IP Or DNS : Difference In Performance ?
Sep 22, 2006
Hello guys,
I would like to know if there is any meaningful difference in speed performance between using the DNS ("sql.server.com") or the IP address of the sql-server in the connection string.
The advantage of using DNS is that if there is any change in IP, I do not have to change the connection strings, but I do not want to loose speed because of the necessity to resolve the DNS.
Thanks for any help!
Regards,
Fabian
my favorit hoster is ASPnix : www.aspnix.com !
View 6 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Dec 4, 2007
Dear All,
is there any difference performance wise using
select * from my_table
and
select mycol1,mycol2....mycoln from my_table
actually i've read from one article the there is big difference....
please clear my doubt...
thanks in advance
Vinod
Even you learn 1%, Learn it with 100% confidence.
View 8 Replies
View Related
Aug 24, 2006
Hello Everyone,
Does anyone know if there is a performance difference between the new WITH clause t-sql and the subquery?
On a basic functionality level, they seem to perform the same function but I was wondering if there are any performance difference between the 2?
Thanks,
Joseph
View 9 Replies
View Related
Sep 15, 2014
I have one question what is performance difference between cluster index on numeric field or string field? I know that numeric is faster but why it is faster?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Sep 18, 2007
I have also posted this in microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming.
I have a query which, depending on where I run it from, will either take 10 milliseconds or 10 seconds.
The query works perfectly when run in SQL Server Management Studio... in my database of around 70,000 items it returns the results in around 10ms. It uses all my indexes and indexed views correctly.
However when I run the identical query from my ASP.NET application, it takes around 10 seconds... 1000 times longer.
Looking at it in Sql Server Profiler I can't see any difference in the query, except from ASP.NET it needs 62531 reads and from SSMS it needs only 318 reads. If I copy the slow running ASP.NET query from the profiler into SSMS, then it runs quick again. The results returned are the same.
I have provided more details of the query below, but I guess my real question is: What is the best way to debug this? I'm not an expert with SQL Server, so any pointers on where I should start looking to find the difference in how the query is being executed would be a great help.
The query is of the form:
WITH RowPost AS
(
SELECT
ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY DateCreated DESC) AS Row,
ItemId,
Title,
....
FROM
Items_View WITH(NOEXPAND)
WHERE ItemX >= @minX AND ItemX <= @maxX AND ItemY >= @minY AND ItemY <= @maxY
)
SELECT
*,
(SELECT Count(*) FROM RowPost) AS [Count]
FROM RowPost
WHERE Row >= @minRow AND Row < @maxRow
Where Items_View is an indexed view, and WITH(NOEXPAND) is being used to force it to use the indexed view (this is optimal). The line beginning "SELECT Count(*)" is to get the total number of results (without having to run the inner query a second time).
This is running against SQL Server Developer Edition.
View 5 Replies
View Related
Oct 25, 2006
SQL 2000 Connection String:user id=MyUserName;password=MyPassword;initial catalog=MyDB;server=MyServer;Connect Timeout=30 This SELECT statement returns its 10 results nearly instantly:SELECT * FROM MyTableDitto from above, but completes in 30-40 seconds:SELECT * FROM [dbo].[MyTable]Ditto from above, but completes nearly instantly:
SELECT TOP 1000 * FROM [dbo].[MyTable] Obviously I have stopped using the [dbo] syntax in my SqlCommand's (SELECT's and EXECUTE's) but still would like to know why this is.vr, Rich
View 3 Replies
View Related
Feb 4, 2007
Hello, all, I started out thinking my problems were elsewhere but as Ihave worked through this I have isolated my problem, currently, as adifference between MSDE and SQL Express 2005 (I'll just call itExpress for simplicity).I have, to try to simplify things, put the exact same DB on twosystems, one running MSDE and one running Express. Both have 2 Ghzprocessors (one Intel, one AMD), both have a decent amount of RAM(Intel system has 1 GB, AMD system has 512 MB), and plenty of GB offree disk space. MSDE is running on the Intel system, Express isrunning on the AMD system. To keep things fair I use the exact sameDB's and query on both systems. The DB's were created on MSDE so Isp_detach_db'd them from MSDE and then sp_attach_db'd them to Express(this is how MS says to do a "side-by-side" upgrade, so it'sacceptable to do so). After fighting problems in performancedifferences in different situations I have narrowed the problem downto this:Executing a simple select statement with join clause on the databasesyields a difference in execution time that is quite great. Using theExpress Management program I can run the query against either system(MSDE or Express, the two systems are connected via crossover cable toeliminate any network problems/issues). When running the queryagainst the MSDE system (which is over the network) I consistently get<20 ms response times on the query. When running the query againstthe Express installation (which is in shared memory) I consistentlyget 700 ms or longer response times. Both times are for the TotalExecution Time.The query is simply this: select db1.* from db1.owner.tablename as db1inner join db2.owner.tablename as db2 on db1.pkey = db2.someid wheredb1.criteria = 3So, gimme all the columns from one table in one DB (local to theinstallation), matching the records in another DB (also local to theinstallation), where one field in the first db matches a field in thesecond db and where, in the first db, one column value = 3.The first table has a total record count of 630 records of which only12 match the where clause. The second table has a total record countof about 2,700 of which only 12 match up on the 12 out of 630.Even though the data is the same and I've done the detach and attach,and even done the sp_updatestats, the difference in execution time isremarkable, in a bad way.Checking the Execution Plan reveals that both queries have the samesteps, but, on the MSDE system the largest consumer in the process isthe Clustered Index Scan of the 630 record table (DB1 in my queryexample), using 85%. The next big consumer is a Clustered Index Seekagainst the other table (2,700 rows), using 15%.The Execution Plan against the Express system reveals basically theexact opposite: 27% going to the Clustered Index Scan of the 630record DB1, and 72% going to the Clustered Index Seek of the 2,700record DB2.I'm sorry to be stupid but I have this information but I don't knowwhat to do with it. The best that I can tell from this is that thisis the source of my problems. My problems are that on my currentsystems that my clients use the data is returned to them faster thanthey can click the mouse and that the new system (that is, when theychose (or are forced by attrition) to move to Vista and thus Express2005) the screen pop is like 1.5 seconds. This creates poor userexperience. Worse, one process I allow the users to do goes fromtaking 14-30 seconds to over 4 minutes (all on the same machine withthe same OS and version of my program, so it's not a machine or OS ormy app problem).Anyway, I hope someone can shed some light on this now that I've paredit down some.Thanks in advance.--HC
View 9 Replies
View Related
Dec 13, 2007
Hi,
I created a CLR UDF that returns a large number of rows, when I run it from my VPC (XP, SQL Server Developer Edition and 1GB Memory) it takes approx 2 min and 30 secs to start displaying the rows (Using Management Studio), when I run the same query in our development server (Win 2003, SQL Server Enterprise Edition, 8 GB Memory and 8 Processors) it takes more than 15 min to start displaying the results, does anybody have an idea why is this happening?
Thanks in advance
View 2 Replies
View Related
Oct 24, 2007
Executing the stored procedure took 45 seconds. But copying the code to a query window and setting up the variables (instead of parameters), it took 7 seconds.
In the query window, most of the processing cost (86%) is right up front in a "Distinct Sort." But in exec stored procedure, the cost for this step is 11% and the significant costs are in later "Table Scans."
I don't know why SQL Server would choose different execution plans when the code is identical in each.
Any quick insights?
Many thanks.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Aug 1, 2007
Hi,
I'm having an issue with a query I'm running on Sql Server 2005. It's a semi-complex query involving an in-line table function and several left outer joins which are joined on to the results of the function call. Two of the left outer joins are then qualified in a where clause of the form where table.Col is not null; the idea is that the final result set contains data that has no match in those two tables.
The problem revolves around a where clause in the function and the last left outer join (ie, one of the ones qualified with where not null). When I alter the where clause of the function to further restrict the result set the function returns, the query times shoots up from 1 second to roughly 2-3 minutes. Note that the time the function takes to complete is not affected. The difference in time is purely down to what the query does with the results the function provides. Also note that the change to the where clause provides a subset of the original data; it does not add any more data (it actually restricts the original resultset by roughly 1000 rows).
I can bring the query speed back down again by removing the last left outer join - this join takes one of the columns from the function, and joins it to a small table - 924 rows. So it appears that this particular join is the cause of the issue, but only when using the resultset generated from the modified function query.
Now, as the thread title alludes, Sql Server 2000 and 2005 handle this differently, or appear to. When I execute this same query on a Sql 2000 machine, there's no apparent time differences, and the data that is returned is as expected. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what might be causing this and how I can fix it? I could simply return the larger resultset and use managed code to filter out the rows I don't want; however, I would like to get to the bottom of this, especially if it's going to effect future queries.
Cheers,
Chris
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jun 22, 2015
I have encountered a problem with a specific set of tables. The same select yields slightly differing execution plans in two different environments (instances). But the slight variation seems to contain a huge differences in stats. I don't know the significance of these stats. The two tables have the exact same indices.
This is the selcet statement:
SELECT 'xx' FROM DUKS.dbo.Profiler
WHERE DNA_Løbenummer IN
(SELECT DNA_Løbenummer FROM DUKS.dbo.Effektregister
WHERE Sagsnummer = '2015-00002')
View 17 Replies
View Related
Feb 13, 2015
SQL Server 2014 BI edition.
select * from sys.dm_os_performance_counters returns the object names prefixed with "SQLServer:" (e.g. SQLServer:Databases)
It was expected as in other editions also. Issue is that when we try to crate "SQLServer Performance Condition alert", object names in "Object" list comes without the prefix "SQLServer:" (e.g. Databases). Please see the attached snapshots.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Dec 15, 2006
Dear All,We have a database which contains many tables which have millions ofrecords. When We attach the database with MS SQL Server 2005 StandardEdition Server and run some queries (having joins, filters etc.) thenthey take very long time to execute while when We execute same querieson Enterprise Edition then they run 10 times faster than on standardedition.Our database does not use any features which are present in EnterpriseEdition and not present in Standard Edition. We want to know what arethe differences between Standard Edition and Enterprise Edition forperformance. Why should we go for Enterprise Edition when StandardEdition has all the features required.We are presently using evaluation versions of SQL Server 2005 Standardand Enterprise Editions.Thanks and regards,Nishant Sainihttp://www.simplyjava.com
View 23 Replies
View Related
Feb 19, 2008
Hello,I have been searching and reading a lots of information on the microsoft website about the different version of SQL server, but still can not make my decision.In term of performance, is there a real big difference between the workgroup and the standard version? The workgroup is limited to 3 GB of RAM while the standard is unlimited, would that really change the performance if my server has 16Gb or RAM?The price difference is pretty substantial so if could only have to buy the workgroup , it would be better.One more question, regarding the type of licence, my server has 2 processors, could I avoid buying 2 licences and get the Server plus CAL instead. I am using this server to host 4 web-application running on SQL server. Each database is about 15 MB.Thanks in adavance for your advises.Arno
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jan 23, 2008
Hi!
What is the difference in performance if I use a Temp-table or a local-table variable in a storedprocedure?
Why?
//Daniel
View 5 Replies
View Related
Oct 4, 2007
Is there a perf difference between:
create function dbo.zzz
returns uniqueidentifier
return '0000-0000-0000-00000000'
select dbo.zzz
vs.
se;ect '0000-0000-0000-00000000'
Thanks,
J
View 4 Replies
View Related
Oct 24, 2007
Question is in the subject.
Thanks in advance
-Jamie
View 7 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
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
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
Feb 28, 2007
What is the difference between below? And how can I make GETDATE() the same as System.DateTime.Today.ToShortDateString()?
System.DateTime.Today.ToShortDateString()
and
GETDATE()
View 2 Replies
View Related
Feb 5, 2008
Hi all,
What is the difference between SQL Server 2000 & SQL Server 2005?
Thanks!
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jul 7, 2000
Can anybody tell me what is the difference between backing up database to a file and backing up to backup device.
Thanx in adv.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Dec 16, 2002
Hello,
I am transfereing Data into text format.
The datas are about 5 table and has almost 50000 to 2 million rows.
I am using the same query for BCP and DTS. But I find the dreference between those. I mean DTS is taking less memory and more time than BCP to complete the process .
Anybody can share any comment for this issue ?.
View 6 Replies
View Related
Aug 18, 2004
Can somebody tell or may refer to a site that show the differences between SQL Server 2000 SP2 and SP3a.
Thanks.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Mar 10, 2004
Is there really a difference of approach?
I have several things to consider in an estimating database. Production, Shipping, Field Work, Field Hardware, etc...
All of the above have account numbers. Now I was wondering, would there be any benifit to having one table or several tables?
One Table Example
Account (PK) | Category | Description
or
Multiple tables
tbProduction
Account (PK) | Description
tbShipping
Account (PK) | Description
tbProducts
Account (PK) | Description
etc.....
I like having the tables split up and/or all in one.
Any thoughts, pros / cons?
Mike B
View 2 Replies
View Related
Apr 9, 2008
What is the difference between stored procedure and functions ?
thanx in advance
View 7 Replies
View Related
May 16, 2006
Hi,
What is the difference between Inline-table value function and multi statement table value function?
Thanks In Advance
View 6 Replies
View Related
Sep 4, 2006
Hi Experts,
please tell me the difference between BCP and DTS
provide me links if possible.
thankyou very much
View 2 Replies
View Related
Sep 8, 2006
hello friends,
i've bee working in DTS just from 2 days.
i've one database like 'x' and now i've exported the data to a newly created database 'y'
but in this y database i got much memory like around 30 mb.
why this happend?
sorry if this is a small question.
thankyou friends
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jan 16, 2007
Hi
I want to know the difference between
SQL server Express and
SQL server 2005 Express Edition.
Thanks
Yimoot.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Feb 6, 2007
hi, i'm having difficulty figuring out how to implement a set difference between two queries. the only set operator i've been able to come across is union. thanks in advance!
d
View 3 Replies
View Related
Dec 21, 2007
Hi all,
May any one tell the differnce between t-sql Stored procedure and the same SP written in CLR compatible?.Will CLR SP really improve the performance?
Your response will be highly appreciated.
Thanks in advance
View 1 Replies
View Related
