I just inherited a dev box, and need to do some performance analyzing on a 40 gig db for a client. Time is of the essence!
My question is that this dev box only has one disk partition (c: drive). Is it a huge deal that I don't have the db system files on one drive, with the data files on another, and tempdb on another,etc.....
If I return the Average, Minimum, and Maximum values for the counter Physical Disk: Avg. Disk Queue Length, and those values are 10, 0, 87 respectively, which value do I use to compute the Avg. Disk Queue Length for a 4 disk array(RAID 10): Average, Minimum, or Maximum? The disk(lun) is on a SAN.
Hello,
I am trying to setup a test cluster and am having an issue. When I try to create the resource of a physical disk it takes both the drive e: and drive q: and doesn't seperate them into two physical disks as resources. This means when I try to associate the quorum disk it links the to physcial disk resource of drive e and q. Then when I try to install SQL2k5 I get the warning about installing SQL on the quorum disk. Am I missing something? Is there a way to seperate e and q onto two physical disk resources so I can specifically associate the quorum to q and the sql to e or should I be setting the quorum disk to a majority node set? Thanks in advance.
John
Hello All,
I recently learned of the DiskPart.exe tool that is used to improved the performance of Exchange 2003 cluster implementations. The articles I read alluded to the fact that improperly align disks could ruin the phisical devices themselves due to stress.
So my question is:
How come the MS documentation does not suggest using "Disk Partitions Track-Aligned" methods to improve SQL?
Is there some big difference in the way these two server suites managed I/O reads/writes?
- Rashad Rivera
www.omegusprime.com
I want to move 2 databases to another physical disk. They are both single file databases. It looks like a fairly straigtforward attach and detach procedure, but I have a couple of questions:
The log files (.ldf) currently reside on a separate physical disk from the data files, if I attach and reattach the data files will the logs remain where they are by default or do I have to re specify there location?
Is there any advantage to running the update statistics portion of the sp_detach_db?
Hi,
I have an MS SQL 2000 server running on a Proliat with two CPUs and 2GB RAM (the process actually uses 1.6GB).
For some reason, the same queries (which return the same data) run sometimes very fast and sometimes very slow.
I used the performance counter to find out that when the queries run fast there is little disk i/o and when they run slowly there is a lot of i/o.
I thought it happens because the DB keeps swapping tables in and out of RAM. The problem is that these things happen in periods. I can have a few hours of slow access and then a few hours of fast access. This makes me believe that it doesn't actually put the table in the cache untill it is requested enough times. Very weird.
HELP?
Thanks.
Hi everyone,
Due to running out of disk space and reducing I/O contention, I plan to seperate data files and log files to different disk arrays.
My plan is to
- detach all databases
- copy log files to another disk
- attach all databases
The total size of log files is about 60GB. It becomes a problem becasue it spend too much time passing files. To reduce down time, is there any way I can do?
Can I just create new log files and remove the current files by using sql management studio?
any other suggestions? Thanks in advance
Does anyone have any recommendation on whether it's better to monitor the average queue lenght for physical or logical drives? What about for a RAID set?
Just wondering,
thanks
hello,all
I am new to Sql 2000,I installed sql 2000 database in C disk,but Now I found my C disk space is smaller than before,So I want to move my databse(include data and structure) from C Disk to D Disk(its space is very large) .
is it possible to do it ?
if its can be done ,do I need to change my asp.net program source code (exp: chaneg my crystal report connectstring ) ?
thanks in advanced!
-- Initialize Control Mechanism
DECLARE@Drive TINYINT,
@SQL VARCHAR(100)
SET@Drive = 97
-- Setup Staging Area
DECLARE@Drives TABLE
(
Drive CHAR(1),
Info VARCHAR(80)
)
WHILE @Drive <= 122
BEGIN
SET@SQL = 'EXEC XP_CMDSHELL ''fsutil volume diskfree ' + CHAR(@Drive) + ':'''
INSERT@Drives
(
Info
)
EXEC(@SQL)
UPDATE@Drives
SETDrive = CHAR(@Drive)
WHEREDrive IS NULL
SET@Drive = @Drive + 1
END
-- Show the expected output
SELECTDrive,
SUM(CASE WHEN Info LIKE 'Total # of bytes : %' THEN CAST(REPLACE(SUBSTRING(Info, 32, 48), CHAR(13), '') AS BIGINT) ELSE CAST(0 AS BIGINT) END) AS TotalBytes,
SUM(CASE WHEN Info LIKE 'Total # of free bytes : %' THEN CAST(REPLACE(SUBSTRING(Info, 32, 48), CHAR(13), '') AS BIGINT) ELSE CAST(0 AS BIGINT) END) AS FreeBytes,
SUM(CASE WHEN Info LIKE 'Total # of avail free bytes : %' THEN CAST(REPLACE(SUBSTRING(Info, 32, 48), CHAR(13), '') AS BIGINT) ELSE CAST(0 AS BIGINT) END) AS AvailFreeBytes
FROM(
SELECTDrive,
Info
FROM@Drives
WHEREInfo LIKE 'Total # of %'
) AS d
GROUP BYDrive
ORDER BYDrive
E 12°55'05.25"
N 56°04'39.16"
Hello,
this is my configuration :
1) 3 disks in RAID5 that hold the SQL data
2) 1 disk in RAID0 that holds the only paging file.
What will happen to the SQL data (DB) when the disk that holds the paging file crashes?
Kindest regards,
Luc.
Hi all,
Ok here goes,
I have a three tier system using SQL server 2000, we are currently experiencing IO bottle necks on our SCSI Raid 10 array, which holds the Data and the logs in separate partitions.
So my options as I understand it are:
Get Enterprise edition
or
Get another physical raid 10 array and separate the logs and data i.e. data on one array and logs on the other array.
I would like to try the latter but I am totally unsure how much difference this will make or whether it will make any difference at all.
Does anyone know how much performance increase I will get from using two arrays as opposed to one?
Any other advice on this scenario would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Does anyone have any statistics on the performance gains one can get using raw partitions. The database in question is very IO intensive and performs about 1,000,000 inserts/updates per select.
Thanks...
Please help!
I have a server that has SQL Server installed on both C and D drives. The SQL Server software is currently running from the C drive and the live databases and backups are stored on the D drive.
I need to have everything on the D drive. Is there an easy way to make the registry point to the D drive without reinstalling SQL Server? The software will needs to run from the D drive because the C drive is running out of disk space. I will also need to delete the whole C:mssql directory.
Thanks.
assuming that you have two databases, the OLTP db and the OLAP db (take not that both have the same structure -- archiving purposes)... using table partitioning, is there a way where we can move 1 partition from the OLTP db to the OLAP db???
i'm actually trying to use this example with both tables in the DB.. I tried to modify to use two databases but sql server is unable to move the partition...
ALTER TABLE [Production].[TransactionHistory]
SWITCH PARTITION 1
TO [Production].[TransactionHistoryArchive] PARTITION 2;
SlayerS_`BoxeR` + [ReD]NaDa
Hi experts,
In SQL Server 2005 database we have partitioned a very big table into 30 partitions each holding few million of records.
Im just curious to know whether there are some configuration related to processors or system hardware in order to benefit from partitioning ? (Ex : If we have multiple processors Whether they need be configured to do a parallel processing ? )
Any real time experience (other than referring links) would be really helpful for me.
Thanks in advance,
Hariarul
Hi There,
I have a quick question regarding merging cube partitions.
If I create partitions sliced by date (let's assume we have year level partitions like 2006,2007,2008...)
Later, if I want to merge selected partition to another partition , for example I have history partition and 2006 partition and I want to merge 2006 to history partition then I can simply merge them using ' merge partition' through Management Studio.
My question is that in script, History partition has condition which is where clause and restricted by year level (i.g. WHERE date < '01-01-2006' ) ; however after merging , script won't change like WHERE date <'01-01-2007').
If so, whenever I merge partitions then I have to alter the script as well based on selected merge partion?
I need to refresh history partition once a month;however even if I merge 2006 partition , once I reprocess history partition then it only process what it was wrote in script. So, after reprocessing 2006 data won't appear in this history partition.
So, wondering it's mentatory to alter the script once partition is merged.
Please give me some comments on this issue.
Thanks in advance.
I am testing horizontal partitions to see whether it is a feasible
option for a project. IF I have a composite Primary Key and the
constraint column (a part of the Primary Key) that helps the
partitioned view is defined with DateTime Data Type, select on a restricted set of data through a partitioned view still tries to access all the tables instead of just one table that contains the data. Is this the case or am I
missing something ?
Any help on this is appreciated.
Here is what I am trying to do.
************************************************** **************
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[tst01] (
[Dt] datetime NOT NULL ,
[TID] int NOT NULL ,
[Nm] [char] (10) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[tst02] (
[Dt] datetime NOT NULL ,
[TID] int NOT NULL,
[Nm] [char] (10) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[tst01] ADD
CONSTRAINT [PK_tst01] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[Dt], [TID]
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[tst02] ADD
CONSTRAINT [PK_tst02] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[Dt], [TID]
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[tst01] ADD
CONSTRAINT [CK_tst01] CHECK (Dt between '11/1/2002' and '11/30/2002')
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[tst02] ADD
CONSTRAINT [CK_tst02] CHECK (Dt between '12/1/2002' and '12/31/2002')
GO
insert into tst01 values('11/1/2002', 1, 'SS')
insert into tst01 values('11/2/2002', 2, 'KK')
insert into tst01 values('11/3/2002', 3, 'DD')
Go
insert into tst02 values('12/1/2002', 1, 'LL')
insert into tst02 values('12/2/2002', 2, 'MM')
insert into tst02 values('12/3/2002', 3, 'GG')
Go
CREATE VIEW vtst AS
SELECT * FROM tst01
UNION ALL
SELECT * FROM tst02
Go
SELECT * FROM vtst WHERE dt = '11/1/2002'
************************************************** *********
When I look at the Execution Plan, it shows that clustered index seek
would be performed on both the tables.
StmtText
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|--Concatenation
|--Filter(WHERE:(STARTUP EXPR(Convert([@1])<='Nov 30 2002
12:00AM' AND Convert([@1])>='Nov 1 2002 12:00AM')))
| |--Clustered Index
Seek(OBJECT:([test].[dbo].[tst01].[PK_tst01]),
SEEK:([tst01].[Dt]=Convert([@1])) ORDERED FORWARD)
|--Filter(WHERE:(STARTUP EXPR(Convert([@1])<='Dec 31 2002
12:00AM' AND Convert([@1])>='Dec 1 2002 12:00AM')))
|--Clustered Index
Seek(OBJECT:([test].[dbo].[tst02].[PK_tst02]),
SEEK:([tst02].[Dt]=Convert([@1])) ORDERED FORWARD)
Thanks,
Sathish
I'm considering using horizontal partitions to separate my data by year.
For example, SomeTable_2004, SomeTable_2003, etc. This works well for backups, maintenance, etc. because I'm working with 150+ GB of data. I'll be a partitioned view for queries.
However, I'm new at this and have a few questions. I would also like to do partitioned updates or inserts. But I need to make sure that the tables don't use similar primary keys. Does that make sense? I need to make sure that the primary keys from the first table are not used again in the second table.
SomeTable_2003
primary keys: 1,5,8,9,15
SomeTable_2004
primary keys: 2,3,4,10
I don't really care what keys are used on what table, as long as they are different. I have apps that already use this data, and I don't want to change the application logic.
Thanks,
T
how to set up the partitions.I have a transaction table with 50 million records that's very hard to query. it holds data for the last 4 years but the application only ever looks at the last 6 months so i believe this is and ideal candidate for partitioning.
Would it be better to
1) create a partition based on each year for all data so would have a 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012?
2) create 1 partition based on month for this years data then 3 based on year so would have jan,feb,march,april,may..., 2014, 2013, 2012
For 1) would you have to perform some maintenance at the turn of each year for accommodating the next years data. For 2) although this would give better performance as query's are mostly in the last 6 months wouldn't this have more maintenance to move month data to year partitions come the turn of the year and then create the next years months partitions.
Hi experts,
We have a huge table with around 250 million records and have implemented SQL server 2005's new table partitioning feature. Now the data seems to be evenly spread across 20 different filegroups ( each 5 GB approx ) for the same table that was occupying 100 GB itself in the PRIMARY filegroup earlier.
Still the query response times have not come down drastically but we could see a good improvement in the execution plans now.
WE ARE USING RAID 5 IN OUR PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT. ANY IDEA / THOUGHT ON HOW TO PLACE THE PARTITIONED FILEGROUPS AND THE LOG FILES IN THE RAID 5 (BTW , I'm very new to RAID concepts , any detailed instruction would be helpful ).
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Hariarul
I have a requirement that I need to reload the last seven days worth of data each night to ensure that we pick up late arriving and updated records. To avoid having to do updates we delete the last seven days data and reload.
I was wondering if it is possible to set up the table as a partition, paritioned on a value (OLD, NEW) or similar.
The job would set the last day in the NEW partition to be old, the theory being that this would cause the rows to move to the OLD parition, and then truncate the new partion rather than deleting. The last seven days data could then be inserted into the empty new partition.
My questions is 1. Is my theory about the data moving from one partition to another correct. 2. Can I actually truncate and individual parition, 3. Do you think it will perform any quicker. We would expect data in the range of 100K to 500K rows in the seven days and will store up to 4 years of historical data.
Thanks for your thoughts
Stapsey
Hi,
For my work I am now learning Sql server 2005 and I have been given a database that has been set up by someone else to work with. It is my job to get the database ready for use in reports.
My problem is that the current database has one huge table with almost 8GB of data. The table contains data from 2004 to present (and growing) from 14 different countries. The reports we use are mostly per country, but we also want to compare the 14 countries to eachother for say, whole 2006. At the moment the table is stored in one single file instead of using partitions.
I believe partitions can give a good performance boost when running the queries. But how do I do this? Currently the country codes are just plain text, can they be used for partitions?
Any advice would be welcome,
Thanks!
Hi champs!
The data i have is like this:
nr date value
------- -------------- --------
1 2007-10-03 45
1 2007-10-05 5
1 2007-10-11 -1
1 2007-10-30 23
2 2007-03-03 3
2 2007-03-13 -5
2 2007-03-03 6
3 2007-10-03 42
3 2007-10-03 11
.....
I want to summerize the value in each group and set the date to the 1'st og that month
i.e.
nr date value
------- -------------- --------
1 2007-10-01 72
2 2007-03-01 4
3 2007-10-01 53
any help is much appreciated.
thanks
I have been asked to move the indexes on our membership database tables to seperate partitions on the server. This is a new concept to me and thought I could use some advice on how to go about doing it.
Thanks in advance.
Brad Keck
Hi Experts,
We have a very huge database that stores 12 years of data(120 Million records). But our application mainly accesses past 3 years data i.e , the queries would scan the 120 million records even when it actually has to scan 30 million records alone (for 3 years).
Since few other important applications needs access to all the 12 years data, we are in a position to have 12 years data in the same database.
Right now we are looking for an approach that would help us to efficiently access the 3 years data alone and boost the performance.
1. Will SQL server table paritioning help in this scenario ?
Or
2. Indexed views would help us ? Is it possible to create indexed views based on year range and access the views in the stored procedures ?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Hariarul
I have 3 partitions using a year grouping. Current year, previous 4 years, older than 5 years. I have two measure groups, one is a distinct count, so I actually have 6 partitions.I also use usage based optimization to build my aggregations. Should each partition have a separate aggregation or should there be one for each measure group?
View 5 Replies View RelatedWe are currently developing an OLTP application, which will need to purge data when it becomes older than 1 hour.Rather than having a process which deletes rows periodically (and risks locking the tables), I am considering using partitioning on a rolling 15 minute window.The idea is to have 5 active partitions, with the 5<sup>th</sup> one being swapped out, merged and a new one split in. This will allow data to live to a max of 1 hour 15 mins,which is acceptable.
Actually, I will have 8 partitions; there will be 4 partitions set in the future, just to ensure when the last partition is split, there isn’t any data movement, as the newest partition will be empty.I am wondering if there will be any performance issues due to partition swapping, merging and splitting every 15 minutes? The application will have a high volume of users when live. I think this should be a better option that continually deleting from the tables.
I am using Sql 2005 and merge replication with push subscriptions. I have several dynamic join filters on some of my tables.
The join filters all use a central table that maps say a server location name (something that is returned from HOTNAME() in my case) to an for a store branch ID. This is a retail system database.
When I add a new new subscription I update this table with the new server location name and it's corresponding branch ID. My filtered tables all have a foreign key in them that is the branch ID. I can then effectively join from the server location name to a Branch ID.
What I have noticed is that if I update one row in the map table, sql server will re-generate all partitioned rows for all subscribers, even for rows that haven't been updated.
The net result is that when I add a subscription, my existing subscriptions all get about 52,000 row updates.
Am I seeing this because I said my partitions will overlap when I created the table articles?
Thanks for any help
Graham
First of all, we are using SQL Server 2005 with a SQL Mobile subscriber and we are attempting to use Data Partitions on our current database
schema which contains associative tables for many-to-many relationships.
We have two tables, a User table
and an Audit table. A user can be
assigned more than one Audit. An Audit
can be assigned to more than one User.
So an AuditUser associative table exists. If data partitions are used based on User,
then any Audits that are assigned to one or more users should be copied to the
proper partition for each User (the msmerge_current_partition_mappings table
with the proper partition_id values).
In order to insert records with such a schema, the following
steps occur in order:
Insert
new row into Audit table with new rowguidInsert
entry into AuditUser table associating the auditguid with every userguid that
is assigned this audit.
Merge replication triggers are fired on insert of the Audit
row and another one for the insert of the AuditUser row.
When the Audit row is inserted, the replication trigger follows
the following logic:
Inserts
a copy of that row into the msmerge_contents table. Evaluates
the row to determine which partition(s) this row should be copied to as
well (msmerge_current_partition_mappings table). To do this, it checks to see if the
AuditGuid is referenced in one or more AuditUser rows. Since we haven€™t inserted the AuditUser
row at this point, the trigger€™s logic doesn€™t find a partition to copy
this row to.
When the AuditUser row is inserted, the replication trigger performs
the same logic as with the Audit row, it:
Inserts
a copy of that row into the msmerge_contents table.Evaluates
the row to determine which partition(s) this row should be copied to as
well (msmerge_current_partition_mappings table). Since the row meets the criteria for one
or more partitions, it is copied to the msmerge_current_partition_mappings
table for each partition that exists.
When replication occurs, we see only the AuditUser rows
copied down to our device, and not the corresponding Audit rows. Now that we understand the triggers, it is
plain to see why. If the AuditUser row
could be inserted first, then the trigger on the Audit row would copy that row
into the proper partitions and all would work well. However, the Audit row must be inserted
first, so that foreign key relationship constraints are preserved.
It seems that the Update trigger on the AuditUser row
actually walks the relationships and copies any related child rows to the
msmerge_current_partition_mappings table.
I am looking for information/suggestions in regards to portioning data across a large SAN. The database is several TB in size, and we are looking to partition the data on a date so that the current data is always the fastest available and history can be set as read only but still be available.
If the server has 8 drive letters how can I ensure that the 4 data drives are stripped across the most physical drives for the most through-put??
Are there any specific questions I need to ask the server technicians?
Any pitfalls I should be aware off??
Thanks!!!
The environment here is SSIS ETL feeding a Fact Table. The Fact Table is pulled into SSAS as a cube and reporting services are handled there. I am on the ETL side and don't pretend to know all the processing that happens with cubes, etc.
What we are trying to accomplish is to add partitions to a Cube via the ETL processing. The partitions should be incremented by Day, i.e. 20070501, 20070502, etc.
This is currently processed manually by the Reporting developer and we are looking for an automated process to reduce errors and hand work.
I have explored the following objects: Partition Processing DataFlow Destination and did not find much documentation or examples on it's use. If you have any information on this stage, please reply with such.
The other option is the Analysis Services Processing Control Flow. I understand that we can process Analysis Server objects as part of our package. Is there a way to incorporate a Partitioning Script in this object? If so, how. Again, I did not find detailed examples on the use of this object.
If you have experience with either of these, please feel free to reply. I appreciate any and all comments.
Hi,
I am currently using SSIS ,MS Sql Server 2000 database and 2000 Analysis Services for the cube.
I am creating a new table everyday and giving name like day_20080504, day_20080505 etc...
So then I go to Analysis Services and process dimensions(incremental) AND
Create a new partition using old partition as a template.
My first question is how to create a new partition everday and use old partition as template...(Almost same except database table)
My Second question : Can I do this on 2000 Analysis services or Should I convert my cube into SSAS?
thanks,
J