We have a SQL Server 2005 database for which we want to improve performance of bulk delete/insert/selects and I notice it uses decimal(18,0)
for its primary keys. I understand this will give us many more values than bigint
but was hoping it might be a quick win and should last us for many million years of growth by my calculations.
I see in the .net docs decimals take 16 bytes instead of the 8 required by longs but in SQL Server it looks like bigint
take 8 bytes but the decimal(18,0)
takes only 5 bytes - as also seen by select DATALENGTH(max(id)) from table
. Is this cor开发者_运维知识库rect?
Is there any other reason bigint
might be slower or should I stick to decimal(18,0)
?
You get this range with bigint:
-2^63 to 2^63-1
also known as roughly:
-9.2 x 10^18 to 9.2 x 10^18
You get this range with decimal(18,0):
-10^18 to 10^18
Decimal: Storage Bytes per Precision
Precision Storage Bytes
1-9: 5
10-19: 9
20-28: 13
29-38: 17
Integer Types and Storage Bytes
integer type Storage Bytes
bigint 8
int 4
smallint 2
tinyint 1
Thoughts
The two examples posted in your Question actually yield virtually the same quantity of unique values.
Also, you are not going to see a significant performance change no matter your choice, but you will see a change in efficiency for other programmers on the team if you start using decimals where programmers are expecting an integer. This is a minor point.
To address your specific issue, if you want a larger range, use Decimal(38,0). This gives you:
-10^38 to 10^38
If you are concerned about speed, use the minimum precision that will last the lifetime of your software.
If you're not measuring time in nano-seconds, then choose the option that will fit best for your programmers' mindsets and your desire to have a very long set of numbers.
References
- Decimal and Numeric Types
- Integer Types
DATALENGTH is casting to varchar before counting bytes. So your max value is < 100000.
The 9 bytes can be proved with this. sys.columns has a max_length column (decimal is fixed length so it is always 9 bytes, before you ask otherwise)
CREATE TABLE dbo.foo (bar decimal(18,0))
GO
SELECT * FROM sys.columns WHERE object_id = OBJECT_ID('foo')
GO
DROP TABLE dbo.foo
GO
For legacy reasons, decimal(18, 0)
was often used as a surrogate for "64 bit integer" before bigint was added with SQL Server 2000.
decimal(18, 0)
and bigint
are roughly the same in range: decimal is one byte more at 9 bytes as per the documentation
On top of that, plain integer will be fractionally (maybe not measurable) faster then decimal. Saying that, if expect to have more then 4 billion rows in the next year or 5, then the performance should matter. If it doesn't, then just use int
精彩评论