Performance Issues On Sql 2005 Versus Sql 2000 - AGAIN!
May 15, 2008
I was hoping I wouldn't be another poster with performance issues after migrating to SQl 2005 from SQL 2000 but here I am.
I am in the process of testing out our databases on Sql Server 2005 for migration from SQL Server 2000 and there are certain portions of code that have been affected negatively. I have read thru many of the posts here and have tried out most of the recommendations. I will start out with things I've done and then provide the actual SQL.
1) I have rebuilt all indexes ( using the DBCC REINDEX using the table option).
2) Updated the db engine to latest hot fix (build 3239) that addresses speed related fixes.
3) I also ran sp_createstats using the 'fullscan' option to create stats on all columns of all tables (minus indexed columns)
4) Since nothing seemed to work, I even ran UPDATE STATICS with FULL SCAN on all tables even though I did not need it as the REBUILD woudl have created stats. But I was willing to try anything.
I have confirmed that the execution plans are different even though the data on both sql 2000 and sql 2005 are identical (i put a copy on 2005). The plans themselves are huge as the queries are huge. Here is the query.
SELECT InterimView.* ,TestView.*
FROM View_LabDataExport_TestFormData_55 TestView
RIGHT OUTER JOIN ( SELECT ReqView.*, CDView.*
FROM View_LabDataExport_FormData_55 ReqView
LEFT OUTER JOIN View_LabDataExport_FormData_CD_55 CDView
ON ( CDView.DB_SubjectID_CD = ReqView.DB_SUbjectID )
) InterimView
ON ( InterimView.DB_FormID = TestView.DB_FormID_T AND
InterimView.DB_LabSampleID = TestView.DB_LabSampleID_T )
The above query takes abotu 8 secs to run on 2000 and about 1 minute to run on 2005. This is for a small dataset and on larger datasets this is only going to more pronounced ( as confirmed by other teams that have already migrated in my company). Another point worth mentioning might be if I remove the TestView.* from the select list, it works in 5 to 6 seconds. Is there an issue with Sql 2005 and a large number of columns or anything of that sort? On 2000, the time remains the same , about 8 seconds if I remove this from the select list.
Here is the statistics ion on 2005
(21234 row(s) affected)
Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 75490, logical reads 3676867, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabTestToReportPanel'. Scan count 476, logical reads 1524, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabReportPanel'. Scan count 0, logical reads 260, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'DiscreteValue'. Scan count 1, logical reads 176106, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabReleasedSampleTest'. Scan count 1, logical reads 2078, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabSample'. Scan count 1360, logical reads 18567, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Form'. Scan count 2302, logical reads 8225, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabTest'. Scan count 1, logical reads 23, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabSampleDef'. Scan count 1, logical reads 10530, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabArea'. Scan count 1, logical reads 2, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Lab'. Scan count 1, logical reads 2, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Location'. Scan count 1, logical reads 2, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Study'. Scan count 0, logical reads 6, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Item'. Scan count 1335, logical reads 32940, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'ObjectState'. Scan count 1, logical reads 10972, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Object'. Scan count 0, logical reads 20674, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Subject'. Scan count 0, logical reads 3293, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'FormDef'. Scan count 2, logical reads 70, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'PrintedLabSampleLabel'. Scan count 0, logical reads 13144, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'PrintedForm'. Scan count 0, logical reads 4219, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'StudySite'. Scan count 0, logical reads 2756, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'StudyEvent'. Scan count 18, logical reads 40, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'StudyEventDef'. Scan count 0, logical reads 36, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'FormDefToStudyEventDef'. Scan count 1, logical reads 43, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabSampleDefToFormDef'. Scan count 1, logical reads 255, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Here is the statistics ion on 2000
Table 'LabTestToReportPanel'. Scan count 2123, logical reads 4820, physical reads 44, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabReportPanel'. Scan count 130, logical reads 260, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'DiscreteValue'. Scan count 103914, logical reads 208214, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Location'. Scan count 19031, logical reads 38062, physical reads 2, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Lab'. Scan count 19031, logical reads 38062, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabArea'. Scan count 19031, logical reads 38062, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabSampleDef'. Scan count 24670, logical reads 49340, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabTest'. Scan count 19406, logical reads 39575, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabReleasedSampleTest'. Scan count 4289, logical reads 73865, physical reads 1014, read-ahead reads 24.
Table 'Study'. Scan count 4291, logical reads 8582, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabSample'. Scan count 5647, logical reads 31382, physical reads 308, read-ahead reads 4.
Table 'Form'. Scan count 4291, logical reads 9272, physical reads 2, read-ahead reads 10.
Table 'PrintedLabSampleLabel'. Scan count 4289, logical reads 17097, physical reads 114, read-ahead reads 308.
Table 'ObjectState'. Scan count 6860, logical reads 13760, physical reads 1, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Object'. Scan count 6860, logical reads 23559, physical reads 90, read-ahead reads 701.
Table 'PrintedForm'. Scan count 1375, logical reads 4505, physical reads 40, read-ahead reads 16.
Table 'StudySite'. Scan count 1378, logical reads 2756, physical reads 4, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Subject'. Scan count 1599, logical reads 3332, physical reads 2, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'StudyEvent'. Scan count 18, logical reads 52, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'StudyEventDef'. Scan count 18, logical reads 54, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 2.
Table 'FormDefToStudyEventDef'. Scan count 1, logical reads 69, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 23.
Table 'FormDef'. Scan count 2, logical reads 78, physical reads 1, read-ahead reads 4.
Table 'LabSampleDefToFormDef'. Scan count 1, logical reads 308, physical reads 1, read-ahead reads 306.
Table 'Item'. Scan count 1335, logical reads 36510, physical reads 140, read-ahead reads 1047.
(21234 row(s) affected)
(147 row(s) affected)
One difference between the two is the work table that 2005 creates versus 2000. I can attach the plans but they are huge. I will attach it if you ask.
What I was looking for was suggestions on what I could do short of rewriting code or any suggestions in general.
FYI, this has also been posted on the SQL Server Engine forum.
Thanks
View 10 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Aug 15, 2007
We have an interesting problem. We are attempting to migrate from sql 2000 to sql 2005. the schema we have is exactly the same. the new 2005 box is more powerful than our 2000 box.
here is our schema:
tbl_Items
ItemID int pk
ReferenceID int
sessionid varchar(255)
StatusID int
tbl_ItemsStatus
statusid int pk
isinternalstatus bit
there is an index on (ReferenceID, SessionID, StatusID) and (SessionID, StatusID)
this is the query:
DECLARE @referenceid INTEGER
SET @referenceid = 1019
SELECT MAX(i2.itemid)
FROM tbl_Items i2 (NOLOCK)
JOIN tbl_ItemsStatus s (NOLOCK)
ON i2.StatusID = s.StatusID
WHERE
s.IsInternalStatus = 0
AND i2.referenceid = @referenceid
AND i2.sessionid IN (
SELECT i3.sessionid
FROM tbl_Items i3 (NOLOCK)
WHERE
i3.referenceid = @referenceid
AND i3.status <> 7
AND i3.status <> 8
AND i3.status <> 10
AND i3.itemid IN (
SELECT max(i4.itemid)
FROM tbl_Items i4 (NOLOCK)
WHERE i4.referenceid = @referenceid
GROUP BY i4.sessionid
)
AND i3.itemid NOT IN (
SELECT MAX(i7.itemid )
FROM tbl_Items i7 (NOLOCK)
WHERE
i7.referenceid = @referenceid
AND i7.SessionID IN (
SELECT i5.SessionID
FROM tbl_Items i5 (NOLOCK)
WHERE
i5.status <> 11
AND i5.referenceid = @referenceid
AND i5.itemid IN (
SELECT MAX(i6.itemid)
FROM tbl_Items i6 (NOLOCK)
WHERE
i6.referenceid = @referenceid
AND i6.status IN (7,11,8)
GROUP BY i6.sessionid
)
)
GROUP BY i7.SessionID
)
)
GROUP BY i2.sessionid
we know this query is pretty bad and can be optimized. however, if we run this query as is on 2005 it takes about 2 hours to run...if we run the exact same query on 2000 it takes 9 seconds.
so this query on 2005 if run takes 2 hours..however, if we omit the s.IsInternalStatus = 0 or the i2.referenceid = @referenceid line it takes about 9 seconds.
why would this be? it makes no sense why omitting one of those where clauses would increase the performance of the query by 2 hours? we know its a bad query...but this doesnt make sense.
any one else run into this problem?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Nov 1, 2000
I have a complex(long) SQL statement inside of a stored procedure which feeds several variables from 2 tables. Something like
Select @var1, @var2, etc from
table1, table2 where
table1.id = table2.id
Is there any advantage to creating a view for this statement
and selecting from that, even though this resides in a stored procedure?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jul 23, 2005
Hi,My company has a scenario where we would like to change the data typeof an existing primary key from an integer to a char, but we areconcerned about the performance implications of doing so. The scriptfor the two tables that we need to modify is listed below. TableFR_Sessions contains a column named TransmissionID which is currentlyan integer. This table contains about 1 million rows of data. TableFR_VTracking table also contains the TransmissionID as part of it'sprimary key and it contains about 35 millions rows of data. These twotables are frequently joined on TransmissionID (FR_Sessions is theparent). The TransmissionID column is used primarily for joins and isnot typically displayed.We need like to change the TransmissionID data type from int tochar(7), and I had a few questions:1) Would this introduce significant performance degradation? I haveread that char keys/indexes are slower than int/numeric.2) Are there collation options (or any other optimizations) that wecould use to minimize the performance hit of the char(7)...if so whichones?I am a software architect by trade, not a database guru, so please goeasy on my if I overlooked something obvious :)Any suggestions or information would be greatly appreciated.Thanks,Tim-------------------CREATE TABLE [FR_Sessions] ([TransmissionID] [int] IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL ,[PTUID] [varchar] (10) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL ,[PortNum] [numeric](6, 0) NOT NULL CONSTRAINT [DF_FR_Sessions_PortNum]DEFAULT (0),[CloseStatus] [varchar] (20) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL,[RecvBytes] [int] NULL ,[SendBytes] [int] NULL ,[EndDT] [datetime] NULL CONSTRAINT [DF_FR_Sessions_EndDT] DEFAULT(getutcdate()),[LocalEndDT] [datetime] NULL ,[TotalTime] [int] NULL ,[OffenderID] [numeric](9, 0) NULL ,[UploadStatus] [char] (1) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOTNULL CONSTRAINT [DF_FR_Sessions_UploadStatus] DEFAULT ('N'),[SchedBatchID] [numeric](18, 0) NULL ,[SWVersion] [varchar] (10) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL ,[DLST] [bit] NULL ,[TZO] [smallint] NULL ,[Processed] [bit] NOT NULL CONSTRAINT [DF_FR_Sessions_Processed]DEFAULT (0),[CallerID] [varchar] (13) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL ,[PeerIP] [varchar] (16) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL ,[XtraInfo] [varchar] (1024) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL,[IdType] [char] (1) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL ,CONSTRAINT [PK_FR_Sessions] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED([TransmissionID]) WITH FILLFACTOR = 90 ON [PRIMARY]) ON [PRIMARY]CREATE TABLE [FR_VTracking] ([TransmissionID] [int] NOT NULL ,[FrameNum] [int] NOT NULL ,[LatDegrees] [float] NOT NULL ,[LonDegrees] [float] NOT NULL ,[Altitude] [float] NOT NULL ,[Velocity] [float] NOT NULL ,[NumPositions] [smallint] NOT NULL ,[NavMode] [smallint] NOT NULL ,[Units] [smallint] NOT NULL ,[GPSTrackingID] [numeric](18, 0) IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL ,[dtStamp] [datetime] NULL ,CONSTRAINT [PK_FR_VTracking] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED([TransmissionID],[FrameNum]) WITH FILLFACTOR = 90 ON [PRIMARY]) ON [PRIMARY]
View 5 Replies
View Related
Jul 10, 2007
Good day,
The following query performs acceptably (2 seconds against 126,000,000 rows in the main table):
SELECT Count(*)
FROM
Message1_2_3 INNER JOIN
VDMVDO ON Message1_2_3.VDMVDO_ID = VDMVDO.VDMVDO_ID INNER JOIN
NMEA ON VDMVDO.NMEA_ID = NMEA.NMEA_ID
WHERE
NMEA.NMEA_ID BETWEEN 14000000 AND 14086000 AND
VDMVDO.RepeatIndicator = 0 AND
NMEA.SentenceFormatterID = 'VDM'
When we change the first condition from an Int column to a DateTime as in:
NMEA.TimeDate BETWEEN CONVERT(DATETIME, '2007-07-09 8:30:00', 102) AND CONVERT(DATETIME, '2007-07-09 9:30:00', 102)
the query performance falls to 14 seconds, even though both columns are indexed and a similar number of rows are found. When the select clause changes from a simple Count to a complex Max expression, response time falls to over a minute!
Any thoughs on optimizing the DateTime search would be greatly appreciated...
View 4 Replies
View Related
Sep 22, 2015
I have a cube with 2 many-to-many dimensions where a special mdx query needs about 5 seconds. When I resolve the many to many relationships by multiplying the data in the fact table the query needs 21 seconds.
In general do many-to-many dimensions slow down query performance of a cube?
Without the many-to-many dimensions of course the fact table has much more rows. Could this be the reason for the performance loss?
how to tweak query performance of a cube in general?
View 3 Replies
View Related
Nov 6, 2014
I want to be able to return the rows from a table that have been updated since a specific time. My query returns results in less than 1 minute if I hard code the reference timestamp, but it keeps spinning if I load the reference timestamp in a table. See examples below (the "Reference" table has only one row with a value 2014-09-30 00:00:00.000)
select * from A where ReceiptTS > '2014-09-30 00:00:00.000'
select * from A where ReceiptTS > (select ReferenceTS from Reference)
View 5 Replies
View Related
Feb 21, 2007
Can anyone comment on the engine performance difference between SQL2005 Enterprise Edition versus Standard? I'm talking generalized performance of the engine and not admin features (parallel index operations) or scaled-storage (partitioning)
( http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/enterprise/comparison.mspx )
The marketing literature makes note of two things:
Enterprise can use more then 4 processors
Enhanced read-ahead and scan (super scan)
(note: I cannot find anything about this 'feature')
One un-noted Feature:
only Enterprise supports 'lock pages in memory'
We are in the process of migrating from SQL2000 to SQL2005 in an OLTP environment. Based on the marketing literature; I would have chosen SQL2005-standard. But based on our limited testing, we are seeing some strange differences.
Query Performance
With MaxDOP=1 and using a large batch query (select top 1500000); SQL2005-Enterprise is twice as fast as SQL2005-Standard.
(Note: this difference persists regardless of lock-pages-in-memory setting)
CPU Utilization
In addition, taskmgr shows that SQL2005-Enterprise uses a single processor at ~90%. While SQL2005-Standard shows a single processor at ~20%.
Lock Behavior
We are also seeing lock-behavior differences. A single DML statement that attempts to modify ~5000 rows will cause Table-locks on SQL2005-Standard but obtain normal row-locks on SQL2005-Enterprise.
These empirical differences make me wonder if the engine codebase is fundamentally different between the two?
Any insight would be appreciated.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jun 22, 2007
I have sql 2000 running with a client database that is about 200 people per day. A VB front end runs it. I have some problems with performance. Would upgrading to Sql 2005 improve my database performance?
View 5 Replies
View Related
Oct 18, 2007
Hi all,
We are in the process of upgrading a sql 2000 database over to 2005 and have noticed some substancial performance drops with scalar udfs in 2005.
I have already read the following post
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=491984&SiteID=1
and recognise that udfs are not the most performant option in the first place, but was surprised how much slower these have become on 2005.
Has anyone else had this sort of issue, we really don't want to go away from the udf's but would like to know if there is a design issue within a udf that might be causing this (or even a usage issue). What I am getting as is: Is there certain types of queries, or keywords that should be avoided in udfs on 2005?
A simple example we have is a udf that returns an exchange rate stored in the db, this has parameters of "from currency", "to currency", and date.
SET @ret = ( SELECT TOP 1 TELE_TRANSFER_RATE
FROM dbo.EXCHANGE_RATES
WHERE EXCH_CURRENCY_NO = @from
AND CURRENCY_NO = @to
AND RATE_DATE <= @date
ORDER BY RATE_DATE DESC )
RETURN @ret
And then this is called from a script that returns financials, standard select statement, with udf call in select clause.
Any comments?
Thanks in advance.
Clint Colefax
View 6 Replies
View Related
Feb 10, 2008
Hi guys
We are in the process of moving from SQL Server 2000 to 2005. In this process in general I have noticed that performance is better as a result of the move but in a couple of specific cases performance is about 10 time worse as a result of the move and i am wondering if anyone can tell me why.
1) Should I be noticing that calling functions from within a where clause are slower in 2005.
2) Has the and/or logic processing been changed between the different versions.
3) Why does this segment of code run really slow in 2005 but really fast in 2000 (note, i know that its not nice looking but it is pre-existing code from before we came on board and there are more examples of these so its a bit of a change to go through and fix it all up to what it should be but i need to know why before i can move on and as i said i know its not nice and one should expect it to be slow but i specially need to know why it would run fine in 2000 and not on 2005):
.....
AND (Deleted = 0)
AND (DATEDIFF(d, dbo.GetStartOfDate(ReviewedDate), dbo.GetStartOfDate(GETDATE())) = 3)
OR (ProgressPointId = 32)
AND (Deleted = 0)
AND (DATEDIFF(d, dbo.GetStartOfDate(ReviewedDate), dbo.GetStartOfDate(GETDATE())) = 3)
OR (ProgressPointId = 30)
AND (Deleted = 0)
AND (DATEDIFF(d, dbo.GetStartOfDate(ReviewedDate), dbo.GetStartOfDate(GETDATE())) = 3)
....
Thanks for your help.
Anthony
View 5 Replies
View Related
May 15, 2008
I was hoping I wouldn't be another poster with performance issues after migrating to SQl 2005 from SQL 2000 but here I am.
I am in the process of testing out our databases on Sql Server 2005 for migration from SQL Server 2000 and there are certain portions of code that have been affected negatively. I have read thru many of the posts here and have tried out most of the recommendations. I will start out with things I've done and then provide the actual SQL.
1) I have rebuilt all indexes ( using the DBCC REINDEX using the table option).
2) Updated the db engine to latest hot fix (build 3239) that addresses speed related fixes.
3) I also ran sp_createstats using the 'fullscan' option to create stats on all columns of all tables (minus indexed columns)
4) Since nothing seemed to work, I even ran UPDATE STATICS with FULL SCAN on all tables even though I did not need it as the REBUILD woudl have created stats. But I was willing to try anything.
I have confirmed that the execution plans are different even though the data on both sql 2000 and sql 2005 are identical (i put a copy on 2005). The plans themselves are huge as the queries are huge. Here is the query.
SELECT InterimView.* ,TestView.*
FROM View_LabDataExport_TestFormData_55 TestView
RIGHT OUTER JOIN ( SELECT ReqView.*, CDView.*
FROM View_LabDataExport_FormData_55 ReqView
LEFT OUTER JOIN View_LabDataExport_FormData_CD_55 CDView
ON ( CDView.DB_SubjectID_CD = ReqView.DB_SUbjectID )
) InterimView
ON ( InterimView.DB_FormID = TestView.DB_FormID_T AND
InterimView.DB_LabSampleID = TestView.DB_LabSampleID_T )
The above query takes abotu 8 secs to run on 2000 and about 1 minute to run on 2005. This is for a small dataset and on larger datasets this is only going to more pronounced ( as confirmed by other teams that have already migrated in my company). Another point worth mentioning might be if I remove the TestView.* from the select list, it works in 5 to 6 seconds. Is there an issue with Sql 2005 and a large number of columns or anything of that sort? On 2000, the time remains the same , about 8 seconds if I remove this from the select list.
Here is the statistics ion on 2005
(21234 row(s) affected)
Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 75490, logical reads 3676867, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabTestToReportPanel'. Scan count 476, logical reads 1524, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabReportPanel'. Scan count 0, logical reads 260, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'DiscreteValue'. Scan count 1, logical reads 176106, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabReleasedSampleTest'. Scan count 1, logical reads 2078, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabSample'. Scan count 1360, logical reads 18567, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Form'. Scan count 2302, logical reads 8225, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabTest'. Scan count 1, logical reads 23, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabSampleDef'. Scan count 1, logical reads 10530, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabArea'. Scan count 1, logical reads 2, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Lab'. Scan count 1, logical reads 2, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Location'. Scan count 1, logical reads 2, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Study'. Scan count 0, logical reads 6, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Item'. Scan count 1335, logical reads 32940, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'ObjectState'. Scan count 1, logical reads 10972, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Object'. Scan count 0, logical reads 20674, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Subject'. Scan count 0, logical reads 3293, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'FormDef'. Scan count 2, logical reads 70, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'PrintedLabSampleLabel'. Scan count 0, logical reads 13144, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'PrintedForm'. Scan count 0, logical reads 4219, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'StudySite'. Scan count 0, logical reads 2756, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'StudyEvent'. Scan count 18, logical reads 40, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'StudyEventDef'. Scan count 0, logical reads 36, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'FormDefToStudyEventDef'. Scan count 1, logical reads 43, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabSampleDefToFormDef'. Scan count 1, logical reads 255, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Here is the statistics ion on 2000
Table 'LabTestToReportPanel'. Scan count 2123, logical reads 4820, physical reads 44, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabReportPanel'. Scan count 130, logical reads 260, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'DiscreteValue'. Scan count 103914, logical reads 208214, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Location'. Scan count 19031, logical reads 38062, physical reads 2, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Lab'. Scan count 19031, logical reads 38062, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabArea'. Scan count 19031, logical reads 38062, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabSampleDef'. Scan count 24670, logical reads 49340, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabTest'. Scan count 19406, logical reads 39575, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabReleasedSampleTest'. Scan count 4289, logical reads 73865, physical reads 1014, read-ahead reads 24.
Table 'Study'. Scan count 4291, logical reads 8582, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'LabSample'. Scan count 5647, logical reads 31382, physical reads 308, read-ahead reads 4.
Table 'Form'. Scan count 4291, logical reads 9272, physical reads 2, read-ahead reads 10.
Table 'PrintedLabSampleLabel'. Scan count 4289, logical reads 17097, physical reads 114, read-ahead reads 308.
Table 'ObjectState'. Scan count 6860, logical reads 13760, physical reads 1, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Object'. Scan count 6860, logical reads 23559, physical reads 90, read-ahead reads 701.
Table 'PrintedForm'. Scan count 1375, logical reads 4505, physical reads 40, read-ahead reads 16.
Table 'StudySite'. Scan count 1378, logical reads 2756, physical reads 4, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Subject'. Scan count 1599, logical reads 3332, physical reads 2, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'StudyEvent'. Scan count 18, logical reads 52, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'StudyEventDef'. Scan count 18, logical reads 54, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 2.
Table 'FormDefToStudyEventDef'. Scan count 1, logical reads 69, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 23.
Table 'FormDef'. Scan count 2, logical reads 78, physical reads 1, read-ahead reads 4.
Table 'LabSampleDefToFormDef'. Scan count 1, logical reads 308, physical reads 1, read-ahead reads 306.
Table 'Item'. Scan count 1335, logical reads 36510, physical reads 140, read-ahead reads 1047.
(21234 row(s) affected)
(147 row(s) affected)
One difference between the two is the work table that 2005 creates versus 2000. I can attach the plans but they are huge. I will attach it if you ask.
What I was looking for was suggestions on what I could do short of rewriting code or any suggestions in general.
Thanks
View 20 Replies
View Related
Aug 18, 2006
I cannot get performance out of sql server 2005 through jdbc connections.
I have used multiple drivers against 2000 and 2005. 2000 always comes out on top.
I installed the os the same, configured the raid array the same, configured the os the same, configured the database the same, installed the software the same, etc.
It seems to come down to the jdbc driver and the way the database handles batch requests from jdbc. Is there some configuration in 2005 that I need to alter to improve the performance of batched inserts through the jdbc driver?
View 5 Replies
View Related
Mar 11, 2008
What are the ways to do that ?
View 2 Replies
View Related
Aug 14, 2007
I need to show my boss that 2005 will on average be faster than 2000.
Are there any performance benchmark results available to show this?
Also I need similar benchmarks to show 64 bit will be faster than 32 bit SQL 2005.
Ian
View 6 Replies
View Related
May 10, 2007
I have read another thread on this, but I wanted to ask a little more generally, what makes this happen?
The app I got called on is a SQL Server database with an Access front end and a web app front end. The database was on an old machine with SQL Server 2000 and it performed adequately. Then they bought a new high end machine, brought the database over in SQL 2005 and it performs worse than before.
So when I see it, I will check the usual hardware issues but I don't think there will be any.
So the question is, all else being the same, what are the usual things that cause slowness in going from 2000 to 2005?
Do you need to redo indexes? Recompile procs and views?
Any thoughts/ideas much appreciated.
View 5 Replies
View Related
Jan 5, 2006
Hi all,
I am wondering if anyone has similar experience.
I did the migration by detaching the database from SQL 2000 running on W2K Pro and attaching it to SQL 2005 running on XP Pro. Some queries with simple aggregate functions such as AVG() have been slowed by at least an order of magnitude. I understand that SQL server can intelligently adapt to improve the performance. I am not sure how much it can improve at this point of time.
H
View 7 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
Sep 21, 2007
Hello,
We previously having two servers A and B. Server A is used for updation of data and the data then replicated to server B. Server B is used for
Server A :
purpose : used for database updation/ modification
SQL Server version : SQL Server 2000 SP 2
Server Z :
purpose : used for Reporting
SQL Server version : SQL Server 2000 SP 2
We were doing Transactional replication from Server A to Server B.
Last month we have broght another server (Server B) with same hardware configuration but having SQL SERVER 2005 installed. This is to speed up our database update process. We have moved some of the database on this new server so that we can achieve our deadlines.
Server B :
purpose : used for database updation/ modification
SQL Server version : SQL Server 2005
I have set up the transactional replication from Server B to Server Z and replication works fine.
However, the issue is after it is started replicating from this new server (Server B) performance of all the queries reduced a lot.(making my life harder)
I didnt expected this as our reporting server is still SQL server 2000.
I have restored the backup of database which was replicated from server A (sql server 2000) and compared execution plan for one of our common query (which is used in most of the reports and which is now taking longer time to provide results)
I found that database which is replicated from Server B (Sql server 2005) is having primary keys. which was not present in the database which replicated from server A(Sql server 2000).
I have then removed the primary key and make the indexes same as previous copy of database(which was replicated from server A) But still the query takes long time.
Execution plan now shows "Table Spool" which was not present in previous copy of database.
Almost every query for this database is taking longer time now.
Can someone suggest me what is wrong and what should I need to fix.
Am I going on the right direction?
View 14 Replies
View Related
May 25, 2007
Hi there,
Don't know if anyone can help,
There used to be a Whitepaper on the Microsoft website comparing SQL server (2000?) against Pervasive SQL or 2000, the link was http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/sql/.
But it's not working anymore.
Does anyone have a copy of this paper, or know where it's now located? I've been looking for hours and can't find it.
Thanks in advance.
Jezza
View 3 Replies
View Related
Dec 29, 2006
Hi,
Recently we have migrated our application from MSDE 2000 to SQL Server Express 2005(SP 1). This has significantly reduced the performance of our Windows.NET application which is developed using C#.
For example : While logging in to the application two databases are being attached.
Time taken in MSDE: 16 secs
Time taken in SQL Server Express 2005 : 58 secs
Also note performance is degraded for normal screens where data is retrived from database using inline queries.
Questions:
1) Is there any special(optimum) configuration(installation parameters) while installing the SQL Server Express 2005 setup?
2) Is there any query optimization to be done w.r.t SQL Server Express 2005 ?
We highly appreciate any help towards resolving the above problem.
Regards,
Sasi
View 8 Replies
View Related
Nov 3, 2006
I have a client server that has win2000 on it with sql 2000 enterprise edition. The box has 4 gig of memory on it. I noticed today that the sql server was set to use all 4 gig (even though I know sql can't really access that memory because sql can't really utilize the 2-4 gig range). Is there overhead or a downside to leaving it at this, or should I set it to 2 gig
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jul 20, 2005
Hello,I have a test database with table A containing 10,000 rows and a tableB containing 100,000 rows. Rows in B are "children" of rows in A -each row in A has 10 related rows in B (ie. B has a foreign key to A).Using ODBC I am executing the following loop 10,000 times, expressedbelow in pseudo-code:"select * from A order by a_pk option (fast 1)""fetch from A result set""select * from B where where fk_to_a = 'xxx' order by b_pk option(fast 1)""fetch from B result set" repeated 10 timesIn the above psueod-code 'xxx' is the primary key of the current Arow. NOTE: it is not a mistake that we are repeatedly doing the Aquery and retrieving only the first row.When the queries use fast-forward-only cursors this takes about 2.5minutes. When the queries use dynamic cursors this takes about 1 hour.Does anyone know why the dynamic cursor is killing performance?Because of the SQL Server ODBC driver it is not possible to havenested/multiple fast-forward-only cursors, hence I need to exploreother alternatives.I can only assume that a different query plan is getting constructedfor the dynamic cursor case versus the fast forward only cursor, but Ihave no way of finding out what that query plan is.All help appreciated.Kevin
View 1 Replies
View Related
Dec 14, 2006
Hi all,
we are about to purchase new database servers and have been offered a good deal on 64-bit Xeon machines. At present we run SQL 2000 on Windows Server 2003 both of which are 32-bit versions.
Is there any problem using our current 32-bit Server software on the 64-bit machines (apart from not being able to utilise its full power)? I'm assuming the SQL 2005 licenses are the same price regardless of 32-bit or 64-bit version. If we buy a 64-bit SQL Server version license are we going to get the best out of it on a 32-bit Windows Server edition?
tia - Matt
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jun 18, 2007
If there is someone who is intimate with both sqlserver and oracle tell me the main differences between the two?
what features are not available in either one? is one better for certain situations over others?
View 5 Replies
View Related
Mar 21, 2008
hi guys,
I am joining IT industry in august,my main intrest is in database(readed some stuff of warehousing oracle 9i and sql).
However to move my career in that direction i need certification.
So here is the point,should i get MCTS(in sql server 2005) or OCP(oracle associate 10g).
My main goal is to become DBA. which of the above is more benificial.
I mean more oppurtunites.
please reply.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Feb 7, 2008
Hi,
I'm using ComponentArt's Callback grids with Manual Paging.
The CA example grid uses Access:(http://www.componentart.com/webui/demos/demos_control-specific/grid/programming/manual_paging/WebForm1.aspx)
That SQL syntax produced is invalid in SQL Server 2005.
Example:
"SELECT TOP " & Grid1.PageSize & " * FROM (SELECT TOP " & ((Grid1.CurrentPageIndex + 1) * Grid1.PageSize) & " * FROM Posts ORDER BY " & sSortColumn & " " & sSortOrderRev & ", " & sKeyColumn & " " & sSortOrderRev & ") ORDER BY " & sSortColumn & " " & sSortOrder & ", " & sKeyColumn & " " & sSortOrder
So...This is what I have (simplified), and it appears return incorrect rows on the last few pages:
SELECT top 15 * FROM Posts where & sFilterString & " and Postid in (SELECT TOP " & ((Grid1.CurrentPageIndex + 1) * Grid1.PageSize) & " Postid FROM Posts where " & sFilterString & " ORDER BY " & sSortColumn & " " & sSortOrder & ") " & " ORDER BY " & sSortColumn & " " & sSortOrderRev
What other approaches has anyone used besides the "ID in (...)"?The examples I have included show the available variables: sort asc and desc, current page, number of rows on a page, etc.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jul 23, 2005
Hi,Simple question: A customer has an application using Access 2000frontend and SQL Server 2000 backend. Data connection is over ODBC.There are almost 250 concurrent users and is growing. Have theysqueezed everything out of Access? Should the move to a VB.Net frontendtaken place ages ago?CheersMike
View 4 Replies
View Related
Sep 28, 2007
Hi guys,
I have a performance related question about the DTS package in sqlserver 2000 which i have developed
We have developed a DTS package which will migrate a view 'ATTRITION' from Sqlserver 2000 to an Oracle database.The design of the package is as follows
First step: It checks for the existance of the table 'ATTRITION' in oracle database, if table 'ATTRITION' is not there it will create a table called 'ATTRITION' in the oracle db.If the table 'ATTRITION' is already present in the oracle db,then the table is truncated.
Second step: The view 'ATTRITION' is migrated to Oracle table 'ATTRITION'.
For the migration, i have used a connection object which connects to sqlserver 2000 and for oracle connection i have used another connection object 'Microsoft ODBC driver for oracle' and i have joined both the connection objects with 'Transform data task' task which maps one to one from sqlserver 2000 where view 'ATTRITION' exists with oracle database where Table 'ATTRITION' exists.
Roughly i have around 65000 rows in 'ATTRITION' view of sqlserver 2000 which needs to be migrated.When im running the package on my system it takes around 4 minutes to migrate all the rows but when im running it on the server it takes a lot lot of time more than 1 hour.
The view definition im using has more than 10 tables joined together.But if its a problem of query used in the view,and if i run the view seperately it quickly displays the data hardly takes 1 minute. and even if i run the package on my local pc it doenst take much time.Now my confusion is why its taking soo much time on server.If i create a indexed view then will it solve my problem.Please suggest...
Thanks in advance
REgards
Arvind L
View 5 Replies
View Related
Apr 7, 2004
Hi
We are facing an acute situation in our web-application. Technology is ASP.NEt/VB.NET, SQL Server 2000.
Consider a scenario in which User 1 is clicking on a button which calls a SQL stored procedure. This procedure selects Group A of records of Database Page1.
At the same time if User 2 also clicks the same button which calls same SQL stored procedure. This procedure selects Group B of records of Database Page1.
So, its the same Page1 but different sets of records. At this moment, both the calls have shared locked on the Page1 inside the procedure.
Now, in call 1, inside the procedure after selecting Group A of records, the next statement is and update to those records. As soon as update statement executes, SQL Server throws a deadlock exception as follows :
Transaction (Process ID 78) was deadlocked on lock resources with another process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Rerun the transaction
We are able to understand why its happening. Its because, Group A and Group B of records are on the same Page1. But both the users have shared lock on the Page1. So, no one gets the exclusive lock in records for update, even though, the records are different.
How can I resolve this issue? How can I get lock on wanted rows instead of entire page?
Please advice. Thanks a bunch.
Pankaj
View 1 Replies
View Related
Sep 24, 2004
I have sql server running on my pc at on its on a different partition with Windows Server 2000 running SQL Server 2000 I'm using Access XP on the front end and I am finding that SQL can get Xp to sit up Beg Fetch you name it with no Problems at all...But Access 2000 BIG PROBLEM its like its too dump to understand. I get too many error messages with access 2000. I can hardly wait until they rolll out office xp at work
View 1 Replies
View Related
Aug 18, 2006
Hi
We would like to install Sql 2005 Enterprise Edition (including database engine, reporting service, integration service and analysis service) as a sepearte instance on a server which already has Sql 2000 with reporting services and analysis services. We do not want to disturb the existing sql 2000 setup.
If we do that then what will happen to my earlier sql 2000 reporting service? Will it be upgraded to sql 2005 reporting service? I heard that reporting services are instance unaware application. Where will be the default reporting service database available?
Please help us.
Regards,
Sankar N
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jul 20, 2005
How does the preformace of SQL Server depend on the number of databases?Theoretical maximum number of databases on one MS SQL Server is 32000. Whatis the maximum number of databases in real life?TPa
View 1 Replies
View Related
