How can you help the optimizer avoid an explicit SORT operator for ORDER BY?

Problem Statement

Explanation

If an index provides the required order, the engine can scan it and return rows already sorted. This removes the need for a costly sort step. Column order and ASC or DESC matter. Consider covering includes to avoid extra lookups.

Code Solution

SolutionRead Only

CREATE INDEX idx_orders_date_id ON orders(order_date DESC, id DESC);

Practice Sets

This question appears in the following practice sets:

Query Optimization & Execution Plans

Next Question

Master Interviews
Anywhere, Anytime

How can you help the optimizer avoid an explicit SORT operator for ORDER BY?

Problem Statement

Explanation

Code Solution

Practice Sets

Related Questions

Which SQL statement retrieves all columns and rows from a table named employees?

Which clause filters rows before aggregation and affects which rows are grouped?

What is the default sort order when ORDER BY is used without ASC or DESC?

Which construct is commonly used to paginate results in SQL engines like Postgres and MySQL?

Which predicate correctly checks for missing values in standard SQL?

More from SQL & Databases

Master Interviews Anywhere, Anytime

How can you help the optimizer avoid an explicit SORT operator for ORDER BY?

Problem Statement

Explanation

Code Solution

Practice Sets

Related Questions

Which SQL statement retrieves all columns and rows from a table named employees?

Which clause filters rows before aggregation and affects which rows are grouped?

What is the default sort order when ORDER BY is used without ASC or DESC?

Which construct is commonly used to paginate results in SQL engines like Postgres and MySQL?

Which predicate correctly checks for missing values in standard SQL?

More from SQL & Databases

Master Interviews
Anywhere, Anytime