We are running SQL Server in 6.5 compatability mode. We have some queries
that are supported in 2000, that is the reason for the 6.5 version. What,
if any, would be gained in performance by switching to 2000.
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
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
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 RelatedGood day,
Very recently my sql server started performing very poorly. Nothing has been installed or loaded on it to cause the poor response. What ever I do, from running a query to opening windows explorer response well, all very slow and very often query time out, ones that took a few second to run before.
The CPU usage and memory usage do not indicate anything specific. Is there some way I can pin point specifically what database or query or job is causing the problem.
Please can someone help me, this is VERY urgent, our production is suffering huge, and a reload is not an option as I can't get a backup of the databases as they also time out.
PLEASE HELP!!
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 RelatedI am hoping that an extremely experienced SQL Server DBA can assist in this critical matter.
We are in a 6.5 to 2000 upgrade process. Our current app runs in 6.5 with acceptable performance times. However, in our testing 2000 has performed miserably (4-10 times longer for identical processes with identical hardware configurations.) The SQL Server and Windows 2000 server has been configured, according to all documented books by MSPress, for optimal performance. We have reviewed all code that Profiler has helped us identify as potiental bottlenecks in the duration of our largest nightly process. The identified code has been scrutinized by both the development team and dba team using all known techniques in determining indexing, better logical and physical reads, optimal query executation plans and ect.
We are perplexed by having found out that identical, optimalized, indexed code runs the same or in most cases worse in 2000 then in 6.5. Our largest performing benchmark sp's has shown that a process in 2000 runs 2-3 times slower than 6.5.
Are there any undocumented tuning, optimizing or 6.5 to 2000 upgrade issues that can be shared as to why 2000 appears to run slower then 6.5? At this point, it would be greatly appreciated if a highly expereinced DBA can provide ANY insight. If no suggestion can be provided, perhaps a contact or names of VERY skilled SQL DBA's that can be contacted in assisting this problem, whether it is a third party or someone from MS.
TIA
Will the next release of SQL Server 2000 64bit sp provide performancecounter?MarcM
View 2 Replies View RelatedHi 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
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
The execution time for this query on DB2 v8.0 DBMS one second but I execute it on SQL SERVER 2000 is around 55 second
so how i can incease the performance for SQL server
SELECT ACC_KEY1,ACC_STATUS_LAST FROM PSSIG.CLNT_ACCOUNTS INNER JOIN PSSIG.CLNT_CUSTOMERS ON
PSSIG.CLNT_ACCOUNTS.CSTMR_OID = PSSIG.CLNT_CUSTOMERS.CSTMR_OID
WHERE (PSSIG.CLNT_CUSTOMERS.CSTMR_START_DT >= '1900-1-1 12:00:00') AND
(PSSIG.CLNT_CUSTOMERS.CSTMR_END_DT <= '2106-12-31 12:00:00') AND
(PSSIG.CLNT_ACCOUNTS.ACC_KEY1 >= '0000000000000') AND
(PSSIG.CLNT_ACCOUNTS.ACC_KEY1 <= '9999999999999') AND
(PSSIG.CLNT_ACCOUNTS.ACC_STATUS_LAST = 5 ) AND
ACC_KEY1 > '0' ORDER BY ACC_KEY1
Note 1: value 5 exist in most of rows about ( 999999/1000000 ) from the table rows count
Note 2: the number of rows in each table around 15000000
Note 3: I used the same index structure for both DB2 and SQL server 2000
Note 4: I used some other feature in DB2 that increase the performance but I did not
found the alternative for it in SQL server 2000 :
a- cardinality varies at run time feature
b- include column in index instead of use compound index for
( ACC_KEY1 ,ACC_STATUS_LAST ) columns
Note 5 : Enable reverse scan for index
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
Hi,
I'm using Visual Web Developer Express and Management Studio Express, and my web site is on a shared web host´, running SqlServer2000. I'm looking for software that enables me to monitor the server, but is it possible? The only apps I've found (and downloaded and installed and unistalled) so far need administrative rights to the server so they won't work on a shared web host.
All help would be welcome!
Thanks in advance,
Pettrer
Hi
we have a windows 2003 server with 4 xeon 3Gh and 8 gb of memory.
Now, when run a query or when click for properties is slowwwww very slow.
No error in the event view
Any idea
TIA
Abel
:angel:
Hi
I have a database that stores all the data in one table that is only the data we are required to store hence it didnt require any other tables
the table has five colunms
Orderid, ordercost, orderdate, ordersystem, orderref
it is used in an web application that seraches for all the rest of the information using an orderid and displays the rest of the details the size of the table currently is about 123000 records that is increasing by 20000 every week.
i have an archive of the same data that has 7,666,000 records that are also going to be placed into the same database.
my question is is that a good idea of doing this?
are there any performance issues that i need to be aware of as currently the application runs quite quick?
I want to write a application monitering program to collect the SQLServer 2000 performance data,such as pages/sec, bytes total/sec, etc, BUT I don't know how to do it, In Oracle , there are the v$ views and DBA view , which I can findthe information I interested, the question is , is there a similar suitof view in SQL Server 2000 to provide the performance information ?Thank you very much, I will be mad by this question, for I have googledall the day , but in vain
View 1 Replies View RelatedI 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?
What are the ways to do that ?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI 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
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
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
Hi!!
In our SQL server is installed in Windows 2003 Standard edition. there about 30 clients using SQL server....
* How to improve SQL server performance ??
* How to improve Network traffic problem ??
* Should I use 2 Network Adapter Card???
Any idea please...
thanks...
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.
What is the overhead of using extended stored procedures?I created a table with 500,000 rows.1) I ran a select on two columns and it runs in about 5 seconds.2) I ran a select on one column and called an UDF (it returns aconstant string) and it takes 10 seconds.3) I ran a select on one column and called a UDF that calls an extendedstored procedure that returns a string and it takes 65 seconds.I also tried running test 3 with 4 concurrent clients and each clienttakes about 120 seconds.
View 1 Replies View RelatedHiWe have a SQL server 2000 SP4 on a windows 2003 2x3Ghz XEON 4 GB ram.We have a table looking like this with currently 6 rows. Total data is aprox10 kb i all row all together.CREATE TABLE [dbo].[BIOMETRICPROFILE] ([BIOMETRICPROFILEID] [bigint] IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE1] [image] NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE2] [image] NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE3] [image] NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE4] [image] NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE5] [image] NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE6] [image] NOT NULL ,[TYPE] [nvarchar] (50) COLLATE Danish_Norwegian_CI_AS NOT NULL) ON [PRIMARY] TEXTIMAGE_ON [PRIMARY]GOselect * from BIOMETRICPROFILE takes ~4 seconds (!) to execute thourgh Queryanalyzer. Alle other tables has no performance problems.We have a SQL 2005 express instalation on the same server. If we restore abackup from the sql 2000 database the query takes aprox ~ 15 ms.What isgoing on here?Has SQL 2000 problems with image fields? or how can we find the problem?RegardsAnders
View 2 Replies View RelatedHi 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
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
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?
I changed from Access97 to AccessXP and I have immense performanceproblems.Details:- Access XP MDB with Jet 4.0 ( no ADP-Project )- Linked Tables to SQL-Server 2000 over ODBCI used the SQL Profile to watch the T-SQL-Command which Access ( whocreates the commands?) creates and noticed:1) some Jet-SQL commands with JOINS and Where-Statements aretranslated very well, using sp_prepexe and sp_execute, including thesimilar SQL-Statement as in JET.2) other Jet-SQL commands with JOINS and Where-Statements aretranslated very bad, because the Join wasn´t sent as a join, Accesscollects the data of the individual tables seperately.Access sends much to much data over the network, it is a disaster!3) in Access97 the same command was interpreted wellCould it be possible the Access uses a wrong protocol-stack, perhapsJet to OLEDB, OLEDB to ODBC, ODBC to SQL-Server orJet to ODBC, ODBC to OLEDB and OLEDB to SQL-Server instead ofJet to ODBC and ODBC direct to SQL-ServerDoes anyone knows anything about:- Command-Interpreter of JetODBC, Parameters, how to influence thecommand-interpreter- Protocol-Stack of a Jet4.0 / ODBC / SQL-Server applicationThanks , Andreas
View 6 Replies View RelatedHi,
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
1. Use mssql server agent service to take the schedule
2. Use a .NET windows service with timers to call SqlClientConnection
above, which way would be faster and get a better performance?
Hello Everyone,I have a very complex performance issue with our production database.Here's the scenario. We have a production webserver server and adevelopment web server. Both are running SQL Server 2000.I encounted various performance issues with the production server with aparticular query. It would take approximately 22 seconds to return 100rows, thats about 0.22 seconds per row. Note: I ran the query in singleuser mode. So I tested the query on the Development server by taking abackup (.dmp) of the database and moving it onto the dev server. I ranthe same query and found that it ran in less than a second.I took a look at the query execution plan and I found that they we'rethe exact same in both cases.Then I took a look at the various index's, and again I found nodifferences in the table indices.If both databases are identical, I'm assumeing that the issue is relatedto some external hardware issue like: disk space, memory etc. Or couldit be OS software related issues, like service packs, SQL Serverconfiguations etc.Here's what I've done to rule out some obvious hardware issues on theprod server:1. Moved all extraneous files to a secondary harddrive to free up spaceon the primary harddrive. There is 55gb's of free space on the disk.2. Applied SQL Server SP4 service packs3. Defragmented the primary harddrive4. Applied all Windows Server 2003 updatesHere is the prod servers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.67GHZTotal Physical Memory 2GB, Available Physical Memory 815MBWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1Here is the dev serers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.80GHz2GB DDR2-SDRAMWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1I'm not sure what else to do, the query performance is an order ofmagnitude difference and I can't explain it. To me its is a hardware oroperating system related issue.Any Ideas would help me greatly!Thanks,Brian T*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
View 2 Replies View RelatedHello Everyone,I have a very complex performance issue with our production database.Here's the scenario. We have a production webserver server and adevelopment web server. Both are running SQL Server 2000.I encounted various performance issues with the production server witha particular query. It would take approximately 22 seconds to return100 rows, thats about 0.22 seconds per row. Note: I ran the query insingle user mode. So I tested the query on the Development server bytaking a backup (.dmp) of the database and moving it onto the devserver. I ran the same query and found that it ran in less than asecond.I took a look at the query execution plan and I found that they we'rethe exact same in both cases.Then I took a look at the various index's, and again I found nodifferences in the table indices.If both databases are identical, I'm assumeing that the issue isrelated to some external hardware issue like: disk space, memory etc.Or could it be OS software related issues, like service packs, SQLServer configuations etc.Here's what I've done to rule out some obvious hardware issues on theprod server:1. Moved all extraneous files to a secondary harddrive to free up spaceon the primary harddrive. There is 55gb's of free space on the disk.2. Applied SQL Server SP4 service packs3. Defragmented the primary harddrive4. Applied all Windows Server 2003 updatesHere is the prod servers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.67GHZTotal Physical Memory 2GB, Available Physical Memory 815MBWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1Here is the dev serers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.80GHz2GB DDR2-SDRAMWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1I'm not sure what else to do, the query performance is an order ofmagnitude difference and I can't explain it. To me its is a hardware oroperating systemrelated issue.Any Ideas would help me greatly!Thanks,Brian T
View 2 Replies View Related