Improving Performance
Sep 23, 2007
I've written a small application that uses a Microsoft Sql Server 2000 Database and Here lately i've been experiencing alot of performance problems with timeouts and data just taking too long to retreive. I was wondering what could i do to help with this.
Details:
My Program i wrote simply takes windows eventlogs and uploads them into a central database in general , i have also build a small asp.net page, where users could write out queries or save them for later use. The program is hitting our servers and it grabs them remotely, inserts into sql one by one, and clears out the logs when finished, it runs one a day, and generates about 12,000 events daily. (mostly login's and logoffs). once it starts it'll take about 2 and a half hours to finish going through everything.
Database Design...
Single Table, about 3.5 million rows now, takes up about 3 gigs of harddrive space.
Column Definitions
Name, Data Type
EventEntryID INT PrimaryKey(Clustered) (Auto-Increment Identity)
Log varchar(300)
Type varchar(300)
Date smalldatetime
Source varchar(300)
Category varchar(300)
Message varchar(8000)
EventID varchar(300)
UserName varchar(300)
Computer varchar(300)I know the database design can probally use some work, but it's hard to do so now b/c of the massive amoutns of data without killing the transaction log.
Computer Specs:
OS: Window Server 2003
Processor: Intel 700 MHz
RAM: 1 GB
I know it's a small server, but this is pretty much the largest thing this server deals with
I've tried to monitor sql with perfmon and sql performance counters and I just don't see much of anything going wrong with it there, so i'm thinking the the hardware isn't an issue, but then again, i'm not very familar with sql.
View 10 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Feb 19, 2007
Hi,I used SQL Server 2005 on my development machine, and whilst thismachine isn't as powerful as the live server, it does at times seem alittle slower than I would expect. So I've been wondering if there isany way for me to tune the machine so that SQL Server is better able tomake use of the resources? I am using WS2003.Short of tweaking with the actual database, which is still underdevelopment, does anyone have any tips to increase peformance?Thanks,--Dylan Parryhttp://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.ukProgramming, n: A pastime similar to banging one's headagainst a wall, but with fewer opportunities for reward.
View 16 Replies
View Related
Mar 28, 2006
hello everyone,
does anyone know some tipps or articles that descripe how the sqlserver 2000 can be improved? i have an application which displays newspapers. the text of the newspapers is saved in db. performance is ok but i have performance-problems when i do a fulltext-search.
1) hardware: p4 xeon double core, 2.4 Ghz, 2 GB Ram
2) number of articles in database: ~ 255.000 Records (betwenn 10 - 400 words each)
3) the database is indexed (i am searching with "CONTAINS" and not with the "LIKE"-keyword)
4) in my query i am searching in 3 columns (title,leadtext,content)
5) results (searching for one word, stopping after 150 Results):the time to get a result from database lies between 5 to 10 Seconds (Average: 6.77 sec)!
this is the time only for getting the dataset from the sqlserver. the time of manipulating the dataset and binding it to my repeater needs about 15 milliseconds. using a sqldatareader didn't improve the performance. i got the same results.
in future the number of records will be three to five times higher than now. i am afraid that then the user has to wait half a minute to get a result of 150 search hits.
my questions:
Are you having similiar results in your applications? Are this times acceptable?
The SqlServer 2000 (professional) is installed in its default way with the default settings. Are they possiblities to modify this settings for improving performance? Where can i find info about that?
greetings and thx
Klaus
View 2 Replies
View Related
Feb 24, 2008
Hi guys,
I'm facing a performance issue with select count(*) table_name when performing pagination to my results. My actualy query joins 4 tables with proper PK and FK contrainsts and indices applied.
select top 100 * from table1
left outer join table2 on tid=rid
left outer join table3 on tid=aid
inner join shipment on sid=sid
where datetime>=convert(datetime,'20070810 00:00:00') and datetime<=convert(datetime,'20070920 23:59:59')
The query above takes 200 ms to 600 ms to execute.
select count(*) from table1
left outer join table2 on tid=rid
left outer join table3 on tid=aid
inner join shipment on sid=sid
where datetime>=convert(datetime,'20070810 00:00:00') and datetime<=convert(datetime,'20070920 23:59:59')
The query above takes 2000ms to 4000 ms to run.
The total records that fulfill the where clause is approximately 5000 to 6000 records. I checked the execution plan but found that the server is actually utilizing the indices with operations like index scan and index seek.
Are there any other things that i can do to improve the counting of total records?
Thanks.
View 5 Replies
View Related
Sep 20, 2006
I have a varchar(max) field that is on its way to a Term Lookup task, so it requires conversion to DT_NTEXT before it gets there. The conversion is taking a really, really, really long time. In my current example I have about 400 rows. Granted the length of the varchar(max) if I 'select max(len(myColumn))' is approximately 14,000,000 so I understand that I'm moving a lot of data. But I'm on a x64 machine with 4 dual core processors and watching Task Manager I can see that I'm only using 1 core out of 8. Anything I'm missing that can speed this up?
Thanks,
Frank
View 3 Replies
View Related
Dec 5, 2007
I have a number of complex search stored procedures that use the following syntax to try to simplify the code.
WHERE @SearchParam IS NULL OR SearchCol = @SearchParam
unfortunately it appears that this is really inefficient as far as the database is concerned.
If I run the following query on the AdventureWorks database (SQL Server 2005 with SP2 and fixes up to v3054)
Code Block
SET STATISTICS IO ON
Declare @CustomerID int
SET @CustomerID = 1
SELECT SalesOrderID
FROM Sales.SalesOrderHeader
WHERE @CustomerID IS NULL OR CustomerID = @CustomerID
SELECT SalesOrderID
FROM Sales.SalesOrderHeader
WHERE CustomerID = @CustomerID
Is see that the first select results in 45 logical reads, whereas the second results in only 2 logical reads.
Does anyone have any idea how I can get the benefit of a search procedure that does not have loads of IF blocks, or dynamic SQL without this major performance issue?
Cheers,
Justin
View 3 Replies
View Related
Aug 15, 2007
We have a table that is 800GB. We are planning to re-build the clustered index on this table to a different filegroup. The new filegroup and files associated with it will sit on a SAN which will have a 1.5TB allocation. Does anyone have any suggestions in regards to how many files to have associated with the filegroup to provide optimal performance? Apparently we could have 3 LUNS (500gb each), so would 1 file on each LUN provide additional performance as opposed to one file on 1 LUN?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Oct 24, 2005
Here's a sample SELECT statement:
SELECT T1.F3
FROM T1 INNER JOIN T2 ON T1.F4 = T2.F4
WHERE
(T1.F1 > @iNum AND T2.F1 > @iNum)
OR
( @iNum2 * (T1.F1 - T2.F1)/(T1.F2 - T2.F2) ) + (T1.F1 - ((T1.F1 - T2.F1)/(T1.F2 - T2.F2) * T1.F2) ) > @INum
As you can see, the second part of the WHERE (after the OR) is much more complicated than the part before the OR. My query would run a lot faster if it tried the first part of the OR and didn't bother with the second part if the first part was satisfied. Is there any way to do this?
Thanks!
Tyler
View 3 Replies
View Related
May 16, 2007
Hi all,
My colleague and I are having some difficulties regarding the speed of a LIKE query on our intranet system. Please see the quote below as posted on another SQL forum (To which no one has responded yet ).
Quote: Howdy,
I've taken control of an SQL Database with an ASP front end. The CPU usage of the SQL Server process periodically jumps up to between 75-99%. I've managed to identify the ASP page that is causing it and it's a search page.
It's basically doing something like this:
SELECT JobNumber, CustomerName, CustomerAddress, CustomerPostCode
FROM Customers
WHERE CustomerName LIKE '%query%'
OR CustomerAddress LIKE '%query%'
OR CustomerPostCode LIKE '%query%'
Where query is the value the user has searched on.
The CustomerName and CustomerPostCode fields are varchar fields, but the CustomerAddress field is a text field.
I know if I replace the CustomerAddress text field with a series of varchar fields then I could make them non-clustered indexes, but would this help speed things up with a LIKE query?
There's a lot of work required on the ASP side if I'm going to split the field out, so I only want to do it if I'm gonna get a significant benefit from doing it.
Failing this, is there a better way of performing a search like this?
Any help is much appreciated,
Thanks!
View 9 Replies
View Related
Nov 4, 2006
All:
I am presently tasked with improving the performance of a chatty application. What I mean by a chatty application is that the application makes multiple calls to the database server for each user request. In many cases it appears that many of the windows are making multiple calls to the database for the population of dialog boxes. In a couple of cases there are more than 10 dialog boxes that are populated similar to this.
To me this is kind of an "old issue", but my response is (1) cache the dialog information as much as possible and (2) make one call to the database to return all of this data for the dialog boxes if it is not cached. For update calls again make a single call to the database rather than making a call for each individual row of a table that is updated.
I admit that some of this will complicate the code of the application; however, my perspective is that I am supposed to look at this from the database perspective and not from the perspective of "programmer convenience." There will be times in which something that would otherwise get to hairy for a programmer will dictate an additional trip to the server, but this should not normally be the case.
What else do I need to consider?
Dave
View 3 Replies
View Related
Oct 26, 2007
Does any one know of any good components I can buy in to sit on top of my SQL Server to provide the kind of search functionality that google has - 'Did you mean...,' nearset match etc. I have set up SQL Server Full Text but to build all the extra functionality will take some time and I think it will be more cost effective to buy a component in. If any one has used any could you let me know of you experinces please. CheersScott
View 2 Replies
View Related
Feb 4, 2008
Is there a configuration or a trick to improve the speed of the access to inserted and deleted tables whithin a trigger? Whenever a trigger is called, the access to inserted or deleted constitute approximatly 95% of the execution time.
Is there a way to have access to inserted and to deleted improved other than copying the data to another table?
View 3 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
Mar 9, 2007
We have the same application installed on a few different environments with similar servers and similar hardward. The only difference is the versions of SQL and the colations.
Is SQL 2005 a lot faster that SQL 2000? Could colation type make a big effect on performance?
ScAndal
View 1 Replies
View Related
Aug 31, 2007
HiI want to insert 1000s of records into SQL Server 2005 Database with some manipulation. So that i put into the For Loop and inserting record.Inside the loop i am opening the connection and closing after use. The sample code is belowfor(int i=0;i<1000;i++){ sqlCmd.CommandText = "ProcName"; sqlCmd.Connection = sqlCon; sqlCmd.Connection.Open(): sqlCmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); sqlCmd.Connection.Close(); } What my Question is.. How is the Performance of this Code..?? Will is take time to get the Connection and Close the Connection in every itration?Or Shall I Open the Connection in Begining of the outside loop and close the connection at end of the Loop? will it increase the Performace?Please clarify me these question.. Thanks in advance.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Dec 8, 2003
I have a following problem with SQL performance:
this line 'select * from [viewUserLatestFee]' executes instantly (in Query Analiser)
this line 'select * from [viewUserLatestFee] where orgID = 1' takes up to 30 seconds for 1000 rows (still in Query analiser)
can anyone please help - I seem to have ran out of ideas
I have a feeling people might be curious about the view so here it is:
SELECT dbo.viewUserPosition.id, dbo.viewUserPosition.username, dbo.viewUserPosition.password, dbo.viewUserPosition.title,
dbo.viewUserPosition.firstName, dbo.viewUserPosition.lastName, dbo.viewUserPosition.email, dbo.viewUserPosition.address1,
dbo.viewUserPosition.address2, dbo.viewUserPosition.suburb, dbo.viewUserPosition.postcode, dbo.viewUserPosition.country,
dbo.viewUserPosition.state, dbo.viewUserPosition.mailAddress1, dbo.viewUserPosition.mailAddress2, dbo.viewUserPosition.mailSuburb,
dbo.viewUserPosition.mailPostcode, dbo.viewUserPosition.mailCountry, dbo.viewUserPosition.mailState, dbo.viewUserPosition.birthDate,
dbo.viewUserPosition.joinDate, dbo.viewUserPosition.lastUpdated, dbo.viewUserPosition.orgID, dbo.viewUserPosition.positionID,
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.feeID, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.mshipID, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.name, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.[desc],
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.terms, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.period, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.periodType, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.fee,
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.startDate, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.endDate, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.deleted, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.feePaidID,
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.paidDate, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.effectiveDate, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.approved, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.optionID,
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.paidAmount, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.feePaidEndDate
FROM dbo.viewUserPosition LEFT OUTER JOIN
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee ON dbo.viewUserPosition.id = dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.userID
Here is viewUserPosition:
SELECT dbo.tblUser.id, dbo.tblUser.username, dbo.tblUser.password, dbo.tblUser.title, dbo.tblUser.firstName, dbo.tblUser.lastName, dbo.tblUser.email,
dbo.tblUser.address1, dbo.tblUser.address2, dbo.tblUser.suburb, dbo.tblUser.postcode, dbo.tblUser.country, dbo.tblUser.state,
dbo.tblUser.mailAddress1, dbo.tblUser.mailAddress2, dbo.tblUser.mailSuburb, dbo.tblUser.mailPostcode, dbo.tblUser.mailCountry,
dbo.tblUser.mailState, dbo.tblUser.birthDate, dbo.tblUser.joinDate, dbo.tblUser.lastUpdated, dbo.tblRelPosition.orgID,
dbo.tblRelPosition.positionID
FROM dbo.tblUser INNER JOIN
dbo.tblRelPosition ON dbo.tblUser.id = dbo.tblRelPosition.userID
and viewLatestPaidFee:
SELECT dbo.tblMshipFee.id AS feeID, dbo.tblMshipFee.mshipID, dbo.tblMshipFee.name, dbo.tblMshipFee.[desc], dbo.tblMshipFee.terms,
dbo.tblMshipFee.period, dbo.tblMshipFee.periodType, dbo.tblMshipFee.fee, dbo.tblMshipFee.startDate, dbo.tblMshipFee.endDate,
dbo.tblMshipFee.deleted, fp.id AS feePaidID, fp.paidDate, fp.effectiveDate, fp.approved, fp.optionID, fp.paidAmount, fp.endDate AS feePaidEndDate,
fp.userID
FROM dbo.tblRelMshipFeePaid fp INNER JOIN
dbo.tblMshipFee ON dbo.tblMshipFee.id = fp.feeID AND fp.endDate =
(SELECT MAX(fp2.[endDate])
FROM [dbo].[tblRelMshipFeePaid] fp2
WHERE fp2.[userID] = fp.[userID])
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jan 13, 2005
We used a stored proc to pull totals from a database. Everything was fine until the table grew and started to time out. So we created a temp table to populate with a range of data and then pull the totals from there. Everything was fine until the table grew and started to time out. Any suggestion?
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jan 17, 2002
Hi,
I am newly joined as SQL DBA. I want to check the Physical disk Performance. we have RAID 5 with 5+1 disks. I calculated NO Of IO's Per Disk. But how do we know what is actual limit of IO's per disk.
Thanks
Praveen
View 1 Replies
View Related
May 8, 2001
What's my best bet in getting better performance out of one of my database servers? Currently we have 1 set of Raid5 disks partitioned into 2 drives. This houses everything (system, database, and logs) If that server has 2 slots left for drives I was thinking of putting 2 mirrored drives and getting the logs off the main database space? (Make sense?) This is a vendored application so working with new indexes etc. isn't something I should do wo/ the vendor's interaction. Will what I describe above help?
Thanks
View 2 Replies
View Related
Mar 31, 2001
hi,
i am using to move data from oracle to oracle.
i have used stored procedure in oracle for the update/insert .
the dts calls the stored procedure for each record, due to this the performance has gone down. how do i increase the speed of data xfer.
has any one done any thing similar ?
Tushar
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jun 26, 2001
We have SQL Server running on a dual processor Pentium 500mhz server. Our database is hit by about 300 users. 200 of those users are doing constant searches though a client table of about 250,000 records, which in turn is linked to a history table containing over 5,000,000 records. This is only the tip of the iceberg, we have many triggers, procedures, updates, etc. going in the background. The database has over 500 tables.
Keep in mind, these searches that are taking place can involve all kinds of fields: phone number, company name, fax number, first name, last name, status, wildcard searches, etc. So as you can imagine, the database is being hit with all kinds of funky requests to find records. I will be the first to admit that our developers (vendor) are not the best code writers, and we have a tough time getting them to optimize something they do not even understand themselves.
As I speak, our processor utilization is maxing out between 95 to 100 percent. I've done a lot of performance tuning and all of the problems lie in the searching. We've built, tested, rebuilt, re-tested each and every index. I even used the Profiler to filter what I could. It has improved, but our database is growing at a rate of 10 megs a day (already close to 3 gigs, not that huge). I think I've optimized my indexes as best as I can considering all the fields and possibilities available to users to search for records.
For a database that requires all of these different search criteria, what would be a more optimal server? We are looking to purchase something ASAP. I could really use help from someone in a similar situation. It seems odd, in mind, that a company of 300 people would need to rely on a quad server (four processor capability.).
Thanks. JT
View 3 Replies
View Related
May 31, 2000
HI
I have 700 to 900 mb of production database , 2 gb of ram , 30 gb hard disk,
My production machine is runnng very slow , i have check everything memory,
page/sec, catch hit ratin , dbcc dbreindex but still it performance is not up to the mark.
If i stop SQL SERVER & restart for few days machine works fine but after that
again same thing it work very slow, what could be the reason
if any one had any solution please suggest.
Thanks
Nil
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jan 17, 2000
Hi friends,
My company has aution web site, it is written in Java and all sql statements generated dynamically. No stored procedures used. If 30 users uses this site it is OK but if around 300 users uses then the site becomes very slow(almost dead) and developers saying that database is the bottle neck. Please help me in this problem how can I check and overcome this problem.
Thanks
dindu
View 2 Replies
View Related
Apr 27, 2000
I am running a SQL 7.0 server on a two processor machine. We are having some performance issues.
one of the processor is always above 90% utilization but the second is barely at 50%.
Will adding another processor help or are the processes locked to one processor.
The server is a dedicated sql server. nothing else is running on it.
Thanks for any info you can provide.
Pierre
View 2 Replies
View Related
Oct 20, 1999
Hi,
What I have to do to determine which is the capacity (transactions / sec) of MS SQL Server 7.0 on a specific hardware configuration?
Thank you,
Sebastian Bologescu
View 1 Replies
View Related
May 5, 2001
We have recently upgraded to SQL 7.0 on NT 4.0/sp6 box which has got 4 PIII 700 processors, 1GB RAM, and 70GB HDD on RAID 1 and RAID 5. We feel that the application performance is not great as expected in SS7. (The application was running in 6.5 smoothly and performance was good)
Is there any option needs to set to improve performance? Now, SS 7 using all the 4 processors and dynamically allocated memory, etc. Any thoughts greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance
Jaya
View 2 Replies
View Related
Mar 14, 2002
I'm running MS SQL Server on a 1.4 GHz AMD Athlon Processor with 750 MB or RAM and ample disk space. I have a table with 14 columns; 2 datetime, 8 int and the rest are varchar of various sizes less than 13.
I run a java process on another machine that connects to the database and insert records. It takes about 6 minutes to insert 100,000 records.
I run the xp performance monitor and only about 25% of the SQL Server machine's cpu is being used. I run top on the Linux box running java and I see about the same results. Neither machine is kept busy processing. Why don't I get better performance? Could my local area network be that slow? How many inserts per minutes is good performance?
Thanks for your input.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jan 23, 2001
Does anyone know the performance differences between returning data from SQL Server as XML vs. as a record set? We are about to dive into the For XML world full force, but we wanted to make sure that we are not heading for a performance nightmare.
Thanks for any insight on this. I'll try to look for white papers and do some testing in the meantime.
View 3 Replies
View Related
Feb 5, 2004
I ave the following Code in my Stored procedure.
Declare Cursor for table A
WHILE @@FETCH_STATUS = 0
Get values from other function based on some business logic.
INSERT Into another table B
(or)
UPDATE to another table B
END
I have to insert/update values to table B, one by one row. So, it is taking more time.
Is there any way to collect the values into a temporary storage and Insert/update or Move the values to table B.
View 11 Replies
View Related
Apr 4, 2008
1. where do we see the buffer cache hit ratio. can we set the buffer catche hit ratio manually.
2.In query execution plan we execute the query for performance issue.which parameters we check to take an action?
View 4 Replies
View Related
Apr 14, 2008
I have a small doubt. If we keep our data files and log files on sepertate disks how this can improve the database performance.
View 2 Replies
View Related
