For anyone with a larger number of databases (500+): How many do you have in a single instance. If you are using multiple instance on a single server, how many dbs per instance. This is why I'm asking
We are experiencing 701 "out of system memory" and temporary (usually) system freezes when the error occurs. We have 32bit 2005 version 9.00.2153.00, 32GB of memory, AWE enabled, quad dual-core 3GHz hyperthreaded server. Nether the bPool or VAS show any pressure when the "out of system memory error" occurs. Since this error usually indicates a VAS problem we tried increasing VAS to 1GB w/the -g flag. It made no difference. PSS has been working on the case for 3 weeks. They dont seem to be finding any evidince of memory pressure either. When I last spole to the escalation engineer yesterday it seemed that they are going to recommend reducing the number of databases on the server. I asked for clarification as to whether we are hitting a 32 bit barrior, an instance limitation, or both. I am awaiting the answer. How many databases do you have on your server? We had between 1700 and 1900 (the number varies) at times when the error occured. We are now at 1500, and have not had the error in the 2 days since reducing the number of databases...
I am trying to enable database mirroring for 100 database. It goes error free till 59 databases (some times 60 databases) with the status (principal, synchronized) on principal. on the 60th or 61st database it gave the status (principal, disconnected). Also mirror starts acting abnormal. connection to mirror starts to give connection timeout and it is not enabling database mirroring on any more databases. I have SQL SERVER 2005 Enterprise with SP1 on the servers. witness is not included yet.
this are my test servers... i have more than 500 databases on my production servers.
principal and mirror both are using port 5022 for ENDPOINT communication.
I am trying to enable database mirroring for 100 database. It goes error free till 59 databases (some times 60 databases) with the status (principal, synchronized) on principal. on the 60th or 61st database it gave the status (principal, disconnected). Also mirror starts acting abnormal. connection to mirror starts to give connection timeout and it is not enabling database mirroring on any more databases. I have SQL SERVER 2005 Enterprise with SP1 on the servers. witness is not included yet.
these are my test servers... i have more than 500 databases on my production servers.
principal and mirror both are using port 5022 for ENDPOINT communication.
All of the databases are critical and all must be included in the Database Mirroring. so, after that I tried to implement database mirroring again...... System has 3 GB of RAM, SQL SERVER (Mirror) using 85 MB of RAM but still giving this error while trying to enable database mirroring for 37th Database.....
"There is insufficient system Memory to run this query"
I have a 2 node cluster having 4 cores each wherein having 3 instances of SQL 2008 R2 enterprise comprising of 60 databases, 20 on each instance. I need to setup mirroring for each of the databases to a secondary server having 4 cores and 3 instances. What i understand is that in this case the mirror server will be providing max of 512 worker threads and the 60 mirror databases would consume 240 threads.what all needs to be checked for looking into the feasabilty of going ahead with a async mirror setup as mentioned above.
We are running SQL Server 2005 Ent Edition with SP2 on a Windows 2003 Ent. Server SP2 with Intel E6600 Dual core CPU and 4GB of RAM. We have an C# application which perform a large number of calculation that run in a loop. The application first load transactions that needs to be updated and then goes to each one of the rows, query another table get some values and update the transaction.
I have set a limit of 2GB of RAM for SQL server and when I run the application, it performs 5 records update (the process described above) per second. After roughly 10,000 records, the application slows down to about 1 record per second. I have tried to examine the activity monitor however I can't find anything that might indicate what's causing this.
I have read that there are some known issues with Hyper-Threaded CPUs however since my CPU is Dual-core, I do not know if the issue applies to those CPUs too and I have no one to disable one core in the bios.
The only thing that I have noticed is that if I change the Max Degree of Parallelism when the server slows down (I.e. From 0 to 1 and then back to 0), the server speeds up for another 10,000 records update and then slows down. Does anyone has an idea of what's causing it? What does the property change do that make the server speed up again?
If there is no solution for this problem, does anyone know if there is a stored procedure or anything else than can be used programmatically to speed up the server when it slows down? (This is not the optimal solution however I will use it as a workaround)
Hi We are using the SQL Server 2005 Full Text Service. The data is not huge, but the kind of data is that each record is small and there are a large number of records. There are 35 million records now with 11 GB of data and about 1.6 GB of FT catalog on the table. This is expected to grow to at least 10 times the size of this data. The issue is with FTS taking a long time to return results when the number of hits (rows) getting returned from FTS is large for some searches, it takes a very long time. With the same data & catalog, those full text queries for less common words return timely. The nature of the problem doesnt allow us to only have top results. We need all the results. So it’s not about the size of data but the number of results getting returned from FT. (As the catalog is inverted). The machine is dual processor with 4 GB RAM.
I am considering splitting the table and hence the catalog and using multiple servers to do full text searches in smaller catalogs. Is there any other way this issue can be solved ?
If splitting is the only way, can you give me an idea as to what is a statistical/standard limit to the number of search results/cataog size as which FTS gives good results
Hello,If I have a database of 5 GB with only 20 tables in it, how many ofthose can we put in how many database servers on a high end machine(Dual Xeon 8 GB on windows 2003)?It is to maka a quotation and an estimation of the cost.TIAMario
In MS Sql Server 2000, if you run a stored procedure that query's morethan 8 databases, you get this error gets raised:Maximum number of databases used for each query has been exceeded. Themaximum allowed is 8.In 2005, does this maximum number still exist? if so, is it still 8, orhas the number been increased?Thanks,Mike
Hi, My MSQSQL 2000 application inone company has a backup file of more than 6 GB. The total number of tables are more than 280 while the number of fields are more than 8000. The last months I noticed that the backup database file is increasing rapidly. Is there a particular reason or anyone fas an idea why? My largest table consists of more than 160 fields and has amore than 1,2 million records and 32 indexes. I know this is not very good, and I'm thinking methods to fix it since I have noticed performance problems. Can you have some advices? I read that with MSSQL 2005 I can partition my table horizontally and vertically. However I think that this option is available with the enterprise edition which costs more than 10,000 Euros. Is this correct? Is there another way to increase performance? My server is Windows 2003 with 4 GB memory. I think that Windows 2003 doesn't support more than 4 GB memory. Is this true? Are there some advices for my case from the experienced users of this forum?? Regards, Manolis
I have been working as a SQL Server 2000/2005 db administrator (small-medium dbs), in the near future I am going to work as a DBA for large DB on SQL Server 2005 (200 - 300 GB and over) but I have not experences. Do you have any suggestions, Recommendations or useful docs, books or web links and everything else to suggest me on how to administer large databases.
We are going to be getting a new system to house our large databases. Some of these databases will need to be encrypted. Ideally we'd like to set up encryption in SQL server rather then have to purchase an appliance to encrypt the data. What is the trade off of using SQL server 2005 to encrypt data? Does performance suffer a great deal with a large database (500g-4tb)? Also, how much more/less sure is the encryption for SQL Server? Some of our users need to be able to read the data as unencrypted while working, but we need to keep the system as secure as possible. Answers to any of these questions would be incredible helpful.
I have been looking into mirroring a large amount of small databases approx 150 databases.
As I understand this won't be feasible because of the way mirroring threading works, http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=441900&SiteID=1
As I understand it for every database being mirrored sql will ping the mirror second, causing a network bottleneck?.
Also that the amount of threads generated for each mirrored database will cause also cause a bottleneck?
At the moment our database servers are under very little pressure and as an estimate use about 10% of the resources allocated to them such as CPU utilization, memory, disk IO and network. Our server hardware is Dual Quad core Xeons with 4 - 8 gig of memory and variety of 10k SCSCI raid configurations from raid 5 or 1,0 and sql 2005 32bit.
Ive done some calculations on the log file generation rate compared to network bandwidth there is more than enough network bandwidth.
Has anybody had any luck in mirroring many small databases?
My concerns is how much traffic is caused by the pinging of the mirror for each database?,
How many threads will the mirroring cause and what is the max amount of threads sql can handle?
How much memory will be consumed by each one of these mirroring threads?
I'm currently in the middle of building quite a large CMS using ASP.NET and MSSQL2K and have began to question if the amount of queries I am using for one page to be built is too many?
For one page (View Forum) I am getting all of the templates and checking access then pulling a list of threads, getting the first and last posts, then user info for the first and last posts... anyway to view 10 threads on the page the number of queries comes to about 54 and the page takes 0.064 seconds to load.
My question is, Is this to many queries to be running for a single page load? All queries are using Stored Procedures.
hi, Does large number of connections to a sql server result in slogging queries?? by large number of connections I mean in the range of 2000 to 2500 connections to various databases on the same server. This happens on the production database, if I download the copy of the database and run the specific queries on the local box it hardly takes 1 second to execute, whereas on the production box it takes about 45 to 60 secs, i m working on the indexes part... was not sure whether number of connections to a server affect the performance of the queries or it is just that the indexes need defragmentation...
We are busy designing a generic analytical system at work that willhold multiple analytic types over time. This system is being developedin SQL 2000.Example of tableIDENTITY intItemId int [PK]AnalyticType int [PK]AnalyticDate DateTime [PK]Value numeric(28,15)ItemId - the item for which the analytic is being storedAnalyticType - an arbitrary typeThe [PK] tag indicates the composite primary key.Our scenario is the following:* For this time series data, we expect around 250 days per year(working days) and the dataset could extend to over 20 years* Up to 50 analytic types* Up to 20,000 itemsLooking at the combined calculation - this comes to roughly somethinglike25 * 20,000 * 50 * 250 or around 5 billion rows.We will be inserting around 50*20,000 or around 1 million rows each day(the inserts will take place in the middle of the night (outside themain query time) - this could be done through something like BCP orBULK INSERT.Our real problem is we have not previously worked with such largetables before and are nervous that our system is going to grind to ahalt. Our biggest tables are around 20 million rows at the moment.Scanning through google and microsoft's own site we have found aparititioning method that is available.http://www.microsoft.com/resources/...art5/c1861.mspxHaving experimented with the above system it seems rather quirky andlooking at the available literature it seems that this is not moreeffective than a clustered index as far as queries go.It needs to be optimized for queries like:Given the ItemID and the AnalyticType search for a specific date or aspecific range of dates.If anyone has any experience or helpful suggestions I would reallyappreciate it.ThanksA
A select query returns around 1 million rows. The column in the WHERE condition is indexed. This query takes nearly 1 minute for returning the all the records. Is this normal ?
Does the number of records returned affect the performance inspite of the indexing ?
I need to insert a very large number of rows into a table (in SQL Server 7.0) using ADO. Could you please tell me i there is a way for FAST insert, something similar to BCP ... or any other way of inserting large number of rows efficiently
Hi gurus, I'm creating a web application where I will have a large number of tables (between 10k and 20k), this is done for the sake of scalability as tables will be moved to different database servers as the application grows and also for performance (smaller indexes). I'm worried though how having a large number of tables could affect the performance of SQL Server as the application will start on one single database server. I tried to find some resources on that on the internet but couldn't find any.
I would really appreciate if you can give me some advice and if you have any good links that would be great...
Hi gurus, I'm creating a web application where I will have a large number of tables (between 10k and 20k), this is done for the sake of scalability as tables will be moved to different database servers as the application grows and also for performance (smaller indexes). I'm worried though how having a large number of tables could affect the performance of SQL Server as the application will start on one single database server. I tried to find some resources on that on the internet but couldn't find any.
I would really appreciate if you can give me some advice and if you have any good links that would be great...
The DB I am working with has about 10 tables and some of the tables have 200,000 to 500,000 records. All tables have a clustered index on the primary key.
I performance during INSERT could be better I think - I add thousands of records at a time from many connections.
Is there a way to defer the update of indicies? So that, I can update the tables and then let the indicies regenerate ?
For large databases is it a good idea to create indexes for fields that are used in Where statements? Does that improve performance and reduce overhead?
My company works with SQL Server 2005 express locally with Visual Studio to develop websites. Everything works very well.
We use SQL Server 2005 express on our production server as well. We change the database over to a non-User Instance when the site is ready to go live. Everything works fine here as well.
We run into issues when databases get near 100 MB. This is well below the stated database size limit for Express of 4GB.
At that point, about once a day, a site with a "large" database will stop responding. The error that we'll get is "Cannot open database 'DBNAME' requested by the login. The login failed. Login failed for user 'DBUSER'
The only way we've found to fix this is to restart the SQL Express service. Obviously, that isn't a very useful alternative.
Has anyone run into anything like this? Could we have some setting wrong?
Would moving to the full version of SQL Server 2005 fix this?
I have datagrid that needs to display a log table which has more than million records. Since it it huge number, it is not possible to get dataset using "select * from log_table" to fill and to bind to datagrid.Is there anyway to display first 100 rows on first page and show next 100 rows if use clicks on page 2?Thank you very much in advance!Justin
Hi I have created one store procedure which handles global updates I am using cursor to fetch one be one row for updating (It is required for implementing business logic)Now when i execute this store procedure ---it gives me dedlock error , I dont know why i m getting this error(Approx number of rows 1.5lakh)if then i removed unnecessary records from table (Approx -50000) it works fine,Is there any way to handle itI am calling this storeprocedure from my window service.please give me a good solution if possible
We have a Windows App and Web App that share business objects which points to a single database. When a Windows user logs in, an average of 50 processes are created in the first few seconds and never go away. The details window is blank and they all remain sleeping from that point on.
I have stepped through the code to see if there is anything odd going on but most of the processes are created when validating the number of parameters the stored procedure has or the length of the stored procedure name. This translates to 1000-1500 processes on average.
Is this normal? Will it hurt performance? Is there a way to remove them?
Hi all,I need to store data into about 104 columns. This is problematic with MSSQL, since it doesn't support rows over 8kb in total size.Most of the columns are of type NVARCHAR(255), which means we can't havemore than 8092/(255*2) = 15 columns of this type.With a row length of more than 8kb, SQL gives a warning that any rows overthat amount will be truncated.So far I'm seeing two possible solutions to this problem:1. Split data into multiple tables with the same ID column accross alltables, and then join them on SELECT statements.2. Use NTEXT instead of NVARCHAR. NTEXT's length is 16 bytes because itcontains a pointer to the actual value stored somewhere else. However, NTEXTdoesn't support regular indexing, only through a Full-Text Index catalog. Inthis case I'll need to user "WHERE CONTAINS(columnName, 'sometext')" toperform searches, which is bearable.I'm inclined toward #2. However I haven't used Full-Text indices before anddon't know their limitations. Will I run into problems with NTEXT? Is therea better solution?Thanks.-Oleg.
Hello!I have a developer that is playing around with some SQL statementsusing VB.NET. He has a test table in a SQL 2000 database, and he hasabout 2000 generated INSERT statements.When the 2000 INSERT statements are run in SQL query analyzer, all2000 rows are added to the table. When he tries to send the 2000statements to SQL Server through his app., a random number ofstatements do not get executed. But, SQL Profiler shows that each ofthe 2000 statements are getting sent to the server.I suggested that he add a "GO" statement at the end of the INSERTblock, but the statement fails when that is sent to the server.I know that this is not the ideal manner to insert bulk data to thesystem, but now we are all just curious as to why SQL server doesn'texecute each individual INSERT.Any thoughts?
Table structure: col1 IDENTITY (seed=1 increment=1) + few other columns (col2...col7) + one text column (col 8) I have around 50,000,000 rows per day inserted in the table T1. At the end of the day 40,000,000 rows are deleted. I have to keep the records for 12 months and then archive it. Database is 24/7 web serving and there is no down time allowed. IDENTITY column will go out of range (overflow) after less than two years, unless the identity seed is reset to the start value (seed=1, increment=1). At the end of 12th month data is archived in another table and only last month is kept in the table T1. So table T1 enters new year with data from last month of the previous year. There are few other tables that refer to this table by using there own field with values from T1.IDENTITY column (referential integrity is not enforced). Identity column in T1 is needed as a unique id for some search actions. Performance is an issue therefore bigint data type is used for this identity column rather than decimal.
Another problem I have is how to do table update on one column (1 mil rows to be updated out of 2 mil of rows) with the minimum impact on the users who are querying this table heavily. Not need to mention that it is web app 24/7 no down time.
I have some problems with our database which is growing too large, and was hoping someone might have some tips on what I can do!
I have about 100 clients, each logging about 10 000 rows of status logs a day. So after just a few days the db is growing very large.
At present it's manageable, since I don't need to "dig" into the logs more than a few times a day. The system it self is not affected by the size of the log or traffic on the server. But it will increase to about 500 clients in 2004, and 1000-1500 in 2005. So I really need a smarter solution than what I have today to be able to use the log efficiently.
98-99% of these rows are status-messages which are more or less garbage during normal operation. But I still need to keep them in case an error occurs, and we need to go back an hour or two (maybe a day) to see what went wrong. After 24-48 hours these 98-99% are of no use. I do however like to keep the remaining 1-2%, they are messages like startup, errors, etc. Ideally they should be logged in two separate tables by the clients, but unfortunatelly I cannot make the clients change their logging.
This presents problems on multiple levels. Mainly in searching, which often times out, but also with backup and storagespace. At the moment I check the system for errors, and every other day I just truncate the log-file. It works, but it's not exacly elegant......
The server is a 1100 MHz P3 / 512MB / Windows 2000 Server / SQL Server 2000. Faster hardware would help, but the problem is more of a "bad design" than "slow hardware" problem.
My log is pretty simple, as follows:
LogId - int - primary key - clustered index ClientId - int - index asc LogTypeId - int - index asc LogValue - nvarchar[2500], ikke index LogTimeStamp- datetime - index asc
I have deducted 3 different solutions:
Method 1: Simply run "Delete from db_log where logtyipeid <> stuff_I_want_to_keep".
This is the simplest and the one i prefer, but it takes too long time to complete. Any tips to speed this process up?
Method 2: Create a trigger which runs something like "Delete from db_log where logtypeid <> stuff_I_want_to_keep and date < today_minus_two_days" every hour or so. This will ensure that the db doesn't grow to large. But if I'm away from work a few days we might loose data we'd wanted to keep.
Method 3:
Copy what I want to keep into another table, and empty the log. Sort of like "Insert into db_log_keep stuff_to_keep; drop db_log; create table db_log; " (or truncate, but that takes a long time too)
But then I would be stuck with two log tables, "48-hour_db_log" and "db_log_keep". I could use a view to "union" them so they would appear as a single table, but that's not ideal either.
However, it seems as this method is what will work best for my set-up, unless there are other suggestions??
Method 4:
...eagerly awaiting ideas!!! :-)
(Also, whatever tips and/or links to info on maintaing VLDB's are greatly appreciated. )
A New Monthly data is being loaded, checked and finally approved after 6 or 7 iteration before approval.Because of this iteration the monthly data set is being added then deleted then added then deleted few times.Because the table is big this process takes time, any thoughts on how to make the delete insert process faster.Keep in mind I cannot do much because it is a production table and is being access by other users to do other analysis.
Delete is done based on trx_date which is a year/month combo, like 201508.
The table has monthly sales by customer aggregated.
The table structure is:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Sales]( [batch_key] [int] NOT NULL, [Company_key] [int] NOT NULL, [customer_key] [char](22) NOT NULL, [Trx_Date] [int] NOT NULL, [account] [nvarchar](35) NOT NULL,
