Better Performance Without An Index??
Jun 12, 2007
I have a small table (600 rows) that is used in a query with a relatively large table (200,000 rows). Strangely, I get the best performance from the query by removing all indexes from the small table (including the primary key). This seems a little odd to me, and I'm wondering if this is a common scenario, and if there is some general rule that can be applied when indexing small tables.
I have tried changing the primary key index (clustered vs nonclustered) and adding other indexes to both tables, but I always get the best performance by removing all indexes from the small table. The performance difference is significant, execution time goes from 2 seconds to just over 1 second, and this is a query that gets executed quite a bit.
I can't delete the PK index as the table needs a PK for data integrity reasons. So I'm not sure how to achieve the non-index performance without removing the index.
Any suggestions would be much appreciated. By the way it's SQL Server 2005 Express.
View 3 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Dec 5, 2007
Dear All.
We had Teradata 4700 SMP. We have moved data from TD to MS_SQL SERVER 2003. records are 19.65 Millions.
table is >> Order_Dtl
Columns are:-
Client_ID varchar 10
Order_ID varchar 50
Order_Sub_ID decimal
.....
...
..
.
Pk is (ClientID+OrderId+OrderSubID)
Web Base application or PDA devices use to initiate the order from all over the country. The issue is this table is not Partioned but good HP with 30 GB RAM is installed. this is main table that receive 18,0000 hits or more. All brokers and users are using this table to see the status of their order.
The always search by OrderID, or ClientID or order_SubNo, or enter any two like (Client_ID+Order_Sub_ID) or any combination.
Query takes to much time when ever server receive more querys. some orther indexes are also created on the same table like (OrderDate, OrdCreate Date and Status)
My Question are:-
Q1. IF Person "A" query to DB on Client_ID, then what Index will use ? (If any one do Query on any two combination like Client_ID+Order_ID, So what index will be uesd.? How does MS-SQL SERVER deal with these kind of issues.?
Q2. If i create 3 more indexes on ClientID, ORderID and OrdersubID. will this improve the performance of query.if person "A" search record on orderNo so what index will be used. (Mind it their would be 3 seprate indexes for Each PK columns) and composite-Clustered index is also available.?
Q3. I want to check what indexes has been used? on what search?
Q4. How can i check what table was populated when, or last date of update (DML)?
My Limitation is i Dont Create a Partioned table. I dont have permission to do it.
In Teradata we had more than 4 tb record of CRM data with no issue. i am not new baby in db line but not expert in sql server 2003.
I am thank u to all who read or reply.
Arshad
Manager Database
Esoulconsultancy.com
(Teradata Master)
10g OCP
View 3 Replies
View Related
Oct 28, 2015
My SSIS package is running very slow taking so much time to execute, One task is taking 2hr for inserting 100k records, i have disabled unused index still it is taking time.I am rebuilding/Refreshing indexes and stats once in month if i try to execute on daily basis will it improve my SSIS Package performance?
View 2 Replies
View Related
Sep 10, 2007
Hi All,
I 'm working to improve some sql performance.
One of the major syntax inside the SELECT statment is ..
WHERE FIELDA IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='A') AND
WHERE FIELDB IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='B') AND
WHERE FIELDC IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='C') AND
WHERE FIELDD IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='D') AND
WHERE FIELDE IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='E') AND
WHERE FIELDF IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='F')
(It's to compare the field content with some user input parameter inside a parameter table... )
I think properly is that the SELECT ... IN is causing much slowness in the sql statement. I have indexed FIELDA , FIELDB, FILEDC etc and those PARAVALUE and PARATYPE in the PARATABLE table. But perfromance is still slow and execution takes >20 seconds for 200000 rows of records.
Do any one know if still any chance to improvide the performance like this?
Much Thanks,
Andy
View 14 Replies
View Related
May 21, 2002
I have read that you get better performance with unique indexes rather than non-unique indexes.
I have experimented with this in SQL 2000. I have two identical tables (with about 250000 rows each) with a 12-character unique column. In one table I define it as a regular index and in the other I define it as a unique index. No matter what I try I get identical performance, and the query optimizer shows an identical plan.
I even tried clauses such as
WHERE 1 < (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM TheTable
WHERE key_column = OtherTable.key_column)
which should obviously return nothing if TheTable.key_column is unique. However the query still ran a long time no matter if the index is unique or not.
I have also tried a unique constraint instead of a unique index and got the same (non)results.
Can anyone come up with an example where creating a unique index actually makes a performance difference?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Nov 16, 1998
We run an order entry system, and as such our Order Detail table comprises
over half of the data in the system. This isn't gigantic, about 1.5
gigabytes, but our performance problems are centering on this table.
My question is, does it make a difference how selective the clustered index
is in terms of insert performance. Our clustered index is on item_id.
There are around 200 items that can be ordered. This is reasonable
selectivity, but still there will be many pages of rows all having the
same value for the clustered index. Is there a performance penalty for
SQL Server having to choose one of the pages to store a record? Does
anybody know how it chooses which page to store a record on in the situation
where there are multiple pages with the same index value for the clustered
index?
Thanks...
ben
View 1 Replies
View Related
Oct 22, 2007
I'm using the Database Engine Tuning Advisor to do some performance evaluation on my database. I have one particular table that will potentially have a couple million rows. but this may not occur for a few months to a year from now.
when i run the advisor with 1.5 million rows, it recommends that i add an index across all columns in this table (covering index) for an estimated 91% improvement. when i run it with 1500 rows in it, it recommends that i add an index on 2 key columns for an 8% improvement.
how should i reconcile this? can i have both and what does that do to performance?
View 17 Replies
View Related
Mar 24, 2007
Hey guys,
Having some trouble with indexes on sql server 2005. I'll explain it with a simplified example.
I have a customers table, and a sp to list customers :
create table Customers(
CusID int not null,
Name varchar(50) null,
Surname varchar(50) null,
CusNo int not null,
Deleted bit not null
)
create proc spCusLs (
@CusID int = null,
@Name varchar(50) = null,
@Surname varchar(50) = null,
@CusNo int = null
)
as
select
CusID,
Name,
Surname,
CusNo
from
Customers
where
Deleted = 0
and CusID <> 1000
and (@CusID is null or CusID = @CusID)
and (@CusNo is null or CusNo = @CusNo)
and (@Name is null or Name like @Name)
and (@Surname is null or Surname like @Surname)
order by
Name,
Surname
create nonclustered index ix_customers_name on customers ([name] asc)
with (sort_in_tempdb = off, drop_existing = off, ignore_dup_key = off, online = off) on primary
create nonclustered index ix_customers_surname on customers (surname asc)
with (sort_in_tempdb = off, drop_existing = off, ignore_dup_key = off, online = off) on primary
create nonclustered index ix_customers_cusno on customers (cusno asc)
with (sort_in_tempdb = off, drop_existing = off, ignore_dup_key = off, online = off) on primary
I've recently noticed that some tables, including 'Customers' don't have indexes except primary keys. And I have added indexes to "name", "surname" and "cusno" columns. This has dropped the number of IO reads. But the strange thing is; one time it works with name / surname searches like ('joh%' '%') but when CusNo is included, it does a full scan. And vice versa when the SP is recompiled using 'alter', works ok with CusNo, but not with name/surname. Recompile it, and it's reversed again. When run as a single query, the execution plan looks different.
What's happening? Perhaps something to do with statistics? This doesn't have a big payload on the server, but there are some other procs suffering from this on heavy queries, making server performance worse than before...
View 1 Replies
View Related
Sep 29, 2005
Hi Guys,
I have a SQL 2000 sp3a server on Windows 2000 sp4. Running dual proc server with hyper threading enabled, 3gb memory attached to a HP EVA 5000 SAN.
One of the tables is 67gb and contains 140,000,000 rows. Recently someone dropped the clustered indexe so i`m trying to put it back (i've dropped the non clustered indexes as no point leaving them there whilst clustered builds).
The problem i am having is the rebuild is taking forever!! It ran for 23 hours before someone rebooted the server (!). The database is currently recovering from the reboot but i need to work out what is causing the appalling performance so i can get the index rebuilt. There are no reported hardware problems.....
There are multiple file groups involved and i found i was getting an extent allocation rate of 1.5 extents a second and same for deallocation.
Any advice on how to trouble shoot this?
View 12 Replies
View Related
Apr 3, 2008
I've got a free text index on a table that is taking 15-30 % of processing becuase there is a lot of insert activity on this table at the moment.
I know the indexer backs off if the server gets busy - or so the theory goes.
Is there a way for me to tell it to take more of a back seat?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jul 25, 2007
Hi guys,
My company is currently migrating from Interbase to SQL Server 2005. During the migration we have came across a rather peculiar issue and wondering if anyone can advise.
We have a table.. named "prospect" which holds client information
We have a stored procedure which hangs on the following statement.
DECLARE @surname char(25);
SET @surname='BLAH%';
SELECT *
FROM Prospect
WHERE c_surname LIKE @surname;
The above takes 28 seconds to run. The following statement returns a result inside a second.
SELECT *
FROM Prospect
WHERE c_surname LIKE 'BLAH%';
In Interbase, the original returned the answer within a second too. The schema in both database is the same.
The 1st statement does not use an index! The execution plan is different to the 2nd statement. I am aware I can create an index recommended by the Database Engine Tuning which solves the issue or specify the index to use in the original statement but why does the engine not use the correct index if there is a variable involved? I need to know as we have just started looking at the code.
Thanks,
Kalim
View 2 Replies
View Related
Sep 25, 2007
Hello,
I found this code in a Microsoft document about index perfromance in SQL 2005. Can some one explain what iss returned by this statement, in relation to what I should do with this data to create/improve indexes? I am not sure based on the results what the columns mean as far as what needs to be done to indexes. What is the equality_columns, included_columns, statement, etc information? Do I make an index for the included_columns? Any help would be appreciated.
Here is the code:
-- Potentially Useful Indexes
select d.*
, s.avg_total_user_cost
, s.avg_user_impact
, s.last_user_seek
,s.unique_compiles
from sys.dm_db_missing_index_group_stats s
,sys.dm_db_missing_index_groups g
,sys.dm_db_missing_index_details d
where s.group_handle = g.index_group_handle
and d.index_handle = g.index_handle
order by s.avg_user_impact desc
go
--- suggested index columns and usage
declare @handle int
select @handle = d.index_handle
from sys.dm_db_missing_index_group_stats s
,sys.dm_db_missing_index_groups g
,sys.dm_db_missing_index_details d
where s.group_handle = g.index_group_handle
and d.index_handle = g.index_handle
select *
from sys.dm_db_missing_index_columns(@handle)
order by column_id
View 2 Replies
View Related
Nov 14, 2007
Hello all.
I have the following table
Create Table Item(
I_AssetCode NVarChar(40) Primary Key NOT NULL,
I_Name NVarChar(160),
I_BC nvarchar(20),
I_Company nvarchar(20)
);
Create Index ind_Item_Name on Item(I_Name);
Create Index ind_Item_BC on Item(I_BC);
Create Index ind_Item_Company on Item(I_Company);
It is populated with 50 000 records.
Searching on indexed columns is fast, but I've run into the following problem:
I need to get all distinct companies in the table.
I've tried with these two queries, but they both are very slow!
1. "select I_Company from item group by I_Company " - This one takes 19 seconds
2. "select distinct(I_Company) from item" -This one takes 29 secons
When I ran them through the SQL Management Studio and checked the performance plan, I saw that the second one doesn't use index at all ! So I focused on the first...
The first one used index (it took it 15% of the time), but then it ran the "stream aggregate" which took 85% of the time !
Actully 15% of 19 seconds - about 2 seconds is pretty much enough for me. But it looks that aggregate function is run for nothing!
So is it possible to force the query engine of the SSCE not to run it, since there is actually no aggregate functions in my select clause?
According to SQL CE Books online:
Group By
"Specifies the groups (equivalence classes) that output rows are to be placed in. If aggregate functions are included in the SELECT clause <select list>, the GROUP BY clause calculates a summary value for each group."
It seems the aggregate is run every time, not only when there is an aggregate function.
Is this a bug?
Thanks in advance,
TipoMan
View 4 Replies
View Related
Oct 20, 2006
please explain the differences btween this logical & phisicall operations that we can see therir graphical icons in execution plan tab in Management Studio
thank you in advance
View 3 Replies
View Related
Sep 30, 2015
I am using Full Text Index to index emails stored in BLOB column in a table. Index process parses stored emails, and, if there is one or more files attached to the email these documents get indexed too. In result when I'm querying the full text index for a word or phrase I am getting reference to the email containing the word of phrase if interest if the word was used in the email body OR if it was used in any document attached to the email.
How to distinguish in a Full Text query that the result came from an embedded document rather than from "main" document? Or if that's not possible how to disable indexing of embedded documents?
My goal is either to give a user an option if he or she wants to search emails (email bodies only) OR emails AND documents attached to them, or at least clearly indicate in the returned result the real source where the word or phrase has been found.
View 0 Replies
View Related
Jan 22, 2006
Keep getting this error when positioning to the last page of a report.
Using Server 2003...SqlRpt Svcs 2000 sp2
Detail error msg:
Exception of type Microsoft.ReportingServices.ReportRendering.ReportRenderingException was thrown. (rrRenderingError) Get Online Help
Exception of type Microsoft.ReportingServices.ReportRendering.ReportRenderingException was thrown.
Index was out of range. Must be non-negative and less than the size of the collection. Parameter name: index
Anyone have any suggestions? Any way to find out what collection is blowing?...or where parameter name: index comes from?
View 47 Replies
View Related
Jun 20, 2008
hello friends
i have table1 and 200 coulumn of table1 :) i have 647.600 records. i entered my records to table1 with for step to code lines in one day :)
i select category1 category2 and category3 with select code but i have just one index.. it is productnumber and it is primarykey..So my select code lines is so slow.. it is 7-9 second.. how can i select in 0.1 second ? Should i create index for category1 and category2 and category3 ? But i dont know create index.. My select code lines is below.. Could you learn me and show me index for it ?? or Could you learn me and show me fast Select code lines and index or etc ??? Also my search code line have a dangerous releated to attaching table1 with hackers :)
cheersi send 3 value of treview1 node and childnode and child.childnode to below page.aspx :)
Protected Sub Page_Load(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Me.Load
If Not Me.IsPostBack Then
If Request("TextBox1") IsNot Nothing ThenTextBox1.Text = Request("TextBox1")
End If
If Request("TextBox2") IsNot Nothing ThenTextBox2.Text = Request("TextBox2")
End If
If Request("TextBox3") IsNot Nothing ThenTextBox3.Text = Request("TextBox3")
End If
End If
Dim searchword As String
If Request("TextBox3") = "" And Request("TextBox2") = "" Then
searchword = "Select * from urunlistesi where kategori= '" & Request("TextBox1") & "'"
End If
If Request("TextBox3") = "" Then
searchword = "Select * from urunlistesi where kategori= '" & Request("TextBox1") & "' and kategori1= '" & Request("TextBox2") & "'"
End If
If Request("TextBox3") <> "" And Request("TextBox2") <> "" And Request("TextBox1") <> "" Then
searchword = "Select * from urunlistesi where kategori= '" & Request("TextBox1") & "' and kategori1= '" & Request("TextBox2") & "' and kategori2= '" & Request("TextBox3") & "'"
End If
SqlDataSource1.SelectCommand = searchword
End Sub
View 11 Replies
View Related
Jul 9, 2004
Hi,
I'm running a merge replication on a sql2k machine to 6 sql2k subscribers.
Since a few day's only one of the merge agents fail's with the following error:
The merge process could not retrieve generation information at the 'Subscriber'.
The index entry for row ID was not found in index ID 3, of table 357576312, in database 'PBB006'.
All DBCC CHECKDB command's return 0 errors :confused:
I'm not sure if the table that's referred to in the message is on the distribution side or the subscribers side? A select * from sysobjects where id=357576312 gives different results on both sides . .
Any ideas as to what is causing this error?
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jul 3, 2006
Hi everyone,
When we create a clustered index firstly, and then is it advantageous to create another index which is nonclustered ??
In my opinion, yes it is. Because, since we use clustered index first, our rows are sorted and so while using nonclustered index on this data file, finding adress of the record on this sorted data is really easier than finding adress of the record on unsorted data, is not it ??
Thanks
View 4 Replies
View Related
Sep 12, 2004
1. Use mssql server agent service to take the schedule
2. Use a .NET windows service with timers to call SqlClientConnection
above, which way would be faster and get a better performance?
View 2 Replies
View Related
Mar 5, 2015
I have a clustered index that consists of 3 int columns in this order: DateKey, LocationKey, ItemKey (there are many other columns in this data warehouse table such as quantities, prices, etc.).
Now I want to add a non-clustered index on just one of the other columns, say LocationKey, like this:
CREATE INDEX IX_test on TableName (LocationKey)
I understand that the clustered index keys will also be added as key columns to any NC indexes. So, in this case the NC index will also get the other two columns from the clustered index added as key columns. But, in what order will they be added?
Will the resulting index keys on this new NC index effectively be:
LocationKey, DateKey, ItemKey
OR
LocationKey, ItemKey, DateKey
Do the clustering keys get added to a NC index in the same order as they are defined in the clustered index?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jun 18, 2008
Quick question about the primary purpose of Full Text Index vs. Clustered Index.
The Full Text Index has the purpose of being accessible outside of the database so users can query the tables and columns it needs while being linked to other databases and tables within the SQL Server instance.
Is the Full Text Index similar to the global variable in programming where the scope lies outside of the tables and database itself?
I understand the clustered index is created for each table and most likely accessed within the user schema who have access to the database.
Is this correct?
I am kind of confused on why you would use full text index as opposed to clustered index.
Thank you
Goldmember
View 2 Replies
View Related
Apr 17, 2007
I'm trying to find whether there is a dmv or system view that can help me see the last time an index was rebuilt or created. Assuming I rebuilt an index using tsql commands (not a job with a history), is there a way to find out the last time that index was rebuilt?
Thanks much.
View 6 Replies
View Related
Jun 23, 2006
Hello Everyone,I have a very complex performance issue with our production database.Here's the scenario. We have a production webserver server and adevelopment web server. Both are running SQL Server 2000.I encounted various performance issues with the production server with aparticular query. It would take approximately 22 seconds to return 100rows, thats about 0.22 seconds per row. Note: I ran the query in singleuser mode. So I tested the query on the Development server by taking abackup (.dmp) of the database and moving it onto the dev server. I ranthe same query and found that it ran in less than a second.I took a look at the query execution plan and I found that they we'rethe exact same in both cases.Then I took a look at the various index's, and again I found nodifferences in the table indices.If both databases are identical, I'm assumeing that the issue is relatedto some external hardware issue like: disk space, memory etc. Or couldit be OS software related issues, like service packs, SQL Serverconfiguations etc.Here's what I've done to rule out some obvious hardware issues on theprod server:1. Moved all extraneous files to a secondary harddrive to free up spaceon the primary harddrive. There is 55gb's of free space on the disk.2. Applied SQL Server SP4 service packs3. Defragmented the primary harddrive4. Applied all Windows Server 2003 updatesHere is the prod servers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.67GHZTotal Physical Memory 2GB, Available Physical Memory 815MBWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1Here is the dev serers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.80GHz2GB DDR2-SDRAMWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1I'm not sure what else to do, the query performance is an order ofmagnitude difference and I can't explain it. To me its is a hardware oroperating system related issue.Any Ideas would help me greatly!Thanks,Brian T*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
View 2 Replies
View Related
Mar 1, 2004
I have a really strange problem.
I execute this query:
declare @cid int
set @cid = 2003227
select * from sales s, product p where p.product_Id = s.product_Id and customer_id = @cid
select * from sales s, product p where p.product_Id = s.product_Id and customer_id = @cid or @cid = 0
3 Million rows in sales, 120000 in product.
The first does and index seek, the second an index scan.
The execution plan reports that the scan takes 99.87% of the cost, and the seek takes 0.13%
This problem obviously gets worse the bigger the dataset / query /etc.
The reason I query this, is because it never used to take this long to do index scans. Is there something i can change, something i can fix?
Any help would be appreciated.
Josh
View 2 Replies
View Related
Mar 18, 2008
Hi,
I just want to know whether any advantage or disadvantage
in doing Reorganize Index And Rebuild Index ....
Plz do comment on this ASAP !!!!
Thanks in advance
Regards
Arv
View 1 Replies
View Related
Mar 18, 2008
Hi,
I just want to know whether any advantage or disadvantage
in doing Reorganize Index And Rebuild Index ....
Plz do comment on this ASAP !!!!
Thanks in advance
Regards
Arv
View 6 Replies
View Related
Apr 1, 2006
Hello I want to learn disparity clustered index or nonclustered index and in queries which one run better.
example
select * from orders where orderID=5
to this query clustered or nonclustered
thanks
View 3 Replies
View Related
Nov 14, 2006
the query:
SELECT a.AssetGuid, a.Name, a.LocationGuid
FROM Asset a WHERE a.AssociationGuid IN (
SELECT ada.DataAssociationGuid FROM AssociationDataAssociation ada
WHERE ada.AssociationGuid = '568B40AD-5133-4237-9F3C-F8EA9D472662')
takes 30-60 seconds to run on my machine, due to a clustered index scan on our an index on asset [about half a million rows]. For this particular association less than 50 rows are returned.
expanding the inner select into a list of guids the query runs instantly:
SELECT a.AssetGuid, a.Name, a.LocationGuid
FROM Asset a WHERE a.AssociationGuid IN (
'0F9C1654-9FAC-45FC-9997-5EBDAD21A4B4',
'52C616C0-C4C5-45F4-B691-7FA83462CA34',
'C95A6669-D6D1-460A-BC2F-C0F6756A234D')
It runs instantly because of doing a clustered index seek [on the same index as the previous query] instead of a scan. The index in question IX_Asset_AssociationGuid is a nonclustered index on Asset.AssociationGuid.
The tables involved:
Asset, represents an asset. Primary key is AssetGuid, there is an index/FK on Asset.AssociationGuid. The asset table has 28 columns or so...
Association, kind of like a place, associations exist in a tree where one association can contain any number of child associations. Each association has a ParentAssociationGuid pointing to its parent. Only leaf associations contain assets.
AssociationDataAssociation, a table consisting of two columns, AssociationGuid, DataAssociationGuid. This is a table used to quickly find leaf associations [DataAssociationGuid] beneath a particular association [AssociationGuid]. In the above case the inner select () returns 3 rows.
I'd include .sqlplan files or screenshots, but I don't see a way to attach them.
I understand I can specify to use the index manually [and this also runs instantly], but for such a simple query it is peculiar it is necesscary. This is the query with the index specified manually:
SELECT a.AssetGuid, a.Name, a.LocationGuid
FROM Asset a WITH (INDEX (IX_Asset_AssociationGuid)) WHERE
a.AssociationGuid IN (
SELECT ada.DataAssociationGuid FROM AssociationDataAssociation ada
WHERE ada.AssociationGuid = '568B40AD-5133-4237-9F3C-F8EA9D472662')
To repeat/clarify my question, why might this not be doing a clustered index seek with the first query?
View 15 Replies
View Related
Jun 22, 2006
Hello Everyone,I have a very complex performance issue with our production database.Here's the scenario. We have a production webserver server and adevelopment web server. Both are running SQL Server 2000.I encounted various performance issues with the production server witha particular query. It would take approximately 22 seconds to return100 rows, thats about 0.22 seconds per row. Note: I ran the query insingle user mode. So I tested the query on the Development server bytaking a backup (.dmp) of the database and moving it onto the devserver. I ran the same query and found that it ran in less than asecond.I took a look at the query execution plan and I found that they we'rethe exact same in both cases.Then I took a look at the various index's, and again I found nodifferences in the table indices.If both databases are identical, I'm assumeing that the issue isrelated to some external hardware issue like: disk space, memory etc.Or could it be OS software related issues, like service packs, SQLServer configuations etc.Here's what I've done to rule out some obvious hardware issues on theprod server:1. Moved all extraneous files to a secondary harddrive to free up spaceon the primary harddrive. There is 55gb's of free space on the disk.2. Applied SQL Server SP4 service packs3. Defragmented the primary harddrive4. Applied all Windows Server 2003 updatesHere is the prod servers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.67GHZTotal Physical Memory 2GB, Available Physical Memory 815MBWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1Here is the dev serers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.80GHz2GB DDR2-SDRAMWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1I'm not sure what else to do, the query performance is an order ofmagnitude difference and I can't explain it. To me its is a hardware oroperating systemrelated issue.Any Ideas would help me greatly!Thanks,Brian T
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jun 29, 2004
Found out a while back that my facts-tabel has an non-clustered index on its facts_id. In a bunch of procedures an update is executed against a facts_id unfortunately on it's facts-table. I was wondering if changing it into a clustered index is worth the effort / would make sense considering a +110 million facts and re-indexing the other indexes as well? Facts are loaded sequentially, so I would suspect them facts are in the ordered already?
thanx,
View 3 Replies
View Related
Oct 4, 2007
Hey,
what is the difference between Table Scan und Index Scan?
I find no difitions in the internet
Finchen
View 5 Replies
View Related
Sep 21, 2007
Hi,
I want to know wht is a
TABLE SCAN
INDEX SCAN
INDEX SEEKand When they are used, Wht is the difference between all these.????
View 5 Replies
View Related
