How do i find Total allocated space and used space of a memory optimized filegroup?
use memory_optimized_db
Go
select (SUM(size)*8.0)/1024.0 as Space,
FILEGROUP_NAME ( data_space_id ) , type_desc from sys.database_files
group by data_space_id,type_desc;
above query gives "current used size of the container " of memory optimized file group but doesn't give Total space detail.
I read this: [URL] ....
Which says you must drop the database to remove the filegroup.
I deleted all the objects and then backed up the DB and restored it and the filegroup is still there.
I was skeptical but some of the comments made me think this might work.
Do I really have to restore from a pre-memory optimized state?
I have the following setup:
- An MSSQL 2014 Standard server that houses multiple small databases (in excess of a hundred).
- These databases are frequently dropped and restored by an application that uses this SQL Server.
- There is a business need for this setup at this time, so I can't get away from it. Therefore answers like "don't have so many small databases that are frequently dropped and restored" would be somewhat unuseful
This is the problem I have:
- When I connect SSMS 2014 to the server and expand the "Databases" node, it takes forever to display. In comparison, SSMS 2008 connected to SQL 2008R2 server with the same number of databases displays the Databases tree very quickly.
I ran a trace to see what exactly SSMS 2014 is doing. When the "Databases" node is expanded, it runs a query that checks each database for Memory-Optimized Tables (new and wonderful feature of SQL 2014 for sure, but I'm not using it, at least yet). Naturally, when you have to loop through over a hundred DBs, it takes time. Worse yet, if one of these DBs is in process of being restored, the query sits and waits to time out before proceeding to the next DB. Sometimes this causes outright timeouts. Here is the query:
use [MyDatabase]
SELECT
ISNULL((select top 1 1 from sys.filegroups FG where FG.[type] = 'FX'), 0) AS [HasMemoryOptimizedObjects]
To be sure, this is NOT a SQL Server performance issue. This server processes a rather heavy workload and has been doing so for over a month, and the workload completes within expected time limits or better. Even so I've done some basic performance measuring, and the server itself is quite all right.
Moreover, if I connect SSMS 2008 to it, I get an error message (Index out of bounds or somesuch), but SSMS 2008 does connect, and displays the Databases tree much faster than SSMS 2014.
I'd like to turn off the option to check for Memory Optimized Objects altogether, as I'm not using the feature.
I try to load data into a memOpt table (INSERT INTO ... SELECT ... FROM ...). The source table has a size about 1 Gb and 13 Mio Rows. During this load the LDF File grows to size of 350 GB (until the space if the disk is run out of space). The Server has about 110 GB Memory for the SQL Server reserved. The tempdB doesn't grow. The Bucket Size in the create statement has a size of 262144. The Hash key as 4 fields`(2 fields have the datatype int,1 has smallint, 1 has varchar(200). ) The disk for the datafiles has still space for the datafiles (incl. the hekaton files).
How can I reduce the size of the ldf files during the load of the data ?
I want to create a lot of index for my database for performance.
But I need find memory usage by indexes.
How to find memory usage by index in sql server?
I've a database with a memory optimized filegroup on it. How can I remove it?I have removed the memory optimized table I had on it, but when I try to remove the filegroup I receive an error.
View 12 Replies View RelatedI'm just beginning to experiment with memory optimised tables.
I have two sets of near identical tables - one set normal, the other set memory optimised with DURABILITY=SCHEMA_ONLY - and am running test queries against these. When I say that the two sets are "near identical", I mean that they are the same except for the primary keys: for the normal tables these are defined as PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED whereas for the memory-optimed ones they are defined as PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED HASH WITH (BUCKET_COUNT=nnnn) as per the requirements for such tables.
I then run a pair of test queries, again identical but one referencing the normal tables and the other referencing the memory optimised ones.
(The query uses an inner join on three tables with row counts of approx 3m rows, 100000 rows and 5000 rows.)
The query against the normal tables runs noticeably faster than that against the memory optimised ones. To try to find out why, I examined the execution plans. the plan for the memory optimised query suggests that I have a missing index: but of course I can't create this againsty a memory optimised table. Is this a bug or am I missing something? Why the performance between the two should be so different?
I have this table
CREATE TABLE [Sales].[Test_inmem]
(
[c1] [int] NOT NULL,
[c2] [nvarchar](20) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL,
[ModifiedDate] [datetime2](7) NOT NULL CONSTRAINT [IMDF_Test_ModifiedDate] DEFAULT (sysdatetime()),
[Code] ....
I have to generate 1000000 random records into it. I tried various ways to insert records, but not being a developer could not do it. I hope to make the C1 as a serial number, C2 can be anything, C3 I want to be the timestamp.
I've been having some trouble getting a single-column "varchar(5)" field to reliably use a table seek instead of a table scan. The production table in this case contains 25 million rows. As impressive as it is to scan 25 million rows in 35 seconds, the query should run much faster.
Here's a partial table description:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Summaries_MO]
(
[SummaryId] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[zipcode] [char](5) COLLATE Latin1_General_100_BIN2 NOT NULL,
[Golf] [bit] NULL,
[Homeowner] [bit] NULL,
[Code] .....
Typically, this table is accessed with a query that includes:
SELECT ...
FROM SummaryTable
WHERE ixZIP IN (SELECT ZipCode FROM @ZipCodesForMO)
This query insists on using a table scan. I've tried WITH (FORCESEEK) for example, but that just makes the query fail.
As I've investigated this issue I also tried:
SELECT * FROM Summaries WHERE ZipCode IN ('xxxxx', 'xxxxx', 'xxxxx')
When I run this query with 64 or fewer (actual, valid) ZIP codes, the query uses a table seek.But when I give it 65 or more ZIP codes it uses a table scan.
To summarize, the production query always uses a table scan, and when I specify 65 or more ZIP codes the query also uses a table scan. I'm wondering if the data type of the indexed column (Latin1_General_100_BIN2) is somehow the problem. I'll likely try converting the ZIP codes to an integer to see what happens.
I have two databases like each other that one is the backup of another. Each DB have 2 filegroups. I want to replace one filegroup from one db to another. How do I do this? Or how do I backup and then restore?
View 3 Replies View RelatedI work for a 24/7 shop. We currently have a table that is partition on monthly. I have to created a script that will add a new file group, add the new file to the group, and alter the the partition scheme and function. However, I need for this process to not cause a lock on the table. Typically I get the locking and issues when I am run the split command. Is there a way to prevent this from happening?
View 4 Replies View Relatedwe have many max fields in our database .
A role in performance says : It's better to separate this fields to another FileGroup with separate file.
Is the result good for performance? and what are the risks?
I'm being asked to create multiple filegroups for a new database based on the table type, transaction, lookup, misc... From what i'm reading this doesn't make sense. I'm reading either large tables get file groups, nonclustered indexes when they are about the same size of the data, or a few other reasons...
First of all, we are talking about the same disk (please don't ask me about how it is configured) and I'm not sure yet if restoring separate file groups is even going to be necessary.
So here are my questions (beyond, the test and see what happens) because in the end I'm going to probably have to do what i'm told. So this is for my professional knowledge.
1. Does file groups separated by table type make sense?
2. Should you put tables that are queried often together in the same or different file groups.
3. I'm pretty sure you can't restore single file group for write access, am I correct?
I need to modify a table to reside on a new filegroup and also point TEXTIMAGE_ON to that filegroup instead of PRIMARY. Apparently in the past, the only way to achieve this via SQL is to create a new table, copy over data, drop the old table and rename the new table to the original name. I found this solution in the SQL Server 2005 forum.
Is there any other way to alter this table in order to point the TEXTIMAGE_ON to new filegroup using SQL Server 2014? We are on Standard edition. The technique I am using is the drop constraint (with move option) and add constraint (to new filegroup) commands. The data and indexes move, but not the text data (it still is in primary filegroup).
I have been creating databases in SQL 2008 with a primary filegroup for the system objects and a secondary, marked Default, for the data.
We are preparing a migration to SQL 2014, and the administrator is complaining he won't adopt this structure on the new servers because 'there is no benefit' and 'a backup cannot be restored (!?)'.
I read , When sql server Database having multiple data files within single filegroup then sql server writes data in multiple proportional file algorithm where the amount of data written to a file is proportionate to the amount of free space in that file, compared to other files in the filegroup.
so if there is no filegroups created and multiple secondary files are attached in databse , is there same way data stored and writes data in multiple files by the same algorithm or any different way.
We have deleted 120GB of data but space did not released even after 2 days. Is there any reason for this? tell me how exactly it releases the space after truncating a 120GB table?
View 8 Replies View RelatedWhile i execute dbcc sqlperf(logspace); I get following values.
Database NameLog Size (MB)Log Space Used (%)
master 16.17969 13.30275
tempdb 7.429688 61.7245
model 0.7421875 45.78947
msdb 5.554688 25.87904
distribution 2808.93 0.8172179
BANKDB 23438.87 48.20037
WSMIRSDB 109.7422 4.839111
For database BANKDB , Log Space used(%) is 48.83% and Log size is about 23438.87 where as my database size of BANKDB is 60 GB. FULL database and Log back is done every day night one time. My database is performing slow now.
Do we need to take log backup frequently like once a 1 hour so that Log space used will be less. Same query is taking more time to execute than before in same database is it because of log file has increased.
I do index organize and rebuild once a week and stats apply nightly.
Is it correct once log space size is increasing more than 10%. Do we need to take log backup?
I'm trying to determine how much space I would need for my data drive and log file drive to do index rebuild. I have a database which is 100gb, it is in simple recovery mode. let me know what to have a look at to determine how much space.
View 7 Replies View RelatedMy database server memory utilisation is growing faster from past 1 week. it remained same for 1 week around 55% and now it is going to 70% and increasing.
Total OS memory is 32GB and I kept cap for sql server memory upto 29GB. Dont know what to do..
Is there a method of forcing existing tables into the in-memory filegroup so the table data can benefit from in-memory processing.
View 7 Replies View RelatedI've been fixing some issues lately where weekly maintenance has been causing logs to grow and filling disks.
Is there any rule of thumb for allocating log space for doing reorgs and rebuilds in a worst case scenario? I'm thinking 3x the largest database size?
I've been watching them run on databases in the range of 50GB where the logs are growing well over that for rebuilds or even reorgs. Once you have a few databases like this on a server, you can suddenly eat through a lot of disk space just for holding logs during maintenance.
I have 10 Gb index and disk space only left 5gb .
How can i rebuild index ?
We have run into an issue on a dedicated SSAS 2012 SP1 server where the allocated memory is not being utilized, causing some slowness in use, connections, and queries.
Total Memory on the server is 512, and after startup, the utilized memory gets up to a max of 60GB and stops there. Checking the Resource Monitor, msmdsrv.exe is only taking around 39GB overall. With the current properties, that should be at 330GB. Am I missing something in the settings or in configuration that should be changed?
Version: SQL Server 2012 SP1 Enterprise (11.0.3000)
OS: Windows Server 2012 Datacenter - Fully patched and up to date
Databases: 2 Tabular models
Server: 512GB RAM
Current memory configuration:
Hard Memory Limit - 0 (Default)
LowMemoryLimit - 65% (Default)
TotalMemoryLimit - 95% (Default is 80)
VertiPaqMemoryLimit - 60% (Default)
VertiPaqPaginingPolicy - 1 (Default)
MemoryHeapType - 2 (Default)
We are planning to 2014 migration in few days.
ServerA----- ServerA1
ServerB---- ServerB1
In serverA we have 5databases. And making 5databases as availability group. The replica is ServerA1
In server B we have 3 databases. And the making those 3 databases as an availibility group. The secondary replica is ServerB1.
What is the best option to configure the quoram drive in this situation.
Also Server A1 & Server B1 also we use for reporting purposes.
We have some sensitive data. Is it possible to delete the data while reading the data?
How the memory optimization feature work with always on?
I'm working on a large scale project that is currently in production. We have a big process that recently changed to use In-Memory Tables with SQL 2014 for performance efficiency.
The Process uses:
51 In-Memory SQL Tables.
50 Stored Procedures (not native) that loads data(Insert) from about 150 regular Tables and IM tables.
300 Validations (short stored procedure not native) Selecting from those 50 In-Memory Tables (And insert to In-Memory table that save the validation errors if exists on In-Memory table).
At the end of this process we clean the table from the data that relavnt to etch prosses(DELETE FROM WHERE)
B.T.W
No UPDATE STAT on In-Memory are used-when we test the prosses it slow as down and cause some locks.
We are calling this process from ADO.Net, loads stored procedure first and then validations, each SP use different SQL Connection. In normal use, everything works fine and takes about 1.5 second.
Under stress test (6 Clients X 100 Tasks) for 30 minutes. After several minutes we are starting to get this SQL Exception (1 SQL Exception for every 20 tasks):
41301. A previous transaction that the current transaction took a dependency on has aborted, and the current transaction can no longer commit.
Transactions in Memory-Optimized Tables
The Exception is not clear. We are not using BEGIN TRANSACTION in the process. The SQL Exception occurs in different stored procedures each time.
How to query in SQL to retrieve all the disabled Windows Users which are available as records(only) in the SQL Server ?
View 9 Replies View RelatedI was trying to create stored proc
[code="create procedure dbo.sp_table1
@idint
as
begin
updatetable1
setisarchived = 1,
[Code] ....
But the query was continuously blocking the query below
updatetable1
setisarchived = 1,
modtime = getdate()
whereid = @id
andisarchived = 0
I was not sure, why the create procedure statement is blocking the update statement.
SQL Server In Memory OLTP 2014?
View 6 Replies View RelatedI have the following SQL FCI configuration:
NODE1 -256GB
INST1 - 64GB min/64GB max
INST2 - 64GB min/64GB max
NODE2 - 256GB
INST3- 64GB min/64GB max
INST4- 64GB min/64GB max
With this configuration and if all instances are running on the same node there will be enough memory for them to run. Knowing that normally i ll have only 2 instances in each node wouldnt it be better the following config?
NODE1 -256GB
INST1 - 64GB min/128GB max
INST2 - 64GB min/128GB max
NODE2 - 256GB
INST3- 64GB min/128GB max
INST4- 64GB min/128GB max
With this configuration and in case all the instances (due to a failure) start running on only 1 node, SQL will adjust all instances to just use Min memory specified?
Where can I find dates and times to when an availability group was moved outside of the SQL error log?
View 1 Replies View RelatedReplication-Replication Distribution Subsystem: agent PRODDATA6 failed. Could not find stored procedure 'sp_MSdel_dboActiveTask_msrepl_ccs'.
Replication-Replication Transaction-Log Reader Subsystem: agent PRODDATA6. The process could not execute 'sp_replcmds' on 'PRODDATA6'.
Replication-Replication Distribution Subsystem: agent PRODDATA6. Could not find stored procedure 'sp_MSupd_dboActiveTask'.
Looks like these sp's got deleted?
Any easy way to find if there are any nested views existing in the database?...using SQL server 2014...
View 1 Replies View Related