I wonder if anyone has any hard fact based pro or contra, especially on
performance, about having views as opposed to tables when the object is
being accessed for read only by multiple sessions/users/spids. I am
particularly concerned about the multiple instantiations of the view.
Relevant thoughts on this are much appreciated.
Thanks,
Caveman
Hello,
We have allowed one of our clients to create views in our .net /sql application so they can build reports using MS Access. They have been doing so successfully for years. However lately they are experiencing Timeout Expired messages when in the actual web application. I have confirmed that several of the views when opened in Access do cause blocking, the locks are promptly realeased when the the access odbc of the sql view is closed.
When the views are opened in SQL query analyzer, there is no sql blocking.
Would this be related to how the tables are linked?
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
I have an issue with a server where some users are recieving error messages along the lines of "There are currently 250 connected users etc....". the result of which is that the users sometimes can't connect. The server properties have Current Users set to 250 - I know that I could increase this figure but that doesnt't appear to be the problem.
It would seem that connections appear to stay connected even though the user has finished any server/client transactions. Also there seems to be a huge number of SPIDs even when there are only a handfull of users. Most of the 'Process Details' for these user threads show the following: "IF @@TRANCOUNT > 0 COMMIT TRAN".
What is going on and why are these Process IDs hanging around, sometimes the only option is to reboot the client PCs since trying to kill the processes just makes them reappear a few seconds later?
It could be the 32-bit client application causing it, but these problems are only on one server out of half a dozen.
Any ideas?
Thanks, Derek.
Hi
I am having a problem with a particular stored procedure in a database application and I have ran out of ideas as to what is the cause. When calling this stored procedure from a .Net application it typically returns results in about 0.2 seconds. 24 hours after it's creation, the procedure takes over 40 seconds to return the same results to the application. However if I call the procedure via Management Studio or Query Analyzer, the performance remains consistently fast.
It's a fairly complicated query making use of the following features:
FOR XML EXPLICIT
The ROW_NUMBER function
Input Parameters
The procedure is replicated, along with the tables that it references
The calling application is using ExecuteXMLReader to retrieve the results.
To fix the problem, I can simply run an ALTER PROCEDURE statement (without changing any of the contents of the stored procedure). However, by the next morning, the problem will have reoccurred.
Can anyone shed any light on why this is happening?
Phil
Hi,
I have a clustered environment which has many instances in it. I have modified the xml file to allow several instances to use ssis. Everything works great when the instances are on the same node as the clustered ssis. However if they are on different nodes there seems to be an aunthentication problem and it loses my credentials. For some reason it tries to use Anonymous Logon instead. Here is the full error:
The SQL server specified in SSIS service configuration is not present or is not available. This might occur when there is no default instance of SQL Server on the computer. For more information, see the topic "Configuring the Integration Services Service" in Server 2005 Books Online.
Login failed for user 'NT AUTHORITYANONYMOUS LOGON'. (MsDtsSrvr)
I would appreciate anyones help on this problem.
Thanks,
Adam
i have a report that runs on a huge table rpt.AgentMeasures , it has 10 months worth of data (150 million records as of today and will keep increasing). i have pasted my proc below , the other tables that are joined to this huge table do not have more then 3k records.This report will be accessed by multiple users (expecting 20 ppl). as of now this reports runs for 5 mins if i pull for 1 month worth of data. if it is wise to use temp tables.
ALTER proc [rpt].[Get_Metrics]
@MinDate DATETIME,
@MaxDate DATETIME,
@Medium Varchar(max),
@footPrint varchar(max),
[code]...
Which is more efficient? One large view that joins >=10 tables, or a few smaller views that join only the tables needed for individual pages?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI'm currently using a system where the number of column in any given table is so great that the columns are often split into additonal tables. I know it's a wierd design but there you go. So I have to deal with tables looking like: MathResult, MathResult_2, MathResult_3, etcEach table is basically the same entity, i.e. it has the same number of rows and each row has the same key value as its peer tables. My question is that should I create a view to bring the tables together, given that a View doesn't seem to have any sort of row-size restriction? Normally I shy away from Views because I've always found them to bring performance down. Any thoughts?
View 4 Replies View RelatedHello everyone,
I want to use VIEWS to filter records using a stored procedure to call the VIEW. Will I get a performance boost from using a VIEW, or should I just use the SQL statement that I used to create the VIEW, in my SP and forget about calling a VIEW at all?
Thanks,
Nathan
I have a query which retrieves data from 4-5 tables. To restrict the acess directly to the tables, views have been created on all these tables. These views are just select * from the tables. Two of these 5 tables have 700 Million and 8 Million rows respectively. And all the tables are having indexes. My issue here is that my query on views take three times more then the duration it takes to retrive data directly from tables. e.g. To retrieve 1 Miliion rows, it takes just 7-10 minutes on tables but on views it takes more than 30 minutes. When I check the query plan for both the options, I can see that indexes are being picked up but still the views are very slow.
Creating indexes on views is not feasible option for me as it requires DDL changes and so much testing efforts.
Hi guys,
I'm have a table which is filled daily by a procedure. This procedure executes for around 2 hours.
Now i also want to create a clustered index view on this table.
Now during the time data is being inserted in this table, would the performance of server get hit.?
Since it think it would continiously be updating this view during this duration.
Is there a way i can temporarily disconnect the view?
Please advice.
Thanks.
When working with databases containing myriad of huge tables, I am very much tempted to create categorized views on those tables in order to simplify and facilitate data query programming? Some developers I talk to say such views generally slow down query performance. Is this true?
Thanks.
Over the years I've read and experienced where joining more then 5 tables can lead to performance problems. This number can vary based upon the amount of data in each table, if and how indexes are used and the complexity of the query, but 5 has always been a good rule of thumb. Unfortunately I do not know what rule to apply in regards to joing views.
A developer has experienced timeout problems periodically when opening a view in EM or when running the code which makes-up the view. I decided to look at the view and noticed it references tables and views, which reference more views, which in turn reference other views. In all the initial view references 5 tables and 8 views directly and indirectly, with some of the views containing function calls. What are your thoughts on how many views and tables are too many when it comes to joins and query performance.
Thanks, Dave
OK so I have this EAV system on a server that is old enough for kindergarten. Insanely enough, this company that makes more money than any of your gods can not buy me a new box.
Before you say "redesign", I need funding allocated for that. See my first statement.
Anywho, I have this page that touches the dreaded Value table and does a clustered index seek on it. Can't search faster than that, right? Well I am getting some funding for "performance tuning". I am wondering if maybe incorporating some clustered index views involving the value table and producing a smaller clustered index for it to seek may alleviate some of this. Any thoughts?
Dear All,
i've tried with indexed views, but because the view is referenceing another view, i was unable to create a clustered index on that view.
so please let me know how can i improve the performance of the view.
thank you very much
Vinod
Even you learn 1%, Learn it with 100% confidence.
Hello Everybody,
I posted this same question couple of times in the news groups but no answers. I have a 2 tables and i am doing a union query using a view. each has 250 rows. The query takes 20 seconds to return the results. no joins or anything. the create view simply looks like this:
create view myview as
select id, name from table1
union
select id,name from table2
Where as if i write a stored procedure like below, it returns the rows in 4 seconds.
create table #mytable
( id int, name varchar(30))
insert into #mytable (id, name) select id, name from table1
insert into #mytable (id, name) select id, name from table2
select id,name from #mytable.
I prefer doing in the view since both returns the same result. I tried running dbcc, update statistics. but no luck. Can anyone please help me in this issue.
Thanks
Ramesh
The code below is from a nested view, which I've read should be avoided. I've also noticed GETDATE() is used, which I believe causes GETDATE() to be executed for every record selected (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm also guessing a JOIN containing a UNION against a SELECT statement is not a good idea. What other problems do you notice?
SELECT trans.Entry_Code, trans.D_C, trans.ADP_Security_# ,
trans.TRID, trans.Batch_Code, trans.Last_Money,
null as Shares, Settle_date as Process_Date,
null as Closing_Price, trans.Dwnld_Date, trans.Acnt,
null as Mktval,
cast(Null as varchar(20)) as Cusip_#,
ACT.dbo.account.account_key AS account_key
FROM (SELECT * FROM ADPDBBOOK.dbo.YTD05B
WHERE (DATEDIFF(mm, Process_Date, GETDATE()) <= 15)
UNION
SELECT * FROM ADPDBBOOK.dbo.YTD06B) trans
INNER JOIN ACT_DATA.dbo.account
ON ACT_DATA.dbo.account.account_key = RIGHT(trans.Acnt, 5)
INNER JOIN tbl_Accounts_TransactionalData
ON trans.Acnt = tbl_Accounts_TransactionalData.Acnt
Thanks, Dave
Hi,
I have come across this problem with SQL server both on 2000 and 2005. I am stating an example here.
I have two partitioned tables and a view on top of both tables as below:
create table [dbo].[Table_1]
(
[TableID] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED
CHECK NOT FOR REPLICATION ([TableID] BETWEEN 1 AND 999),
[AnyOtherColumn] int NOT NULL ,
) ON [Primary]
GO
create table [dbo].[Table_2]
(
[TableID] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED
CHECK NOT FOR REPLICATION ([TableID] BETWEEN 1000 AND 1999),
[AnyOtherColumn] int NOT NULL ,
) ON [Primary]
GO
create view TableView
as
select * from Table_1
union all
select * from Table_2
GO
Note the NOT FOR REPLICATION clause on the check constraint on the TableID column.
I then ran the query execution plan for the following query on both SQL server 2000 and 2005.
select * from TableView where TableID = 10
On both the versions the execution plan shows and Index seek on both the tables in the view. This means that my partitioning is not working. If I remove the primary key constraint from the TableID column, the same query on the view shows a table scan on all the underlying tables. This is even worse.
Next, create the same tables and views again, now without the NOT FOR REPLICATION clause on the check constraint as show below:
create table [dbo].[Table_1]
(
[TableID] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED
CHECK ([TableID] BETWEEN 1 AND 999),
[AnyOtherColumn] int NOT NULL ,
) ON [Primary]
GO
create table [dbo].[Table_2]
(
[TableID] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED
CHECK ([TableID] BETWEEN 1000 AND 1999),
[AnyOtherColumn] int NOT NULL ,
) ON [Primary]
GO
create view TableView
as
select * from Table_1
union all
select * from Table_2
GO
Now run the query execution plan for the same query again.
select * from TableView where TableID = 10
This time you would see that it does an index scan only on the first parititon table. This time it proves that the partitioning works.
I would like to know why does the NOT FOR REPLICATION clause in the check constraint make such a huge difference?
Is it a bug in SQL server?
Or am I missing any thing?
Any help appreciated.
Thanks
Hi There,
Is it possible to make views which takes Data from Multiple Servers?
NOTE: The view is very complex because it uses FOUR Diff. statements
joined together with UNION clause.
One more Q.
If my Query Analizer Displays following on execution of query.
" Internal Query Processor Error: The query processor could not produce a query plan."
What should be my approach to rectify the problem.
Any help would really be appreciated.
zak
I have ViewA that sums up 4 fields from one table. I then have ViewB that uses ViewA to calculate the results. Now I do this with 5 different tables and then link them all to get my final results. Each View has a date range (begin / end) that I need to pass from a Web form.
How should I go about doing this? Should I create a temporary table to hold the begin / end dates to use in the sub Views? Or something else? I am at a lost on how to go about this and need some direction and syntax?
Thanks in advance for your help!!
I have a large list of table names and want to create a database, and a view for each of the tables with openrowset. There are no constrains no keys nothing. Is there a fast way to achieve that?
View 4 Replies View RelatedI am new to SQL, so I appologize if I am doing something wrong which is really basic.
I am receiving a "Incorrect syntax near ';' " when trying to create a view and then perform action based upon the results
Here is my basic code...the error is on the ; following the create view statement:
create view temp2 as select * from history where crc='XL' and processed<1;
insert into history2 (dialid, calldatetime, origcalldate, crc, revenue, projectid, agentid, phonenum)select temp2.dialid, temp2.calldatetime, temp2.calldatetime, 'XL', 0, history2.projectid, temp2.agentid, temp2.phonenum from temp2, history2where temp2.dialid=history2.dialid and temp2.crc='XL' and temp2.processed<1 and temp2.projectid=110;
What am I doing wrong???
Thanks for your help.
Hello,I am relatively new to doing non-trivial SQL queries.I have to get data out of 8 diff views based on a parameter Name.There is a view having name-ssn pairs. All other views have SSN field.For a person there MAY NOT be data in all the views.I have to populate data into diff tables in a Report from differentviews.I would like to know what is the best way to approach it.So far I was trying an Inner join from the Name-ssn vies to all otherviews based on the SSN and test for the name field with the inputparameter.I am thinking there will be problem of Cross join if I dont have datain all views about a person.Or the best way is to write query for each view and have all of them ina stored procedure ?Any help will be appreciatedThanksBofo
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi champs!
Is it possible to make a database View over two different database installations on different machines?
Many thanks
kurlan
is there any way to get all the SPID's running a particular Stored Proc?
Thx
Venu
Hi All,
My database's design is set out here. In summary, I'm trying to model a Stock Exchange for a Technical Analysis application written using Visual C++. In order to create the hierachy I'm using a Nested Set Model. I'm now trying to write code to add and delete equities (or, more generically, nodes) to the database using a form presented to the user in my application. I have example SQL code to create the necessary add and delete procedures that calculate the changes to the values in the lft and rgt columns, but these examples focus around a single table, where as my design aggregates rows from multiple tables using UNION ALL:
Code Snippet
CREATE VIEW vw_NSM_DBHierarchy -- Nested Set Model Database Hierarchy
AS
SELECT clmStockExchange, clmLeft, clmRight FROM tblStockExchange_
UNION ALL
SELECT clmMarkets, clmLeft, clmRight FROM tblMarkets_
UNION ALL
SELECT clmSectors, clmLeft, clmRight FROM tblSectors_
UNION ALL
SELECT clmEPIC, clmLeft, clmRight FROM tblEquities_
Essentially, I'm trying to create an updateable view but I receive the error "UNION ALL View is not updatable because a partitioning column was not found". I suspect that my design in wrong or lacks and this problem is highlighting the design flaws so any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
We have just combined 3 sites into one server.
Two of the sites are serving fine, however one site has spids
that won't disconnect. By the end of the day there are over 600 spids
from that one site. At first we thought it was due to the ASP pages
had a db connect, but nothing that closed that db connection. But after
they modified the pages, we are still having the same problem. Checked
the webserver and they are identical to the other webservers.
Any ideas???
A developer came over and asked me a couple of things
1. Can C# not cleanup SPIDs and just open new ones lieing around
2. Do a large number of spids, even if they are sleeping, cause performance issues?
3. What's the Max # of spids sql server can handle?
BOL ain't too helpful right now
SQL Server 2000Just curious - was wondering why some SPIDS are left hanging out therefor up to several weeks. There are no errors or anything. It looks likenormal processing.Thanks,Craig
View 1 Replies View RelatedHey guys,
I've recently noticed some strange behaviour with sql server 2000 spid's blocking themselves. The spid will appear to be blocked for short periods of time, and then the block will disappear. I'm not sure how this could occur. It started appearing around the same time as I applied SP4.
If anyone could provide any insight into this, it would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
-Kilka
We are using Merge replication with clients from remote offices (SQL2000, sp3). Recently, I have had a problem with users who arereplicating, and they shut down their laptops. The connection neverdies, and I end up with major blocking issues related to the"orphaned" spid. The tables that are blocked are used to filter dataon each client. Since the orphaned spid is blocking, backups will runforever, and have to be killed, and a SQL management job thatinserts/updates data in these tables has to be killed.If I kill the spid, it shows a rollback at 0% and the status neverchanges. The user has disconnected, and there is really nothing toroll back. How can I get rid of this spid with out restarting SQLserver, or rebooting my server?Any help would be greatly appreciated.Thanks,Amy M
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi,
The myComplexProc stored proc does the following in sequence:
1. Call a UDF
2. Call another Stored Proc
3. Make a SELECT with 4 joins
4. Make another SELECT 4 joins + aggregate.
Question1: if myComplexProc is executed on 4-CPUs SQL2K Server, does it start and complete with a single SPID?
Question2: Is SQL2K smart enough to do some sort of parallelism behind the scene? If yes, can it spawn some extra SPIDs? How does it handle lock or sequencing? Because in the hypothetic scenario above Step N+1 re-uses the results of Step N so it has to wait for Step N to complete.
Thanks very much in advance for any help.
A fellow developer of mine has created a ASP.Net application that executes some fairly complex stored procedures. This application is for all intensive purposes a queue and 3 or 4 people work on processing items in a FIFO type environment. There is logic in the Stored procedures to make sure each worker get a unique entry using a series of query hints.
Well what we are seeing is if these works are moving at a rapid pace and we execute an sp_who2 on the sql server there are entries that that seems to be hanging there and REMAINING there even after a browser is closed or the disposed method has been called on the connection object. Has anyone else experienced something similar to this with an ASP.Net application used by mutiple people?
My inclination is to blame the design of the application, but before I do that and step on my co-workers toes I thought I would throw this out to the group.
Thanks in advance for your input.