you didn’t even acknowledge it. Or you did and said I’d hear whether I’d been selected by next week, a month and a half passes and then suddenly you decide you want to interview me. You know what, I’ve probably already found something else and even if I haven’t you’re not coming across as massively competent.

Turning up late for the interview

I’ve taken time out of my busy schedule to come see you guys. I arrive at the interview on time – actually I make sure I’m early – but you keep me waiting half an hour. Obviously your time is more important than mine. Okay there may have been a crisis you had to deal with, or is it just chaos all the time? Not sure I’m getting inspired to work here. Oh, and how would you have reacted if I was that late?

Prove how much better than the candidate you are by asking overly specific questions that few people know the answer to

You get your technical boffin in to review my technical skills, but rather than trying to find out what I know they ask me the most specific esoteric technical questions possible – “What sampling algorithm does SQL use when updating statistics?” Clearly their main interest is in trying to prove they know more than me. Is the rest of the team like this? Not sure I want to work with them. You know what, we all know different things and no-one knows everything. How about discussing some technical scenarios and seeing what I come up with.

Asking standard/stupid questions

“What’s my biggest weakness?” No-one is going to tell you they’re a lazy alcoholic. Of course we’re all perfectionist workaholics. All you learn from asking this sort of question is whether someone has learnt the standard answers. It’s just wasting everyone’s time.

Requiring visit after visit for subsequent interviews and tests

You got me in for technical test, then you asked me to come back for an interview. Then come back again for an interview with HR, then yet again to meet a member of the senior management team. Why couldn’t you at least do it all on one day? Apart from the fact that my time is precious too, by the time we get to the end of this long drawn out process I’ve already found a better job.

Expecting candidate to provide free work

Before the interview you’d like me to prove my technical skills by creating some functionality for you. I’ll just need to give up my weekend to do this free work for you. I’m not even got the job yet and you want me to do unpaid overtime. Goodbye!

Not giving a response or feedback when you said you would

We had the interview on Monday and you said I’d hear either way by the end of Wednesday. It’s Friday now and I’ve had no response. Once again you’re not inspiring me to believe this is going to be a great place to work when you don’t honour your basic promises.

This last one is a bit specific, but it did happen to me…

Give someone a C# test when they come for a SQL job, and then when challenged on it insist that they attempt it anyway as you think “it will still have some value.”

I’m ashamed to this day that I didn’t just walk out at that point!


Manually updating Statistics

Even though SQL Server automatically updates statistics in the background for you, you may find there are times when you want to manage updating them yourself.

  • You may have large tables and find that the interval between the automatic updates is too big and is resulting in sub-optimal query plans.
  • You might need timely updates to a specific object – maybe as part of an ETL process to make sure that statistics are up to date after a particular part of the process, perhaps after a daily load into a table.
  • You may find that the automatic updates look at too small a sample size and you need to scan more of the table to enable accurate estimates for your queries.

My previous post on the Ascending Key problem demonstrated a common issue where the first of these scenarios could be affecting you. We’ll look at examples of the other scenarios in subsequent posts.

For now though, let’s just look at how you go about updating statistics.


At the heart of all the methods we’ll look at is the UPDATE STATISTICS command. There are a lot of options for using this command, but we’ll just focus on the ones you’re most likely to use. For full documentation here is the official reference:

You can use this at the table level in which case all statistics objects belonging to that table will be updated:


Or you can specify the specific statistics object you want to update:

UPDATE STATISTICS dbo.Test _WA_Sys_00000002_3AD6B8E2;


The other thing you may be likely to want to specify is whether the statistics should be updated using a full scan of the table, or just be looking at a sample of the rows. In the above examples we didn’t specify this so SQL Server will decide for us. In general sampling (as opposed to full scans) kicks in when we have about 8MB of data in the table (or about 1000 pages).

If you want to specify a full scan the syntax is as follows:



If you want the statistics update to use sampling (more on how this works in subsequent posts) then you can choose to specify a percentage of the total table to be sampled:



Or you can specify a fixed number of rows:

UPDATE STATISTICS dbo.Test _WA_Sys_00000002_3AD6B8E2 WITH SAMPLE 10000 ROWS;


You might want to use a sample as once your tables get large full scans can take a little time. Equally though if you’re updating statistics in a quieter time (e.g. overnight) you may feel you can afford the extra time for the full scans. Here’s some comparison figures I produced on my local machine showing how long full scans take. Obviously this will change depending on your hardware and other factors including how much of the table is already in memory:


You can see however that the time taken pretty much scales linearly as the table size increases.

One thing to be aware of is parallelism. A full scan can run as a parallel operation on your server which can speed it up considerably. When you update statistics using a sample however this can only run single-threaded unless you’re on SQL Server 2016 (or higher). Sampling data to build statistics in parallel was one of the many excellent little improvements in 2016.


This is another method you might use for manually updating statistics (perhaps as part of a scheduled maintenance job). This system stored procedure can be used for updating all of the statistics objects in a database:

USE Test;
EXEC sp_UpdateStats;

This stored procedure iterates through your database using a WHILE loop and executes the UPDATE STATISTICS command as it goes. One nifty thing about using this procedure is that it only updates statistics objects where rows have changed, so you don’t have any overhead for refreshing statistics where the underlying data hasn’t been modified. You can see this from this extract of the output of the stored procedure:

Updating [dbo].[TestMemory]
[PK__TestMemo__3214EC070D799003], update is not necessary…
0 index(es)/statistic(s) have been updated, 1 did not require update.

Updating [dbo].[TestMemory2]
[PK__TestMemo__3214EC07D3DC52DE], update is not necessary…
0 index(es)/statistic(s) have been updated, 1 did not require update.

Updating [dbo].[Test]
[PK_Test] has been updated…
[IX_Test_TextValue] has been updated…
2 index(es)/statistic(s) have been updated, 0 did not require update.


Ola Hallengren

Of course, if you’re looking to implement statistics update as part of regular maintenance, then you should definitely be considering using Ola Hallengren’s maintenance solution. Ola maintains a great solution for managing database backups and integrity checks as well index and statistics maintenance, and he shares it with the SQL community for free.

You can find full details of Ola’s solution and download it here:

Statistics and the Ascending Key Problem

I’ve mentioned previously how not having up to date statistics can cause problems in query performance. This post looks at something called the Ascending Key Problem which can badly affect your cardinality estimation in some cases and therefore your execution plans.

The Ascending Key Problem relates to the most recently inserted data in your table which is therefore also the data that may not have been sampled and included in the statistics histograms. This sort of issue is one of the reasons it can be critical to update your statistics more regularly than the built-in automatic thresholds.

We’ll look at the problem itself, but also some of the mitigations that you can take to deal with it within SQL Server.

The Problem

Imagine you have a table that stores a set of events. As new records are inserted they get stamped with the current date and time. You regularly query that table based on that EventDate looking to find recent events, let’s say just for the current day.

Even if you haven’t indexed the EventDate column (though why haven’t you?!), as long as you have AUTO CREATE STATISTICS and AUTO UPDATE STATISTICS on for your database you’ll have “reasonably” up to date statistics for that column.

But “reasonably” may not be good enough. When you’re querying against the most recent data it may not yet have been sampled by a statistics update and the range you are looking for may fall beyond the top of the histogram captured in the statistics object for EventDate. Imagine that statistics were last updated yesterday. When the Optimizer checks the statistics to estimate a rowcount for today’s date it finds that is above the top bound. So what should it guess?

Historically it would guess that there were zero rows, but as always the cardinality estimation gets set to the minimum of 1. If the real answer is a lot larger you might end up with a bad plan.

Let’s look at that in practice.

Staying true to the example above, I create a table called Events and I index the EventDate column:

EventName VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,

CREATE INDEX IX_Events_EventDate ON dbo.Events(EventDate) include (EventName);

Then I insert records to represent events at one minute intervals for 100 days:

--Insert data for 100 days at minute intervals from the start of this year
DECLARE @StartDate DATETIME = '20170101 00:00.00';

INSERT INTO dbo.Events(EventName, EventDate)
    'Event' + CAST(num.n AS VARCHAR(10)),
    SELECT TOP 144000 row_number() OVER(ORDER BY (SELECT NULL)) AS n 
    FROM sys.objects a, sys.objects b, sys.objects c
) num;

I’m going to query to check what date range was inserted. That should have the additional advantage of triggering a statistics update:

SELECT MIN(EventDate), MAX(EventDate)
FROM dbo.Events;


As a slight digression, it’s interesting to look at the execution plan here:


You can see two index scans. That sounds horrendous, scan the index twice to find the MIN and MAX? If you look at the properties though you can see it only read one row in each case:


An index scan doesn’t have to read all the records in the index, it can bail out once it is satisfied. For a MIN or MAX type query it makes perfect sense just to jump to one end of the index and start scanning.

The side lesson is that Scans aren’t always bad for performance.

Anyway, back to the topic in hand. Now let’s look at the statistics:

DBCC SHOW_STATISTICS('dbo.Events',IX_Events_EventDate);


You can see they’re up to date. They show 144,000 rows in total which is correct. Interestingly the Histogram (bottom result-set) only has a couple of steps. SQL has determined that the data is uniformly distributed so has bunched it altogether. Clever stuff!

Let’s insert data for another day:

--Insert one more day's data

SELECT @StartDate = MAX(EventDate) FROM dbo.Events;

INSERT INTO dbo.Events(EventName, EventDate)
    'Event' + CAST(num.n AS VARCHAR(10)),
    SELECT TOP 1440 row_number() OVER(ORDER BY (SELECT NULL)) AS n 
    FROM sys.objects a, sys.objects b, sys.objects c
) num;

Now I query to see the new events. I captured the MAX(EventDate) earlier so let’s use that to find the new records:

FROM dbo.Events
WHERE EventDate > '20170411'

(Notice I’ve added the option to recompile so I get a fresh plan each time I run this, that will be important for testing)

Let’s not bother with the results, we all know there will 1,440 records that are basically the same. Here’s the execution plan:


The interesting bit comes when I look at the properties for the Index Seek:


Estimated number of rows = 1, Actual = 1,440. That’s quite a long way out. Of course here we have a trivial query so the massive underestimate isn’t affecting our plan. If we started joining to other tables though it would likely result in a massively inefficient plan – perhaps choosing a Nested Loops join over a Hash or Merge.

Note I’m using SQL Server 2012 for this test and I’m not using the Traceflag (2371) which reduces the threshold for statistics updates ( When do Distribution Statistics Get Updated? ):

So I’ve got nearly another 30,000 rows to insert before statistics get automatically updated and my estimates come into line. If I’m always querying for the current day then it’s going to be very rare that statistics are going to be able to help me with a good estimate.

So what’s the fix?

Before we get on to the methods that have been introduced to try and ameliorate this problem, if you face this sort of scenario you might want to consider whether you need to update your statistics objects more often than the auto-stats threshold. If you have a regular job to rebuild fragmented indexes then those indexes that get rebuilt will have their statistics refreshed – however that won’t cover the auto created statistics, and it won’t cover statistics for tables that get don’t get rebuilt.

So, if you don’t have a specific scheduled job to regularly update statistics that is definitely worth considering.

In terms of how SQL has changed to help us, from SQL Server 2005 SP1, the nature of columns began to be tracked, monitoring updates of statistics to understand how the data changes. This additional information can be seen if you enable traceflag 2388, then view the statistics. Let’s have a look at what’s gathered. First I’m going to add a couple more days of data, updating the statistics between each insert, then I run the following:

DBCC SHOW_STATISTICS('dbo.Events',IX_Events_EventDate);


What you see here is historical information about the updates to the statistics. This is undocumented stuff, but some of what we see we can work out the meaning for. In particular we can see how many rows were inserted since the last statistics update, and how many of those values were above the top of the old histogram. We also see a column “Leading Column Type” which has a value of “Unknown”.

Now I’m going to insert another day’s date and update the statistics once more, then we’ll look at this again:


You can see that now we have a Leading Column Type of “Ascending”. After three updates to the statistics where the Leading Value was only increasing each time, SQL Server will identify that it is an ascending column. It must be at least three updates before SQL will recognise this, and if that stops being the case (i.e. some lower values are inserted) then the next statistics update will reset this until we again get three consecutive updates with only increasing values.

This happens in the background and you don’t need the traceflag 2388 to make it happen –that is just so you can see what is going on.

The obvious question is, now SQL knows my column is ascending, has that affected the estimation for my query? Before we look I’ll insert another day of data so there is some data beyond the histogram, and then I’ll query again:

FROM dbo.Events
WHERE EventDate > '20170415'

And the properties from the execution plan:


So nope. Nothing has changed.


To tell the query optimizer to take advantage of this extra information for ascending keys we have traceflag 2389. Let’s enable that and run the query again:


FROM dbo.Events
WHERE EventDate > '20170415'

The properties:


Voila! SQL Server has now estimated my rowcount perfectly.

Now, be warned. This is a rather contrived example with a perfectly and artificially smooth distribution of data. The estimate is made by checking the current maximum value in the table, and using that combined with the information existing in the statistics and the value of your predicate to extrapolate a guess. If you’re data is evenly distributed as it is here then the guess will be pretty good, if it is fairly skewed then it may be bad.

In any case though it will probably be better that the fixed value of 1 that would have been used historically.

One thing to note is that traceflag 2389 is only going to have any affect if the leading column of the relevant statistics object has been marked as ascending. There is also traceflag 2390, and this will adopt a similar behaviour even if your column hasn’t been identified as ascending, i.e. it will check the maximum value in the table and if it is higher than the max value in the histogram, it will extrapolate to work out the cardinality estimate.

So should you turn on the traceflag(s) globally?

The Microsoft recommendation is not to enable traceflags such as these unless you are suffering from the specific problem they are aiming to resolve, and even then to make sure you test carefully to ensure they are achieving what you desire.

One issue can be that in more complex queries there are a number of cardinality estimates being made. It can be that two bad estimates within the same plan might cancel each other out and the query overall performs fine. If you then implement something that fixes one of them, you risk such queries going bad – a scenario known as plan regression.

This sort of scenario is one of the reasons why Microsoft have made very few core changes to the cardinality estimator since it came out.

So, use 2389 is you are specifically encountering this sort of ascending key problem, but also, if you are in the position to change the code then you might want to consider adding it as a query hint so it only affects the specific query you are targeting. For our example query above, that would simply look like:

FROM dbo.Events
WHERE EventDate > '20170415'

Welcome to SQL Server 2014 (and later)

In 2014 we received a substantial revamp of the Cardinality Estimator, the first since SQL Server 7.0. A bunch of assumptions and algorithms have been re-jigged based on the real-world data that Microsoft have seen in supporting their wide customer base.

Key to having a new version was the concept that, henceforth, optimizer fixes would be tied to the database compatibility version. This means that customers can upgrade their SQL Server version but if they find performance problems related to the upgrade they can downgrade their database’s compatibility level while the issues are resolved within their codebase.

One of the items specifically looked at in the new version was this Ascending Key problem. To see how things work in the latest versions I’m going to repeat many of the steps above using a database deployed on SQL Server 2016.

So I:

  • Create my table again
  • Populate with the 100 days data
  • Run a query to check the dates, which has the added benefit of updating statistics
  • Add one more day’s data

Then I’m ready to run my test query again:

FROM dbo.Events
WHERE EventDate > '20170411'

I get the same execution plan as ever so again I jump to the properties of the Index Seek operator to look at the estimates:


Now, this is interesting. I might have expected I would get either 1 row estimated (the old model) or 1,440 (the model with traceflag 2389). Instead I get 432 rows. It seems the new CE (Cardinality Estimator) uses a different algorithm.

Sometimes numbers stick in your head. I happen to know that where no statistics are available and you are querying with an inequality predicate (<, > , <=, >=) that the CE will estimate the number of rows to be 30% of the total number of rows in the table. This assumption seems to have originated in a 1979 research paper from IBM suggesting 1/3 was a good guess.

With 30% in my head I noticed that 432 is 30% of 1440. So it seems that the optimizer is recognising that we are querying for values above the histogram (where no statistics exist) with an inequality, it knows from somewhere that there have been 1440 rows inserted since the last statistics update, so it takes 30% of 1440 to produce the estimate (432).

To try validate that theory I thought I’d query with a later datetime in the predicate. Sure enough, if I add 12 hours I still get 432 rows estimated. If I add 23 hours, 432 rows. In fact if I query for any date in the future, even outside of the maximum value in the table, guess what – I get an estimate of 432 rows.

I have a fascination for the algorithms involved in distribution statistics. It satisfies the maths geek in me. As such it’s difficult to end a post like this, there’s always more things to test, to try and work out. For instance what happens if you query across an interval that starts within the current histogram, but then extends above it? I’ll admit I’ve had a play, but will leave that for another post.

As a very final point in this post, I thought I’d just check whether the 2389 traceflag makes any difference to this estimation with the 2014 CE. I’ll change my query to look way into the future, enable the traceflag and look at the estimate:

FROM dbo.Events
WHERE EventDate > '99991231 23:59:59'

Guess what? Still 432 rows… so no, the traceflag doesn’t appear to still give us any extra benefit.
Though when we get to that date it’ll be someone else’s problem to sort out!

SQL Server Agent and Daylight Saving time

There was a bit of chat today on the SQL Community slack about UTC and Daylight Saving Time. It reminded me I have a post in draft somewhere about the complications of dealing with timezones in SQL that I should get around to finishing.

It also reminded me of a fact I found in an old Paul Randall post from 2007 that not a lot of people seem to know so I thought it was worth sharing again.

I discovered it when I was working on a kind of hand-cranked version of log shipping with a twist for SQL Server. Before you ask me why… don’t! I promise it was for a good reason. At least it seemed like a good idea at the time…

Anyway, I was aware that I needed to work out what I was going to do when the clocks go back in October of each year.

I decided to try and find out what the out of the box log shipping does to cater for this. I started with Google and came across this 2007 article by Paul Randall:

How does daylight savings time affect disaster recovery? – Paul S. Randal

Apparently SQL Server Agent pauses for an hour after the clocks go back. In the UK the clocks go back at 2 AM on the last Sunday in October. So all the times from 1 AM to 2 AM effectively happen twice. SQL Server Agent will run jobs from 1 AM to 2 AM as usual, then when at 2 AM the clocks go back to 1 AM, SQL Agent will pause for an hour (i.e. no new jobs will be started) and only resume the second time it gets to 2 AM.

Sounds a bit crazy in some ways, but I tend to believe most things Paul Randall says and it does seem to have been proved since in practice.

It means that you don’t get a confusing sequence of times in your job history and other events that don’t really make sense, and it also means that jobs won’t happen twice e.g. if you had an index rebuild in that time.

It could have issues for DR though, imagine that this period is actually an active one for your application and that you have an RPO (recovery point objective) of a maximum of (let’s say) 5 minutes data loss. During that hour, no LOG backups are being taken. Suddenly you’re vulnerable to not being able to meet your DR service agreement. Could be something to watch out for.

For me though (at the time I learnt this) it was great as I didn’t need to worry about coding a workaround in my log restore code!


SQL Puzzle 2: Eight Queens

This puzzle was first proposed in 1848 by a composer of chess puzzles called Max Bezzel and has since spawned much analysis and many variants. Simply phrased, it goes as follows:

“Can you place 8 queen’s on a standard (8×8) chessboard so that no two queen’s threaten each other?”

(Just in case, I’ll remind you a queen can move and attack any number of squares in a straight line –  horizontally, vertically, or diagonally)

Here’s one example solution:


By all means have some fun trying to find extra solutions to this with pencil and paper or chessboard, however we do have computers (and SQL!) these days, so this month’s challenge is to try find ALL the possible solutions to this puzzle using T-SQL.

I’m a bit of a closet chess enthusiast, so expect more in this theme!

Enjoy 🙂

Think twice before using table variables

T-SQL Tuesday


For T-SQL Tuesday this month Raul Gonzalez has asked us all to blog about lessons learnt the hard way:

My biggest sins have been executing code against production environments when I thought I was pointing at my local machine:


I’ve learned from those experiences – mostly that I prefer it when I don’t have access to production!

As I’ve been doing a few posts about Statistics and Cardinality estimation recently I thought I’d cover instead the subject of Table Variables. This has maybe already been blogged to death, but it’s still one of the most common anti-patterns I see when performance tuning and a lesson I have seen so many people forced learn the hard way.

Table Variables vs Temp Tables

Those experienced with programming SQL will be familiar with both Temp Tables, and Table Variables as ways of storing intermediate resultsets within (for instance) a stored procedure.

Table variables came along with SQL Server 2000 and there seems to have been a wave of belief arriving with them that they were the latest and greatest thing. That Microsoft wanted us to use them from now on and stop using Temp tables. The day of the Temp table was over, long live the Table Variable!

Many developers reworked their code to replace all their temp tables with variables.


Initial guidance from Microsoft recommended table variables as the default except “where  there is a significant volume of data and there is repeated use of the table”—sql-server-2000—table-variables

They did however stress that you should test for any given scenario.

More recently they’ve updated their documentation to suggest “you should be cautious about using a table variable if you expect a larger number of rows (greater than 100).”

I often hear even more cautious advice:

  • Only use a variable if there will be less than 30 rows
  • Only use a variable where there will only be 1 row
  • Never use table variables! (unless you have to)

I tend to go with one of the last two, there any many more examples where a table variable can screw up your performance than there are with temp tables.

 There are times though where you still might want to use a table variable. They can be a little easier to work with, and sometime they might offer functionality you need (such as returning results from a table value function).

Just to clear up one misconception, both types of object are stored in TempDB and both of them will be mostly operative in memory rather than writing their data to disk (unless there are memory pressures, or bad estimates cause them to spill to disk). Even this is a bit more complicated than that, but in general they are managed the same way in the background.

What’s the big difference?

The big difference, and the reason you often don’t want to use a table variable is about statistics and cardinality estimation (which we’ve been looking at in the last few posts). In brief recap – statistics are what SQL uses to estimate how many rows (the cardinality) will be generated during part of a query operation. If it gets this estimation about right it can use that to form a good plan of attack for executing the query. If it gets it wrong it can make a dogs dinner of it.

And here’s the thing. Temp tables have statistics generated on them, but Table Variables don’t. As far as SQL’s concerned your table variable has exactly one row in it – regardless of reality.

Caveat: The way Temp tables manage statistics is a little bit weird, so you can get unpredictable result sometimes – but at least they try! See this if you want a really deep dive on the subject:

Page Free Space : Temporary Tables in Stored Procedures

Anyway, let’s look at a quick couple of examples of this and how it can make things go wrong.

Example 1: Getting that estimation badly wrong

First of all just to prove the point. Let’s create a table variable and a temp table and dump a million rows into each so we can look at how SQL manages estimates from them.

Table variable first:

--Create a million rows
WITH Nums(i) AS
       SELECT 1
       FROM (VALUES (1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1)) n(i)
FROM Nums n1 

I clicked the button in SSMS to capture the actual execution plan for this so we can see what is going on under the covers. I’m only interested in the final SELECT statement, which produces the pretty basic plan:


What I’m really interested in though is the properties of the Table Scan, which you can get by right-clicking and selecting Properties – or just hover over to get the Tool Tip you see below:


Look at where it says “Number of Rows Read” and “Actual Number of Rows” and you’ll see 1,000,000. Then look down to the Estimated Number of Rows and you’ll see 1. That’s quite a big difference.

Just to prove this is because we’re using a table variable, let’s quickly look at the same example with a temp table:

-- Create a million rows
WITH Nums(i) AS
       SELECT 1
       FROM (VALUES (1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1),(1)) n(i)
FROM Nums n1 

Here again’s the plan for the select, you’ll see it’s exactly the same:


But look at the values in the Tool Tip this time:


Now you’ll see all the values for number of rows are 1,000,000 – including the estimated number or rows which is very important as that’s the one SQL uses to work out what execution plan to use.

So that example was just to show how badly wrong the estimation is, but it probably didn’t hurt us that much as SQL selected the same plan in both cases. Let’s look at an example where it does bring some pain.


Example 2: Selecting a dodgy execution plan

The following query uses the AdventureWorks2012 database:

INSERT INTO @BusinessEntityId
SELECT BusinessEntityID FROM Person.Person;
FROM @BusinessEntityId b
INNER JOIN Person.Person p
       ON b.BusinessEntityID = p.BusinessEntityID;

Now let’s look at the execution plan for that final select:


Nothing that’s too obviously controversial. It’s doing a Clustered Index scan on our Table Variable which is fine as we want all the rows that match a value in there. Then it’s doing an index seek on the Person table so it’s going straight to the results we want. Great!

Or Not…

Let’s look at the Tool Tips again, first for the Clustered Index Scan:


We focus on the same entries of before. Actual number of rows 19,772. Estimated number of Rows 1. Bit of a discrepancy. Is that affecting our plan though? All we can be sure of at this stage is that SQL thinks that’s a pretty good plan if we only had one row in the table variable. But we have a lot more than that.

Let’s look at the Tool Tip for the Clustered Index Seek:


We can look at the same entries as before and we see the same discrepancy. But also look at the Number of Executions – SQL estimates it would have to execute this operator once as it thinks there’s exactly one row in the table variable. In actuality it executed it 19,772 times. That’s 19,772 seeks on the same table. I happen to know that’s the same as the number of records in the table. Surely there’s a better way of doing this.

In general the Nested Loops operator you see in the execution plan is good when the first( top) table is small compared to the second (bottom) table. Maybe it’s not the best choice in this case.

Now let’s look at the same example with a temp table:

INSERT INTO #BusinessEntityId
SELECT BusinessEntityID FROM Person.Person;
FROM #BusinessEntityId b
INNER JOIN Person.Person p
       ON b.BusinessEntityID = p.BusinessEntityID;
DROP TABLE #BusinessEntityId;

Here’s the plan:


You’ll hopefully see that this plan is different. It’s using something called a Hash Match operator – this creates a hashed value based on each row from the top input (the index scan on our temp table), and then feed into that an index scan from our bottom input – the Person table.

Rather than going into too much the implications of that, let’s jump straight to looking at the Tool Tips.

From the top operator first, the Clustered Index Scan:


We can see here that the actual and estimated number of rows are both the same. Good so far.

Now to look at the bottom operator, the index scan on the Person table:


Now we can see that the estimated and actual number of rows are the same again, but also the estimated and actual number of executions are the same – 1 in both cases.

So we have the query with the table variable generating an execution plan that results in nearly 20,000 seeks against an index vs. the query with a temp table generating 1 scan against the same index. In general seeks are quicker than scans, but probably not 20,000 times quicker, even with the effort of the Hashing part of the operation. To quantify the difference we can look at the output from the STATISTICS IO command for each query:

Table variable:

Table ‘Person’. Scan count 0, logical reads 59916, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

Table ‘#B182BEEB’. Scan count 1, logical reads 35, 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 = 47 ms,  elapsed time = 39 ms.


Temp table:

Table ‘Workfile’. 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 ‘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 ‘Person’. Scan count 1, logical reads 67, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

Table ‘#BusinessEntityId___________________________________________________________________________________________________00000000013D’. Scan count 1, logical reads 35, 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 = 15 ms,  elapsed time = 13 ms.


The output from the temp table query looks more complicated as it mentions a Workfile and Worktable that don’t get used, but it’s easy enough to see that Temp Table runs 3-4 times quicker, and more significantly generates only about 100 logical reads as opposed to about 60,000 for the table variable query. That’s a VERY big difference.

So like I said at the top, if you’re thinking about using a table variable, think twice, it might not be what you want to do.



When do Distribution Statistics Get Updated?

Statistics objects are important to us for allowing SQL to make good estimates of the row-counts involved in different parts of a given query and to allow the SQL Optimiser to form efficient execution plans to delivery those query results.

Statistics get updated automatically when you rebuild (or re-organise) an index they are based on – but we only tend to rebuild indexes that are fragmented, and we don’t need fragmentation for statistics to be stale. We also may have many auto-created statistics objects that are not related to an index at all.

It’s generally recommended to have the database level setting AUTO_UPDATE_STATISTICS turned on, so that SQL can manage the process of keeping statistics up to date for us. The only excuse to turn it off is that you are managing the updates to stats yourself in a different manner. And you can always turn the auto update off at an individual table or statistics level if you need to, rather than for the whole database.

SQL Server has had the ability to automatically update statistics since version 7.0. Nonetheless for a long part of my career working with SQL Server, whenever a performance issue raised its head everyone’s knee-jerk response would be “Update Statistics!” In most cases though the people shouting that didn’t really understand what the “Statistics” were, or what mechanisms might already be in place for keeping them up to date.

Of course SQL Server isn’t perfect and sometimes it is helpful for human intelligence to intervene. But to provide intelligent intervention one has to understand how things work.

So how does the automatic updating of statistics work?

In the background SQL maintains a count of changes to tables that might affect statistics. This can be updates, inserts or deletes. So if I inserted 100 records, updated 100 records and then deleted 100 records, I would have made 300 changes.

When SQL forms an execution plan for a query it references various distribution statistics objects to estimate row-counts and to use that to try find the best plan. The statistics objects it looks at are referred to as being “interesting” in the context of the query.

Before using values from the statistics, the Optimizer will check to see if the statistics are “stale”, i.e. the modification counter exceeds a given threshold. If it does, SQL will trigger a resampling of the statistics before going on to form an execution plan. This means that the plan will be formed against up to date statistics for the table.

For subsequent executions of the query, the existing plan will be loaded from the plan cache. Within the plan, the Optimiser can see a list of the statistics objects that were deemed “interesting” in the first place. Once again it will check each of them to see if they are “stale”. If they are, an auto-update of the statistics object(s) will be triggered and once that is complete the plan will be recompiled, in case the updated statistics might suggest a better way of executing the query. Equally, if any of the statistics objects have been updated since the last execution then the plan will also be recompiled.

One important caveat to this is the database level setting AUTO_UPDATE_STATS_ASYNC (Asynchronously). Generally it is best to have this turned off, in which case the above behaviour is observed. If you turn it on however, in the case of stale stats the query execution will not wait for the stats to be updated, but will start them updating in the background while the query executes. The plan will only recompile to be based on the new stats at the next execution.

From SQL Server2008 R2 SP2 and SQL Server 2012 SP1 we have a new DMF (Dynamic Management Function) sys.dm_db_stats_properties that allows us to see how many row modifications have been captured against a given statistics object as well as when it was last refreshed, how many rows were sampled etc. Modifications are captured on a per column basis (though when statistics were originally introduced in SQL Server it was per table) so the counter will only be affected if the leading column for the statistics object has been affected by a given operation.

SELECT AS StatsName, sp.*
FROM sys.stats s
CROSS apply sys.dm_db_stats_properties(s.OBJECT_ID, s.stats_id) sp
WHERE = 'IX_Test_TextValue'



So what are the thresholds?

For a long time the thresholds were as follows. Statistics were considered stale if one of the following was true:

  • The table size has gone from 0 rows to more than 0 rows
  • The table had 500 rows or less when the statistics were last sampled and has since had more than 500 modifications
  • The table had more than 500 rows when the statistics were last sampled and the number of modifications is more than 500 + 20% of the row-count when the statistics were last sampled (when talking about tables with larger row-counts a lot of the documentation just describes this as 20% as the additional 500 becomes less and less relevant the larger the number you are dealing with).

Those thresholds did mean that when a table had a large number of rows, Statistics might not get updated that often. A table with a million rows would only have stats updated if about 200,000 rows changed. Depending on the distribution of the data and how it is being queried this could be a problem.

So, in SQL 2008 R2 SP2 Microsoft introduced Traceflag 2371 which when set would reduce the stale statistics threshold for larger tables. From SQL 2016 this is the default functionality.

That adds the following test for statistics being stale:

  • If the number of rows (R) when the statistics were last sampled is 25,000 or more and the number of modifications is more than the square root of R x 1000:


Now, I’m just going to correct myself here, the documentation I’ve found SAYS the threshold is 25,000 but when I started to have a play that didn’t seem to be the case at all.

What actually seems to happen is that whichever of the two estimates is smaller gets used i.e





Whichever is smaller.

I don’t know if this means that both get evaluated and the smaller is used, or if the threshold between the two rules is simply defined at the point where the second formula gives the smaller result – which is after 19,682 rows. I discovered that threshold by solving where the two equations above would give the same result – then by experimenting to prove it in practice.

I think this incorrect stating of 25,000 as the threshold probably comes from confusion, taking an approximation (20%) as the actual figure. Remember I mentioned that people often generalise to say that statistics are stale after 20% of the rows change, and forget about the extra 500 rows. If that was true and it was exactly 20%, then the threshold would be 25,000 as that would be the point that both equations are equal.

Anyway it’s not even vaguely important to know that. I just found it interesting! Note that the tests above were carried out on SQL Server 2012 SP3 so could well be different on later versions.

To more visually understand the above rules, here’s a table showing the thresholds for some example table sizes under both the Old algorithm (without the traceflag) and the New algorithm (with the traceflag or on SQL 2016 or later).

R is the number of rows when the statistics were last sampled and T is the number of modifications for statistics to be considered stale:


You can see for the larger table sizes there is a massive difference. If you’ve got large tables you’re querying against and are having to update the statistics manually to keep them fresh then you may find implementing the traceflag is a help.

Row-count Estimates when there are no Statistics

I was discussing Cardinality Estimation with a colleague recently and the question came up, what cardinality does SQL Server use if you’re selecting from a column where there are no statistics available? I’ve discovered there are a few algorithms in play depending on how you’re querying the table. In this post we’ll look at where we have a predicate looking for a fixed value.

(If you want the short answer, it’s the fourth root of n cubed before SQL 2014 and the square root of n after that.)

This scenario can occur if you have AUTO CREATE STATISTICS turned off for your database, which we don’t recommend you do, but which you might choose to do anyway, and if you query a table with a predicate against a column with no index defined against it.
Let’s look at example. I’m using SQL Server 2012 for this investigation, and to start with am querying the AdventureWorks2012 database.
I’ve taken the following preparatory steps:

  • Set AUTO CREATE STATISTICS OFF for the database
  • Remove the Index on the LastName column for the Person.Person table
  • Removed any ad-hoc statistics that existed against the table

Then I run a simple query, with the Actual Execution Plan turned on:

FROM Person.Person p
WHERE p.LastName = 'Fox';

I only get one result out as there is only one Fox (Ms. Dorothy J.). Let’s look at the execution plan:


A clustered index scan as we might expect as I’ve removed any useful indexes from the table. You’ll notice there is a warning. If we view the tooltip you’ll see SQL warns us about the lack of statistics:


If we look at the estimated and actual row-counts we’ll see how that has affected us:


In the absence of any useful information – it knows the number of rows in the table but that is about it – SQL has estimated that there will be 1680 Foxes in the table. A bit of playing shows that we get the same estimate whatever value we search for.

If I turn AUTO CREATE STATISTICS on and run the query again then SQL generate a Statistics object against the LastName column and comes up with an estimate of 2.3 rows – which is a lot closer.

This matters a lot once you start running more complicated queries. The incorrect estimate is likely to affect the choice of plan that the optimizer makes, and may also affect the amount of memory it requests in order to run the query. Let’s look at a quick example of how the plan changes if we join the above query to another table.

First, without statistics (so I have to turn AUTO CREATE off again, and remove the statistics that got created):


SELECT e.EmailAddress
FROM Person.Person p
INNER JOIN Person.EmailAddress e
    ON p.BusinessEntityID = e.BusinessEntityID
WHERE LastName = 'Fox';

Here’s the execution plan:


You can see I’ve got a Merge Join as SQL thinks I’m expecting 1680 rows from the top table. A Nested Loops join would generally be better when I only expect one or two rows from that table.

I’ve also captured the IO so I can see how expensive the query was:

Table ‘EmailAddress’. Scan count 1, logical reads 10, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

Table ‘Person’. Scan count 1, logical reads 3818, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

Let’s look at the behaviour of the same query with statistics creation enabled:


You can see we now have the desired Nested Loops join and the Clustered Index Scan on the EmailAddress table has been changed to a Seek.

The IO output is below:

Table ‘EmailAddress’. Scan count 1, logical reads 2, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

Table ‘Person’. Scan count 1, logical reads 3818, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

There’s not much difference in the overall IO, but you can see the Reads for the EmailAddress table have dropped from 10 to 2 due to the change from the Scan to the Seek. If the table was a lot bigger then we could see a large difference here.

So where does that estimate come from?

I thought I’d have a play and see if I could work out how SQL decided on that estimate of 1680 rows. I did some googling and found a suggestion that it might be a straight 9% of the total number of rows in the table, but that doesn’t quite add up and when I compared the same query pattern against a few tables I found I got a different ratio depending on the amount of rows in the table.

So I pumped rows incrementally into a fresh table and looked at the estimate and what the ratio was as the number of rows increased. Here’s my SQL for that:

--Create a Horrible Heap for my testing  
CREATE TABLE dbo.TestStats(TestVal INT NOT NULL, TestText VARCHAR(255) NULL);

--Insert a bunch of rows using dodgy old-style cross joins
SELECT TOP 1 --Amount of rows I'm going to insert
    1 , 'blah'
FROM sys.objects a, sys.objects b, sys.objects c, sys.objects d, sys.objects e;

--Clear the plan cache so SQL generated a new estimate  
DBCC freeproccache;

--Query the table, then I go check the execution plan generated 
--for the estimated number of rows
SELECT * FROM dbo.TestStats
WHERE TestVal = 1;   

(One thing to note was that I got the same answers whether I was querying the text column or the integer column – SQL seems to use the same algorithm for both.)

I started to notice a pattern quite quickly, that the ratio halved when the number of rows went up by a factor of 16. I then restarted my test, targeting my row-counts to be where the estimated number of rows would be a nice round number. You can see that in the table below:


I then attempted to work out a formula for that. Rather than take you through the shoddy process of mathematics that led me to an answer, I’ll just tell you that the formula came out as:


Where e is the estimated number of rows for a given predicate value, and n is the total number of rows in the table. I checked that against the full set of results I’d gathered and it held true across all values of n I’d tested.

To check it finally against my original query – the Person.Person table had 19,972 rows. I put that through the calculator with the formula and get 1680.027. If we look back at the original estimate you’ll see that SQL stated 1680.03  – so that is all good.

As I mentioned earlier I was using SQL Server 2012 for this test, and a new Cardinality Estimator came into effect in SQL 2014. So I thought I’d run the test again with SQL 2016 and see if the results changed:


We can see the estimated rows drop off a lot quicker here. Clearly Microsoft have decided to lower the estimate. Actually it is now just the square root of the total number of rows.


Hopefully you’re not in the scenario where you regularly have queries running without the appropriate statistics to support them. The above comparison though shows us that if you have such a query its behaviour could dramatically change if you upgrade your SQL Server version to 2104 or higher. It could become better or it could become a lot worse.

There are a lot of changes like this that came in with the new version of the Cardinality Estimator in 2014. Places where underlying assumptions have been adjusted to make better guesses about the number of rows that will be returned by an operator. But they are still guesses based on the same information – there is no new data being captured in the Statistics to better inform the process. Of course Microsoft has made these changes to try and better model data out in the wild – but they are still fixed assumptions, which means sometimes they will be better and sometimes they will be worse.

One thing I should re-iterate is that these formulae we’ve discovered above are for a fairly specific querying pattern. There’s no guarantee that the calculation will be the same for a similar – but different query. It might be interesting to explore that further in a later post.

Also there may be other information in your database – such as constraints – that SQL can use to educate its guesses.

The main takeaway from all of this though, should of course be:


Statistics and Cardinality Estimation


This is a term originally from Mathematics, generally defined as “The number of objects in a given set or grouping”. In SQL we’re continually dealing with sets so this becomes a very relevant topic, which in our context is just the “number of rows”.

When you have a query across multiple tables there any many ways in which SQL Server could decide to physically go about getting you the results you want. It could query and join the tables in any order and it could use different methods for matching records from the various tables you have joined together. It also needs to know how much memory to allocate for the operation – and to do that it needs to have an idea of the amount of data generated at each stage of processing.

A lot of this requires cardinality estimation, and SQL Server uses something called Statistics objects to perform that calculation.

Let’s look at a simple example:
FROM Person.Person p
INNER JOIN Person.[Address] a
ON p.AddressId = a.AddressId
WHERE p.LastName = 'Smith'
AND a.City = 'Bristol'

When it comes to gathering the results for this query there are a number of ways the database engine could go about it. For instance:

a) It could find all the records in the Person table with a LastName of Smith, look each of their addresses up and return only the ones who live in Bristol.
b) It could find all the Addresses in Bristol, look up the people associated with each address and return only the ones called Smith.
c) It could grab the set of people called Smith from the People table, grab all the addresses in Bristol, and only finally match up the records between those two sets.

Which of those operations is going to be most efficient depends very much on the number of records returned from each table. Let’s say that we have a million people called Smith, but there’s only one address in our whole database that is in Bristol (and let’s say that address does actually belong to someone called Smith).

In the first method above I would grab the million Smiths and then look their address up one by one in the address table until I found the one that lived in Bristol.

If I used method b) though, I would find the one matching address first, and then I would simply look up the owner of that address. Clearly in this rather contrived example, that’s going to be a lot quicker. So if SQL knows ahead of time roughly how many records to expect from each part of the query, hopefully it can make a good decision about how to get the data.

But how can it work out how many rows will be returned without actually running the query?


That’s where statistics objects come in. SQL Server maintains in the background data that equates to a histogram showing the distribution of the data in certain columns within a table. It does this any time you create an index – statistics will be generated on the columns the index is defined against, but it also does it any time it determines that it would be useful. So if SQL encounters a Where clause on Person.LastName – and that column isn’t involved in a useful index, SQL is likely to generate a statistics object to tell it about the distribution of data in that column.

I say “likely to” because it actually depends on the settings of your SQL instance. Server configuration is beyond the scope of this post but suffice to say you can let SQL automatically create Statistics objects – or not. You can let it automatically update them when the data has changed by more than a given threshold – or not. And you can specify whether updates to statistics should happen asynchronously or synchronously – i.e. in the latter case if your query determines that statistics needs updating then it will kick that off and wait until the update is complete before processing the query.

It’s generally recommended that auto creation and updating is on, and async updating is off.

Viewing Statistics Objects
Let’s have a look at some actual statistics and see what they hold. There are a couple of ways of doing this, the first is through SSMS. If you look under a table in the object browser you will see a Statistics folder which holds any statistics objects relating to that table:


In the above example you can see some that have friendly names, these are Statistics that  are related to an actual index that has been defined on the table and they have the same name as the Index – e.g. IX_Address_StateProvinceId.

You’ll also see we have some prefixed _WA_Sys and then with some random numbers following. These are statistics objects that SQL has created automatically on columns that aren’t indexed – or at least they weren’t indexed at the time the Statistics objects were created.

You can open these up with a double-click and see what’s inside:


This is the General tab you open up to. You’ll see it tells you what table the Statistics are for and what column(s). There are options for adding columns and changing the order – but you never really need to do this – as well as information to tell you when the statistics were last updated, and a check box if you want to update them now.

In the details tab there’s a lot more info:


I don’t find this the easiest display format to work with though, so rather than delving into what everything means here let’s look at the other way you can view statistics, which is by running the following command:

DBCC SHOW_STATISTICS('Person.Address', '_WA_Sys_00000004_164452B1')

The format is straightforward, you just specify the table you are interested in the Statistics for, and the actual name of the Statistics object you want. You can see the same information as if you double-clicked on it, but the results are output in the results pane like any other query and are (I think) a lot easier to read. Allegedly there will soon be a third way in SQL Server to view Statistics as DBCC commands are considered a bit “clunky” – but we don’t know what that will look like yet.

The command outputs three resultsets:


This post is just an introduction to statistics – and generally you don’t need to know that much, it’s just handy to understand the basics. So let’s just run over the key bits of information you can see above:

First of all in the first recordset – otherwise know as the…

Stats Header

Rows – is the number of rows in your table

Rows Sampled – this is how many rows were sampled to generate the statistics. SQL can generate or update statsitics using sampling rather than reading all the rows. In this case you’ll see it did actually read the whole table.

Steps – If you imagine the statistics as a bar chart – this is the number of bars on the chart. Statistics objects have a maximum of 200 steps so if you have more distinct values in your column than that they will be grouped into steps.

Density – This is supposed to be the probability of a row having a particular value (calculated as 1 / Number of Distinct values in column). According to books online “This Density value is not used by the query optimizer and is displayed for backward compatibility with versions before SQL Server 2008.”  I am using SQL 2012, and this number is just plain incorrect so don’t use it…

Recordset Number 2: The Density Vector

All Density – this is the accurate version of the Density statistic described above. So your probability of a given row having a specific value is about 0.0017. That’s a little less than one in 500. I happen to know there are 575 different Cities in the table so that makes sense. Sometimes SQL will use this value to form a plan – if it knows you’re going to search this table for a specific City and it doesn’t know that City when it makes the plan, then it could guess that about 1/500th of the rows will match your criteria.

Average Length – Is what it says on the can. The average length of data in this column.

Columns – The names of any column measured in this statistics objects. You can have statistics across multiple columns but I’m not going to cover that in this post. In this case it tells us these statistics are based on the “City” column.

Recordset Number 3: The Histogram

This last recordset shows the distribution of the data, and is what you could effectively use to to draw a graph of the relative frequencies of different groups of values. Each row represents a step – or bar on the bar chart – and as mentioned above there can be a maximum of 200 steps. So you can see, a statistics object is quite lightweight, even for a massive table.

RANGE_HI_KEY – This upper limit of each step, so each step contains all the values bigger than the RANGE_HI_KEY of the last step, right up to and including this value.

RANGE_ROWS – This is how many rows in the table fall in this range – not including the number that match the RANGE_HI_KEY itself.

EQ_ROWS – The number of rows equal to the HI_KEY

DISTINCT_RANGE_ROWS – The number of different values in the range that there is data for (excluding the HI_KEY).

AVERAGE_RANGE_ROWS – The average number of rows for a given value within the range.

That’s a whistle-stop tour of the Statistics SQL Server holds on your data.


The algorithms that SQL then uses to calculate the number of rows for a given part of your query are pretty transparent when there’s just one column involved. If we look at the above example and let’s say you wanted to look up the rows where the City is “Abingdon” – the statistics tell us there is 1 matching row and that’s the figure SQL will use for cardinality estimation. Where a value is within a range then it will use a calculation based on the AVERAGE_RANGE_ROWS.

When there’s multiple columns involved it’s more complicated there are various algorithms and assumptions that come into play. If you’re interested in digging deeper, one very good resource is the Whitepaper on the 2014 Cardinality Estimator written by Joe Sack:


The main takeaway from this should just be the understand the extent – and limitations – of the information about the distribution of your data that SQL holds in the background.

If, when you’re tuning queries, you notice that the estimated row counts don’t match the actual, then this could be encouraging SQL to form a bad plan for the query. In these cases you might want to investigate what’s going on with the statistics.

Maybe your query is written in a way that it can’t use statistics effectively, one example of this can be where you store constant values in variables, then query using that variable in a WHERE clause. SQL will then optimise based on the average, rather than on your actual value.

Maybe the plan is based on one data value that has a very different cardinality to the one currently being queried. For instance when you first run a stored procedure, the plan is formed based on the parameters passed. Those parameters could have a cardinality that is quite different to those used in later executions.

Maybe the statistics are out of date and need refreshing. Stats get updated when approximately 20% of the data in the table changes, for a large table this can be a big threshold, so current statistics may not always hold good information about the data you are querying for.

Or maybe SQL is doing as good a job as it can with the information it has at its disposal. You might need to work out how you can give it a little extra help.

This is in only intended to be an introduction to Statistics objects. If you want to find out more, your favourite search engine is your friend. For the moment, I hope this makes it clear what Statistics objects are, what they are used for, and why they are important.