We are using SQL SERVER 2005, enterprise/standard edition for an application that generates queries at runtime and normally having many joins in it. But these queries are taking lot of time when they are executed. After setting the database parameter PARAMETERIZATION to FORCED, performance of the queries have improved a lot but still we want to improve them further. Is there any other parameter that we can set for improving the performance of the queries. We have created the indexes on the basic columns that will be used while querying but it may happen that some other columns may also be used for searching in which case queries become quiet slow. Is there anything like skip-scan indexes(of oracle) in sql server 2005.
Hi, I have absolutely no knowledge of PHP or SQL .... I moderate a PHPBB forum at www.savingshelterpets.com Our web host (SiteGround) has taken our site down temporarily because we are overloading the server. I have no idea how to fix the problem, so hopefully someone here can help me out! Smiley
PHP version 4.4.4 MySQL version 5.0.27-standard-log
Here's the info sent to me by SiteGround (I don't understand a word of it!):
quote:Upon further investigation, it turned out that the following queries in your account are slow and heavily consume server resources:
I am having one querry regarding the same line. In my stored procedure i am fetching the data from one table containing upto 5 to 6 million rows I made use of index in my database but then also I cant optimise my execution time of that sp. Please help me out of this problem.
Is there any way to view the queries that a SqlDataSource executes against your chosen data source at runtime? i.e. after all the parameters have been substituted with their values.I'm assigning a number of parameters at runtime to its selectcommand, and i'm getting some exceptions thrown when attempting to update or delete records from a gridview using it (it's a really old Synergy database, which can be quite particular about the structure of queries). It would be a massive help if i could actually see the exact queries the datasource is attempting to use.Cheers for any help
We are trying a cluster setup on MS SQL 2005 with one m/c as Publisher (Primary) and another as Subscriber (Secondary). When Publisher and Subscriber both are running, everything goes fine but when Publisher server goes down, subscriber server troubles.
We are using MSADO15.DLL for database connectivity. We have a table where ID column is set to primary key with Auto Increment true. We use AddNew() function of this library to insert a new record. We fill a structure with all necessary values to pass it to AddNew() with ID field set to 0. When we use AddNew() on the above table to insert a record, the ID auto inserted in table is correct but returned structure contains wrong ID value.
We tried to trace this problem using SQL Server Profiler Tool of SQL Server. AddNew() function performs following operations in back end 1. Inserts the record to the table using INSERT 2. Calculates the auto increment field ID using SELECT @@IDENTITY 3. Fills this ID in the structure passed to AddNew() and returns it. But ID returned by SELECT @@IDENTITY query is wrong. There are other ways also to retrieve the last ID inserted in table by IDENT_CURRENT(€˜table_name€™) which return right ID.
Can we change the call of SELECT @@IDENTITY to IDENT_CURRENT in AddNew() functions behavior of MSADO DLL? Or there is another way of retrieving right ID?
i need to get the result of two different queries into 2 different sheets of the same excel file while exporting a report to excel using reporting services..
I have a trade data tables (about 10) and I need to retrieve information based on input parameters. Each table has about 3-4 million rows.
The table has columns like Commodity, Unit, Quantity, Value, Month, Country
A typical query I use to select data is "Select top 10 commodity , sum(value), sum(quantity) , column4, column5, column6 from table where month=xx and country=xxxx"
The column4 = (column2)/(total sum of value) and column 5=(column3)/(total sum of quantity). Column6=column5/column4.
It takes about 3-4 minutes for the query to complete and its a lot of time specially since I need to pull this information from a webpage.
I wanted to know if there is an alternate way to pull the data from server ?
I mean can I write a script that creates tables for all the input combinations i.e month x country (12x228) and save them in table (subtable-table) with a naming convention so from the web I can just pull the table with input parameters mapped to name convention and not running any runtime queries on database ??
OR
Can I write a script that creates a html files for each table for all input combinations save them ?
I tried the Beta 1 of the service pack 1 to .net 3.5. If I try to add an entity (and try to save this), I get the Exception "No support for server-generated keys and server-generated values".
How can I add entities to my Sqlce- database?
I tried to give the id- column (primary key) in the database an identity, another time without identity, only primary key --> none of them worked. I always get the same error.
What do I have to change to make successfully a SaveChanges()?
I am having a Data flow task in For each loop which will gets 100 sourcetable names and 100 target table names...
am having a simpleData flow task which trasferes from OLEDBSource to OLEDBDestination. I am repeating the Dataflow task which transfers from sourcetablename extracted from for loop to a destination table var.
The problem am gettting is for the first table it is able to transfer correcly because I did mapping for those tables at design time...but for the next coming sourcetable-desttable (which r having different no of cols,datatypes) its giving Validation failed...and...needs to refresh metadata....
is there any way to refresh the metadata of Data flow task (I set the property of OLEDBSource validate external meta to false then also same error is coming)
I have indexed my SQL Server tables to gain some speed on calling up tables and queries ( using VB and ADO ). It is still very slow...Is there a move I have to make once my tables are indexed or is there any tricks to improve the speed cause I am getting kinda desparate right now :(
I have a question in regards to optimistic locking:
I have a database conversion that will be running on a SQL 7.0 system. The process needs to be completed ASAP and to this end, I have tried to set up all aspects of the server to be geared towards speed rather than redundancy for the duration of the process (i.e. moving heavily used tables to separate filegroups on a RAID 0 set, dedicating a separate disk for the database log). I was now looking at trying to tweak locking behaviour to enhance performance (as for the duration of the conversion, no other user will be connecting to the database - the only initator of data changes will be the conversion application, which feeds statements serially to the server). As far as I know changing lock settings is something that would be initiated by the application itself, but is there any property I can set on the server to further enhance performance in this area?
We are evaluating a tool by Lechotech that can optimize sql statements. It is a pretty good tool, but we would like to compare it against some others. Has anyone seen any other such tools?
I'm no SQL wiz, just know basics to get me by ... What I'm trying to do is: everytime a record is inserted into an online orders table, that record needs to be inserted into another table in another database, but with added information.
This is the Trigger I came up with:
CREATE TRIGGER OtherDatabaseInsertTrigger ON dbo.t_order FOR INSERT AS
DECLARE @CLIENT VARCHAR(30) DECLARE @OrderNumberID INT SET @CLIENT = 'DevShed'
SET @OrderNumberID = (SELECT @@IDENTITY) UPDATE test2.dbo.t_order SET client = @CLIENT WHERE oid = @OrderNumberID;
I don't know if its possible to do an INSERT INTO SELECT with additional fields in the 2nd table, I was trying, but failed. Had to resort to the bottom piece of SQL to get the ID and run a separate query to add the additional items to the new record in table 2.
Any SQL masters out there that can help me make this better, or know of some other way to do this.
Hello, I am hoping someone here can help me optimize the following query: SELECT INCOMING.DATE_TIME, INCOMING.URL, INCOMING.HITS, USER_NAMES.USER_LOGIN_NAME, CATEGORY.NAME FROM (wsHQMay2004.dbo.INCOMING INCOMING INNER JOIN wsHQMay2004.dbo.CATEGORY CATEGORY ON INCOMING.CATEGORY = CATEGORY.CATEGORY) INNER JOIN wsHQMay2004.dbo.USER_NAMES USER_NAMES ON INCOMING.USER_ID = USER_NAMES.USER_ID WHERE INCOMING.DATE_TIME >= '2004-05-01 00:00:00.00' AND INCOMING.DATE_TIME < '2004-06-01 00:00:00.00' ORDER BY INCOMING.URL ASC
I am just hoping to get some tips on perhaps a better way to write this query as right now, due to the size of the incoming table, this query just takes forever.
I've tried a bunch of different ways in an effort to stay away from using a cursor, but I haven't been able to accomplish what I need to do without one. So, I coded this process using cursors and performance (as expected) is pretty mediocre. I was wondering if someone could take a quick look and suggest a different approach or maybe suggest ways to optimize the current code.
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?
SELECT * FROM OPENQUERY (liorder, ' SELECT DISTINCT a.AUF_NR AS OrdNo, e.KU_NAME AS Customer, a.AUF_POS AS Pos, f.PC_PANE_NO AS Pane, f.PC_SGGL_SEQ AS Component, f.PC_SGGL_COD AS GlassCode, d.GL_BEZ AS GlassDesc, a.ANZ AS Qty, ((c.BREITE/1000*c.HOEHE/1000)*a.ANZ) AS SQM, (a.ANZ*c.SUM_BRUTTO) AS Val, (CASE WHEN(SELECT SUM(h.KF_FERT_QTY) FROM LIPROD.KAPA_AUS_FERT h WHERE a.AUF_NR = h.KF_ORDER_NO AND a.AUF_POS = h.KF_ORDER_POS AND f.PC_PANE_NO = h.KF_SCHEIB_NR AND f.PC_SGGL_SEQ = CASE WHEN h.KF_SEQ_NR = 0 THEN 1 ELSE h.KF_SEQ_NR END AND h.KF_SCHR_NR IN (2, 402, 502, 602)) IS NULL THEN 0 ELSE(SELECT SUM(h.KF_FERT_QTY) FROM LIPROD.KAPA_AUS_FERT h WHERE a.AUF_NR = h.KF_ORDER_NO AND a.AUF_POS = h.KF_ORDER_POS AND f.PC_PANE_NO = h.KF_SCHEIB_NR AND f.PC_SGGL_SEQ = CASE WHEN h.KF_SEQ_NR = 0 THEN 1 ELSE h.KF_SEQ_NR END AND h.KF_SCHR_NR IN (2, 402, 502, 602)) END) AS Done FROM LIORDER.AUF_STAT a, LIORDER.AUF_KOPF b, LIORDER.AUF_POS c, LIORDER.GLAS_DATEN d, LIORDER.KUST_ADR e, LIPROD.AUF_POS_COMP f WHERE EXISTS (SELECT g.AUF_NR FROM LIORDER.AUF_STAT g WHERE g.AUF_NR = a.AUF_NR AND g.RG_OFFEN != 0) AND EXISTS (SELECT i.KF_ORDER_NO FROM LIPROD.KAPA_AUS_FERT i WHERE a.AUF_NR = i.KF_ORDER_NO AND i.KF_SCHR_NR IN (2, 402, 502, 602)) AND a.AUF_NR = b.AUF_NR AND b.AUF_NR = c.AUF_NR AND c.AUF_NR = f.PC_ORDER_NO AND a.AUF_POS = c.AUF_POS AND c.AUF_POS = f.PC_ORDER_POS AND b.KUNR = e.KU_NR AND f.PC_SGGL_COD = d.IDNR AND a.HISTORY = 0 AND b.AUF_OFF = 0 AND c.VER_ART != ''V'' AND e.KU_VK_EK = 0 AND e.KU_NAME IS NOT NULL ORDER BY a.AUF_NR DESC, a.AUF_POS ASC')
...It is retrieving data from an Oracle linked server. But the execution time is so friggin' long! I tried running it and for around 30 minutes it hasn't shown any results. So I could even tell the exact time it would take to return results. Do you have any tips regarding query optimization? Thanks in advance.
we have an insurance program up and running in our regions and we get random reports of slowness. in an effort to track down all facets of slowness i am looking at all my sql code to make sure it is as efficient as possible. I know a little about SQL and writing SQL statements, enough to help me do my job well. but i do not write optimized code.
if request.form("selPolicyNum") <> "" then sqlPolicyInfo = "SELECT PIEffectiveDate, PIExpirationdate from PIMaster where PIPolicyNum='" & request.form("selPolicyNum") & "'" Set rsPolicyInfo = Server.CreateObject("ADODB.Recordset") Set rsPolicyInfo.ActiveConnection = webLookupConn 'rsPolicyInfo.CursorType = adOpenDynamic 'rsPolicyInfo.LockType = adLockOptimistic rsPolicyInfo.Source = sqlPolicyInfo 'rsPolicyInfo.CursorLocation = adUseClient rsPolicyInfo.Open 'response.write sqlPolicyInfo end if
that is the code used to store a remark into the system. is this code optimized already or should some of the db parameters be changed to make things faster? this is just an example of many of the SQL statements that i may or may not have to fix. thank you for any and all help.
I have the following query that works fine but i'm wondering if there is a way to optimize it better as when I analyze through sql profiler it is at the top of the list of using the cpu
SELECT DISTINCT site, d, (SELECT COUNT(id) FROM anP aPV2 WHERE aPV2.confirmed=1 and aPV2.stage=2 and aPV2.inserted=0 and aPV2.site=aPV1.site and aPV2.d>=aPV1.d and aPV2.d<=aPV1.d) AS mycount FROM anP aPV1 WHERE confirmed=1 AND stage=2 AND inserted=0 ORDER BY site,d
-- minatest table will contain indexes with fragmentation above 10% which need to be defragged -- this will go through all databases -- null indexes will not be affected
exec sp_msforeachdb' use ? INSERT INTO #minatest SELECT db_name(database_id), phystat.page_count, i.fill_factor, OBJECT_NAME(i.object_id), i.name, phystat.avg_fragmentation_in_percent, newfragmentvalue = 0, index_type_desc, index_level FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, ''DETAILED'') phystat JOIN sys.indexes i ON i.object_id = phystat.object_id AND i.index_id = phystat.index_id WHERE phystat.avg_fragmentation_in_percent > 10 AND phystat.page_count < 10000 '
select @Counts = count(Databasename) from #minatest -- sets the maximum amount of fields to go threw as a number
declare targets cursor -- declare cursor with values to search through for select * from #minatest
open targets -- open cursor
fetch next from targets into @DatabaseName,@pagecount,@vfillfactor,@TableName,@IndexName,@FragmentPercentage,@vnewfrag,@index_type_desc,@index_level-- take rows from table
select @i=0 while @@fetch_status=0 and @i<=@Counts-- set loop condition
begin
select @sql = 'USE '+@DatabaseName+'; '+ ' ALTER INDEX '+@IndexName+' ON '+ @TableName+ ' REBUILD with (ONLINE=ON,SORT_IN_TEMPDB=ON,STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE=OFF);' exec sp_executesql @sql select @nfsql = 'select @cnt = avg_fragmentation_in_percent FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(NULL,NULL, NULL, NULL, ''DETAILED'') phystat JOIN '+@DatabaseName+'.sys.indexes i ON i.object_id = phystat.object_id AND i.index_id = phystat.index_id WHERE i.name='''+@IndexName+''' and index_type_desc='''+@index_type_desc+''' and index_level='''+CAST(@index_level as varchar(20))+'''' exec sp_executesql @nfsql ,@params, @cnt=@vnewfrag OUTPUT
update #minatest set newfragmentvalue = @vnewfrag where IndexName = @IndexName and TableName = @TableName select @i=@i+1
fetch next from targets into @DatabaseName,@pagecount,@vfillfactor,@TableName,@IndexName,@FragmentPercentage,@vnewfrag,@index_type_desc,@index_level-- take next field of table
end
close targets DEALLOCATE targets
ALTER TABLE #minatest DROP COLUMN index_type_desc,index_level select * from #minatest -- displays which indexes where defraged and their new frag value drop table #minatest
I have the below query written so that i do not insert entries that is already existing in the table. I am trying to put in 70000 entries at a single shot and it breaks down. Can anybody help me optimize the below query so that it doesnt break? Is there any other way I can write this query?
Please do help me with this. Thanks in advance. The table in which i am inserting the entries has a composite key composed of ACCT_NUM_MIN and ACCT_NUM_MAX. I am getting this from a table which doesnt have a primary key(CORE)
INSERT INTO CRF (CORE_UID,ACCT_NUM_MIN, ACCT_NUM_MAX,BIN, BUS_ID,BUS_NM,ISO_CTRY_CD, REGN_CD, PROD_TYPE_CD, CARD_TYPE) SELECT UID , LEFT(ACCT_NUM_MIN,16), LEFT(ACCT_NUM_MAX,16), BIN, BUS_ID, BUS_NM, ISO_CTRY_CD, REGN_CD, PROD_TYPE_CD, CARD_TYPE FROM CORE o WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM CRF i WHERE o.ACCT_NUM_MIN = i.ACCT_NUM_MIN AND o.ACCT_NUM_MAX = i.ACCT_NUM_MAX)
I have two tables.One has approx 90,000 rows with a field .. let's call in BigInt (and itis defined as a bigint data type).I have a reference table, with approx 10,000,000 rows. In thisreference table, I have starting_bigint and ending_bigint fields. Iwant to pull out all of the reference data from the reference table forall 90,000 rows in the transaction table where the BigInt from thetransaction table is between the starting_bigint and ending_bigint inthe reference table.I have the join working now, but it is not as optimized as I wouldlike. It appears no matter what I do, the query does a full table scanon the 10,000,000 rows in the reference table.Sample codeSELECT ref.*, tran.bigintfrom transactiontable tranINNER JOIN referencetable ref on tran.bigint betweenref.starting_bigint and ending_bigintYes, all 3 of the fields are indexed. I even have a composite index onthe reference table with the starting_bigint and ending_bigint fieldsselected as the composite.Any help would be appreciated.Robert H. KershbergIT DirectorTax Credit CompanyJoin Bytes! or Join Bytes! or Join Bytes!
Hello all,I have a table with thousands of rows and is in this format:id col1 col2 col3 col4--- ------ ----- ------ ------1 nm 78 xyz pir2 bn 45 abc dirI now want to get the data from this table in this format:field val---------------------------col1 nmcol1 bncol2 78col2 45col3 xyzcol3 abccol4 pircol4 dirIn order to do this I am doing a union:select * into #tempUpdate(select 'col1' as field, col1 as val from table1unionselect 'col2' as field, col2 as val from table1unionselect 'col3' as field, col3 as val from table1)the above example query is smaller - I have a much bigger table withabout 80 columns (Imagine the size of my union query :) and this takesa lot of time to execute. Can someone please suggest a better way to dothis?The results of this union query are selected into a temp table, which Ithen use to update another table. I am using SQL Server 2000.my main concern is performance. any ideas please?thanks
To start with, I'll give a simplified overview of my data.BaseRecord (4mil rows, 25k in each Region)ID | Name | Region | etcOtherData (7.5mil rows, 1 or 2 per ID)ID | Type(1/2) | DataProblemTable (4mil rows)ID | ConcatenatedHistoryThe concatenated history field is a nvarchar with up to 20 differentpipe delimited date/code combinations, eg. '01/01/2007X|11/28/2006Q|11/12/2004Q|'Using left outer joins (all from base, the rest optional) I've got aview something like:View (4mil rows)ID | Name | Region | etc | Data | Data2 | ConcatenatedHistoryQuerying it, it takes about 15-20 seconds to do this:Select ID, Name, Region, etc, Data, Data2, ConcatenatedHistory
I have an application that's allows user input, and is translating it bystripping out the html tags and also doing some code translations. The useris able to later edit their input. However it's unfeasible to reversetranslate it back as the logic would be too complicated, and there areinstances where it won't be possible.So, what I'm thinking to do to speed up performance is to duplicate the userdata, one for native data, and the other for the translated data. When useredits their input, the native data is shown. When the application isshowing the data in a page, the translated data is shown.My question is, would it make a performance difference if I store the nativedata and the translated data in the same table, or would it be better tostore the cached data in another table?
selected_item_id as int (PK), cust_id as int (FK), item_id as int (FK), ...
-------
With the following query:
select cust_ID from selected_items_tbl WHERE item_id in (1, 2, n) GROUP BY cust_id, item_id HAVING cust_id in (select cust_id from selected_items_tbl where item_id = 1) AND cust_id in (select cust_id from selected_items_tbl where item_id = 2) AND cust_id in (select cust_id from selected_items_tbl where item_id = n)
-------
Each of these tables has other items included. Selected_Items_tbl holds zero to many of the items from the item_tbl for each customer. If I am searching for a customer who has item 1 AND item 2 AND item n, what would be the most efficient query for this? Currently, the above query is what I am working with. However, it seems that we should be able to do this type of search in a single query (without subqueries).
I have combined three reports into one big report. I would like to someway cache the big report, and then create little reports from the cached report. What would be the best way to go about doing this?
I'm trying to get a query to run which looks at completed orders that have not had another paid order in 180 days. The database I'm running it against is very large so I can't get it to complete. Where's what I've got:
select Date =cast(cl1.cl_rundate as datetime(102)),count(cl1.cl_recno) as 'Completed Initials', cl1.cl_status as Status from dbo.vw_Completedorders cl1 where cl1.lob_lineofbusiness = 'aaa' and cl1.cl_rundate > '20060801' and not exists ( select cl2.cl_company from dbo.vw_Paidorders cl2 where cl2.lob_lineofbusiness = 'aa'and cl2.cl_company = cl1.cl_order and cl2.cl_rundate > '20060101' and datediff(day,cl2.cl_rundate,cl1.cl_rundate) < 180) group by cl1.cl_status, cl1.cl_rundate
Hi, We have 3 tables in sql server for simillar information about 3 different countries. some times I select from all countries so I need to use all tables and some times just one country so I select from one table.
I want to know that is it good to combine these three tables into one and add one field to define the country name? Which way is better, my own way or this new one? Please let me know the advantages and disadvantages of each of these ways.
I'm having problems optimizing a sql select statement that uses a LIKE statement coupled with an OR clause. For simplicity sake, I'll demonstrate this with a scaled down example:
CompanyAddressAssoc is the many-to-many associative table for Company and Address. A search query is required that, given a search string ( i.e. 'TEST' ), return all Company -> Address records where either the CompanyName or AddressName starts with the parameter:
Select c.CompanyID, c.CompanyName, a.AddressName
FROM Company c
LEFT OUTER JOIN CompanyAddressAssoc caa ON caa.CompanyID = c.CompanyID
LEFT OUTER JOIN Address a ON a.AddressID = caa.AddressID
WHERE ((c.CompanyName LIKE 'TEST%') OR (a.AddressName LIKE 'TEST%))
There are proper indexes on all tables. The execution plan creates a hash table on one LIKE query, then meshes in the other LIKE query. This takes a very long time to do, given a dataset of 500,000+ records in Company and Address.
Is there any way to optimize this query, or is it a problem with the base table implementation?
