Table Access Has Become Very Slow After DB Restore
Feb 1, 2008
I have a table that has appx 3.2 million rows. see sp_help
Name Owner Type Created_datetime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TB_SAAI014_BPD dbo user table 2005-08-10 11:33:23.893
Column_name Type Comp Lngth Prec Scale Nullable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RowID int no 4 10 0 no
SPHInstID int no 4 10 0 no
BPDInstID int no 4 10 0 no
BMUID varchar no 11 no
InfoImblCfw numeric no 9 12 2 no
BMUPrdNonDel numeric no 9 12 2 no
PrdFPN numeric no 9 13 3 no
PrdBMUBalSrvVol numeric no 9 13 3 no
PrdInfoImblVol numeric no 9 13 3 no
PrdExpdMtrVol numeric no 9 13 3 no
BMUMtrVol numeric no 9 13 3 no
PrdBMUNonDelBidVol numeric no 9 13 3 no
PrdBMUNonDelOfrVol numeric no 9 13 3 no
TranLossFctr numeric no 9 15 7 no
TranLossMtpl numeric no 9 15 7 no
TradUnitName varchar no 30 no
TotTrdUnitMtrVol numeric no 9 13 3 no
BMUAppBalSrvVol numeric no 9 13 3 no
DTCreated datetime no 8 yes
DTUpdated datetime no 8 yes
Identity Seed Inc Not Repl
-----------------------------------------
RowID 0 1 0
RowGUIDcol
-----------------------------
No rowguidcol column defined.
Data Located on File Group
==========================
PRIMARY
Index Name Decsription Keys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
idx_SPH_BPD clustered, unique located on PRIMARY SPHInstID, BPDInstID
This table has 1 clustered index based on its own unique record ID and that of its parent table record
I have an import process that adds appx 980 rows of data to this table and numerous rows to several other tables as part of a transaction and it ran in about 15 seconds.
However we suffered a server failure and it had to be rebuilt (Svr2k3), SQL 2000 re-installed (with default options) and the data base restored.
The same transaction is now taking 8 to 9 minutes.
I tracked it down to this particular table. Just doing a count(*) takes over 5 minutes. Select * where ID = 1 takes over 5 mins. Also, whenever the table is accessed you can hear the server thrashing the disks. Other tables, although smaller do not seem to be suffering from this masive performance drop..
I've tried droping and recreating the index. I have even created a copy of the table, with index, and still get the same issue with speed.
DBCC CHECKTABLE returns the following but takes 6 and a half minutes
DBCC results for 'TB_SAAI014_BPD'.
There are 3168460 rows in 72011 pages for object 'TB_SAAI014_BPD'.
DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your system administrator.
No errors are shown
A DBCC CHECKTABLE on another table with 230 thousand rows, run at the same time only took 10 seconds
Can anyone please point me in the direction of things to check, try or repair.
Database Restore takes much longer on Windows 2003 64-bit than on 32-bit... Is this simply the Service Pack level or does it have to do with the 64-bit/32-bit issue?
We have a Development/QA/Production environment setup in this manner:
DEV - fast restores - (about 2 hours) OS: Windows Server 2003 R2 Service Pack 2 DB: SQL 2000 Service Pack 4 (32-bit)
QA - slow restores - (about 10 hours) OS: Windows Server 2003 x64 Service Pack 1 DB: SQL 2000 Service Pack 4 (32-bit) Production - slow restores - (about 10 hours)OS: Windows Server 2003 x64 Service Pack 1 DB: SQL 2000 Service Pack 4 (32-bit)
I have configured a cluster SQL 2005 (active/passive) and added 4 LUNS to that cluster the cluster works without problems. However I am having issues backing and restoring on 2 drives. I can complete the operation ( a resotre of 100MB ) DB in less than a minute if i use the 2 drives but it takes about an hour if i use the other 2 drives. The wait type is ansynchronous_IOcompletion and backupthread in dm_exec_requests.
I have detached the drives and reformatted it but stil lsame issues any help
I am experiencing VERY slow connectivity between client and server SQL 2000. I have checked the network activity and it is low. It also takes Enterprise manager ages to load, and then browsing tables and trees is impossible!
I have a access database, the data store in another server. This noon, one of our user is runing the access database too slow. Open the database and search the data, etc. It took a long time to come out, Any body has experience on it, why, we had etrust install on each user machine, is that cause this too slow? Thanks in advance.
Has anyone else exported data to Access? If so, is it a slow process in SQL Server 2005?
I am exporting 3,000 records to an Access database using a view and it has taken 20 minutes. I am using the Export Data wizard. Any tips on how to speed it up would be appreciated.
I have 25+ WinXP SP2 workstations on a Novell file server (Novell login) and also have a W2K SQL 2000 Server for our database. We are usint Win NT authentication to the SQL Server.
One AND ONLY ONE user is having trouble with this setup. Her workstation is PAINFULLY slow accessing the SQL server through my Delphi programs, through our third party programs, and through ODBC connections.
I thought it was her workstation until I configured a clean workstation for her, and it too had the same problem. I then took a brand new Dell 9200 workstation with 2gb memory, gigabit NIC, etc. and configured it to use our servers. It too had the same slowness connecting to the SQL server. Everything else is fast.
I deleted her entry in the NT domain users table, and re-entered her. No help.
A bit new to SQL 2k5 but here goes, I recently installed SQL 2k5 on a preety decent box with about 4GB Ram and created a database called PointOfSale. As probably obvious by now, the application that accesses the Database is a PointOfSale application. The store sells ladies clothing items, of which each is barcoded. When an item is scanned via the barcode reader into the application, it takes like about 10-15 seconds for the item information to appear. Of course the item information resides on the database. There are three registers and the same thing happens on all. I am running sp 2 for sql2k5 already. Any thing I can do that would reduce the 15 sec delay significantly? Any help at all would be appreciated immensley.
We have several people accessing the SQL server 7.0 data thru' MS Access Server has been slow on queries etc.Everything looks good,other than this one finding of MS Access being used for update/select. Is MS Access a potential problem? How to solve the problem of slow response time?
Note: MS Access is running on the client desktops retrieving data from SQL Server and joining data from MS Access to SQL Server.
I have a stored procedure which creates 3 temporary tables. Every table is about ten rows and 25 columns. The inserts in the tables goes fast (< 30 ms). The selects from them is also that fast. BUT the first select takes about 3200 ms one each of the temptables. (I first do insert, then select from them.) So the SP executes at about 13 seconds instead of 3.
We have an issue with accessing SQL Server 2000 where the access of data from the database is slow unless the user is logged in as an administrator to their computer.
The system is as follows: SQL Server 2000 on a W2K server. Users logging into a Win 2003 domain server. Users using W2K on their workstations. Application is VB.NET using the Enterprise Library Data Block, connection pooling ON, and windows authentication.
We are assuming that the issue is down to one of authentication and that when a user is set as an administrator then they have instant access. We have been able to replicate the issue using just SQL server on a W2K workstation and accessing from another W2K workstation. Again data access is way slow unless the account is an administrator.
Here is the brief to my problemWe had our database on SQL Server 2000 and Windows 2000.This machine had 2gb of RAM and dual Penitum 3 processors and about 25-30 users were connected all the time. The size of database is around 2 gb. Even on this setup rate of data retrival was good, never had any issues. We moved to SQL Server 2005 and Windows 2003. This machines has 2 Pentium Xeon 3.4 processors and 2 stick of KINGSTON 1024 MB 333 MHZ DDR DIMM ECC CL2.5 DUAL RANK X4 INTEL. The rate of data retrival is awful and its very slow. It using about 1.7 to 1.9 gb of RAM all the time. Page File usage is about 2.07 gb and Virtual Usage is about 1.7gb.I dont quiet understand why is it so slow to get data. We use bespoke software, so nothing has changed there. Hardware specification of our server is far more better then the recommended system requirement for SQL Server 2005.Am i missing something out or i havent set up the SQL Server properly? Any help would really be appreciated.Mits
I've noticed that after the database have been idle for some time, it takes up to 10 seconds to get it started when something needs to access it. In the event viewer it says that the database <name> have been started.
Obviously, there is some idle timeout setting.
I saw an option in the database properties that is called "Auto Close" which is set to true. I assume this is what i'm looking for. Can someone confirm that? (it could take some time to test myself...)
But what i'm actually wondering is:
1. Is it possible to adjust how long it would wait before timing out? 2. What advantages does closing the database bring? Does it free up (a noticeable amount of) ressources? Or is it only that it's unlocking the files, so that it's possible to copy the database source files?
I have an Access2000 ADP that I want to run under Access2007. The problem I have is that some forms take up to 45 seconds to open in Access2007! These are not complicated forms--just simple navigable reference forms like setting up transaction types etc. that are based on basic select statements like:
SELECT * FROM ArReceivableType
Where ArReceivableType is a reference table (less than 10 columns, all int or nvarchar(100) max) containing about 15 or 20 rows. They open instantly in Access2000.
I put a trace on to see what is happening on the SQL Server, and I noticed heaps of nasty code like this that generates tens of thousands of reads:
select object_name(sotblfk.id), user_name(sotblfk.uid), object_name(sotblrk.id), user_name(sotblrk.uid) from sysreferences srfk, sysobjects sofk, sysobjects sotblfk, sysobjects sotblrk where srfk.constid = sofk.id and srfk.fkeyid = sotblfk.id and srfk.rkeyid = sotblrk.id and user_name(sofk.uid) = N'dbo' and object_name(sofk.id) = N'FK_FaAssetTransactionWork_ArReceivableType_ArReceivableTypeId'
It looks like Access2007 is reading all of the constraints for the underlying table, including all foreign keys. My SQL database contains 1400+ tables all with properly constructed foreign keys and other constraints.
Any suggestion on how to NOT have Access2007 do this? Right now, Access2000 works great for this enterprise app, but I really like the new Access2007 features (and I don't want to still be developing Access2000 apps in 2010).
I've got a football (soccer for the yanks!) predictions league website that is driven by and Access database. It basically calculates points scored for a user getting certain predictions correct. This is the URL:
http://www.pool-predictions.co.uk/home/index.asp
There are two sections of the site however that have almost ground to halt now that more users have registered throught the season. The players section and league table section have gone progressively slower to load throughout the year and almost taking 2 minutes to load.
All the calculations are performed in the Access database Ive written and there are Access SQL queries to get the data out.
My question is, is how can I speed the bloody thing up! ! Somone has alos suggested to me that I use stored procedures and SQL Server to speed things up? Ive never used SQL Server before so I am bit scared about using it (Im only a hobbyist), and I dont even know what a SP is or does. How easy will it be upgrading the whole thing to SQL Server and will it be worth the hassle, bearing in mind I expect my userbase to keep growing? Do SP help speed things up significantly? Would appreciate some advice!
One of our developers has a Microsoft Access 2000 database that runs queries that compare the Access db data to a SQL Server database. He uses pass through queries to get the data from SQL Server.
We're finding that the Access query runs quickly against our test server, even with copies of production data, but when we try the same query against our production server, the CPU on the local computer running Access is pegged and the query takes up to 10 minutes to run.
First I verified that the SQL Server structures between test and production were identical, including indexes. I checked index fragmentation, and productions indexes are less fragmented than tests. Again, test and production currently have the identical data.
I've run a profiler trace on our production SQL Server 2000 server, and I see the RPC for the query from Access running almost instantaneously.
Any ideas on what might be the cause of the difference in speed between test and production SQL Server servers, or any suggestions on other things I could look at/tools I could use to troubleshoot this issue further?
I have an application built with Access 2003 (MDB). It is running under Windows XP without any problems. If I run it under Vista, it works technically well but I get the data very slow from the server.
Server: Windows Server 2003 R2, SP2 SQL Server 2005, version 9.00.3054.00 Firewall: off
Client: Access 2003, SP3
Connection strings: ODBC;DRIVER={SQL Native Client};UID=SD_Admin;DATABASE=SDX;SERVER=MARS;PWD=xxx; or
I am using two almost idential laptops, one with XP and one with Vista, the only differences is that the XP laptop has 1G of RAM and running Office XP and the Vista has 2G RAM and is running Office 2007.
I have a MS Access database that has linked tables to a SQL Server 2000 database. The performance of the Access database on Vista is 5-10 times slower on the Vista machine. Just flipping through records or opening forms can take 5 - 15 seconds on the Vista machine while the XP machine takes 1 sec or less.
What gives? I looked at the CPU performance and the network performance while the Access database was busy flipping through records, the network traffic was < 2% and the CPU would spike to 40% on one of the CPUs (dual core) but would remain under 5% most of the time.
I also previously had Office XP installed on the Vista machine and it had the same performance issue so bought and install Office 2007 on the Vista machine and it did not solve the problem.
It seems that Vista is doing something that is slowing down Access with linked tables. Is this a issue between Vista and using an ODBC connection to SQL Server?
In a Data Flow Task, I have an insert that occurs into a SQL Server 2000 table from a fixed width flat file. The SQL Server table that the data goes into is accessed through an OLE DB connection manager that uses the Native OLE DBMicrosoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server.
In the OLE DB Destination, I changed the access mode from Table or View - fast load to Table or View because I needed to implement OLE DB Destination Error Output. The Error output goes to a SQL Server 2000 table that uses the same connection manager.
The OLE DB Destination Editor Error Output 'Error' option is configured to 'Redirect' the row. 'Set this value to selected cells' is set to 'Fail component'.
Was changing the access mode the simple reason why the insert from the flat file takes so much longer, or could there be other problems?
I have created a SQL Agent job that is supposed to essentially duplicate a production database to another database. The code I am using is:
step1 __________________________________________________ ______ declare @sql varchar(8000) set @sql='' select @sql=@sql+'kill '+cast(spid as varchar)+char(13)+char(10) from sysprocesses where dbid=12
RESTORE DATABASE HIWDYNARPT FROM PRDBACKUP WITH REPLACE __________________________________________________ ______
This works when I test it during the day, however when it runs at night I get the following error in the job log:
Database in use. The system administrator must have exclusive use of the database to run the restore operation. [SQLSTATE 42000] (Error 3101) Backup or restore operation terminating abnormally. [SQLSTATE 42000] (Error 3013). The step failed.
I'm not sure why this happens because I have killed all open threads in step 1, and then create my own new thread in step two. Maybe someone else is initiating a new thread to quickly between the steps???
Anyway, I am trying to use: __________________________________________________ __ ALTER DATABASE HIWDYNARPT RESTRICTED_USER WITH ROLLBACK IMMEDIATE __________________________________________________ ____
...as an alternative to the T-SQL killing PID's, but SQL 7.0 SP4 does not seem to support restricted user like 2000. It keeps giving me a syntax error. Does anyone have any suggestions?
If I bring step 1 and step 2 together, separated by "GO", could this fix the problem?
I'm running the isqlw.exe command from a console app. The output log file is telling me access is denied to my My Documents folder (where the .bak file is) to do the restore. It keeps erroring and teminating the RESTORE command. It's not read only or anything (not that I'd think that would necessarily affect it) and I don't know why it would throw an OS access denied error on any part of my computer for me since I'm logged into the computer as an admin and I'm using the sa login info in the isqlw command.
I did a full BACKUP for two SQL databases using SQL Server Managament Studio. When trying to RESTORE the DBs, I get the following error:
"System.Data.SqlClient.SqlError: Exclusive access could not be obtained because the database is in use. (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)"
There are NO users using the application. These are DBs for the Portfolio Server 2007 application.
After exploring a little bit, I found that there are several "SLEEPING" processes with an "AWATING COMMAND" flag. The processes come from the Portfolio Server Application, maybe from previous sessions.
Can they be deleted? if so, would there be any serious consequences?
Hello all. I've got a problem with really slow INSERTs on one (and only one) of the tables in a database. For example, using SQL Management Studio, it takes 4 minutes and 48 seconds to insert 25 rows. There are only about 8 columns in the table and only about 1500 records. All the other tables in the database are very fast for inserts.
Another odd thing uniquely associated with INSERTs on this table: prior to inserting the 25 new rows of data, SQL Management Studio tells me that it inserted 463 rows of data which I know did not happen. Here's the INSERT statement:
INSERT INTO FieldOps(StudySiteID , QA_StructureID , Notes , PersonID) SELECT DISTINCT StudySiteKey , QA_StructureKey , SampleComments1 , '25' FROM ScriptOutput_Nitrate WHERE (ScriptOutput_Nitrate.StudySiteKey IS NOT NULL)
and SQL Management Studio (eventually) says: (463 row(s) affected) (463 row(s) affected)
(25 row(s) affected)
The table has an index on the primary key (INT data type with auto increment). I tried running the following code to fix things but it made no difference:
USE [master] GO ALTER DATABASE [FieldData] SET SINGLE_USER WITH ROLLBACK IMMEDIATE GO
use FieldData GO DBCC CHECKTABLE ('FieldOps', REPAIR_REBUILD) With ALL_ERRORMSGS GO
USE [master] GO ALTER DATABASE [FieldData] SET MULTI_USER WITH ROLLBACK IMMEDIATE GO
I'm guessing that the problem might be related to the index (??). I don't know... Does anyone here have a suggestion as to what I should do to fix this problem.
Hi,I have a table defined asCREATE TABLE [SH_Data] ([ID] [int] IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL ,[Date] [datetime] NULL ,[Time] [datetime] NULL ,[TroubleshootId] [int] NOT NULL ,[ReasonID] [int] NULL ,[reason_desc] [nvarchar] (255) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_ASNULL ,[maj_reason_id] [int] NULL ,[maj_reason_desc] [nvarchar] (255) COLLATESQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_AS NULL ,[ActionID] [int] NULL ,[action_desc] [nvarchar] (255) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_ASNULL ,[WinningCaseTitle] [nvarchar] (255) COLLATESQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_AS NULL ,[Duration] [int] NULL ,[dm_version] [nvarchar] (255) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_ASNULL ,[ConnectMethod] [nvarchar] (255) COLLATESQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_AS NULL ,[dm_motive] [nvarchar] (255) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_ASNULL ,[HnWhichWlan] [nvarchar] (255) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_ASNULL ,[RouterUsedToConnect] [nvarchar] (255) COLLATESQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_AS NULL ,[OS] [nvarchar] (255) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_AS NULL ,[WinXpSp2Installed] [nvarchar] (255) COLLATESQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_AS NULL ,[Connection] [nvarchar] (255) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_ASNULL ,[Login] [nvarchar] (255) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_AS NULL,[EnteredBy] [nvarchar] (255) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_ASNULL ,[Acct_Num] [int] NULL ,[Site] [nvarchar] (255) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_AS NULL ,CONSTRAINT [PK_SH_Data] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED([TroubleshootId]) ON [PRIMARY]) ON [PRIMARY]GOWhich contains 5.6 Million rows and has non clustered indexes on Date,ReasonID, maj_Reason, Connection. Compared to other tables on the sameserver this one is extremely slow. A simple query such as :SELECTSD.reason_desc,SD.Duration,SD.maj_reason_desc,SD.[Connection],SD.aolEnteredByFROM dbo.[Sherlock Data] SDWhere SD.[Date] > Dateadd(Month,-2,Getdate())takes over 2 minutes to run ! I realise the table contains severallarge columns which make the table quite large but unfortunately thiscannot be changed for the moment.How can i assess what is causing the length of Query time ? And whatcould i possibly do to speed this table up ? The database itself isrunning on a dedicated server which has some other databases. None ofwhich have this performance issue.Anyone have any ideas ?
We have developped an ETL. For development we used small test files (10 000 rows) to test if it works correctly. This runs in less then a minute
In Test we are using a file which contains all rows (7 million). We did twice a test and we first stopped the process after a week and the 2nd time we stopped the process after a weekend.
We are able to trace the problem to the point where it has to sort the tables.
The proces is pretty simple. We use two connectors to directly connect to the tables. Then we have two blocks to sort the data. And then we have one block to merge the data.
Should we which to let SQL do the sorting ? Since it is in staging is has no index on that column. A select on the tables with an order by takes 3 minutes to return all those rows.
Any idea's ?
Also is there a page with the best practices for ETL ?
SELECT * on a 4000 row table is taking more than 12 seconds. Other larger tables are not nearly as slow. I've DBCC dbreindex'd, and dbcc showcontig shows density at 100%.
How can I figure out why this is happening? What are some remedies?
Hello.I am administering a SQL Server (Enterprise Edition on Windows 2003)from some month and can't understand what is going on in the latestweek (when the db grow a lot).The DB is around 250G, and has one table with 1 billion rows. It isperforming in a decent way, but can't understand why a particolar tablehas strong performance problem.I have a stored procedure that read table from table A and insert them,after processing in table B, and then move them in other table (similarto a Star Schema) for reporting.Table B is, for how the SP is written, not more than 3000 lines. TableB is very simple, has 3 rows, and no index.What is very strange is that performance of table B is really slow. IfI do a select count (*) from table_b it takes between 30s & 2minutes toreturn it has 0 lines. When the stored procedure insert 1000 lines, ittakes 20/30 seconds and it takes 20/30 seconds to delete them.To me it doesn't look like a lock problem, because it is slow also whenthe only procedure that access that table are stopped. I did an updatestatistics with fullscan on this table with no improvement.The DB is on a Storage Area Network that should perform decently. TheLUN I use is configured to use a piece of 32 disk that are used also byother application. I don't have performance data of the SAN. Themachine is an HP DL580 with 4 CPU (hiperthreading disabled), 8G of RAM,AWE and PAE and 5G reserved for SQL Server.I don't know what to do to solve this situation. Could it be a"corruption problem" that slow this table so much? is it possible thefact the db grow a lot in the last week created problem also to thissmall and simple table?Do you have any idea or hint on how to manage this situation, orpointer to documentation that can help in analizing this situation?For the ones that arrived till here, thank you for your time andpatience reading my bad english...Best Regards,MamoPSI can't rewrite the stored procedure, because it is part of a closedsource product.
I'm working with a table with about 60 million records. This monster is growing every minute of the day as well, by 200,000 - 300,000 records/day. It's 11 columns wide, and has one index on a datetime column. My task is to create some custom reports based on three of these columns, including the datetime one.
The problem is response time. Any query executed on this table takes forever--anywhere between 30 seconds and 4 minutes. Queries such as this one below, as simple as it is, can take a minute or more:
select count(dt_date) as Searches from SearchRecords where datediff(day,getdate(),dt_date)=0
As the table gets larger and large, the response time is going to get worse and worse. Long story short, what are my options to get the speed of queries down to just a few seconds with a table this big? So far the best I can come up with is index any other appropriate columns (of which there is one for sure, maybe two).
I have a table defined as such: PosterArtId int no 4 10 0 no (n/a) (n/a) NULL Graphic image no 16 yes (n/a) (n/a) NULL GraphicFilename varchar no 50 no no no SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS
I have a Stored Procedure defined in the database that queries this table (joins with some other tables) that takes about 1 1/2 minutes to return results (running directly in query analyzer). The table itself has 8900 records and the resulting stored procedure returns 33 rows.
I have backed up this database and restored it to another database on a different machine also running SQL Server 2000. When I run the same stored procedure on this 2nd database (note the contents of the database and this table are exactly the same), it runs very quickly - in about 2 seconds.
I'm trying to figure out what is causing the query to run so slow on the original database, which is our production database server (note that none of the other queries seem to be running extra slow on this machine, just this particular one).
I've since been reading up on storing images in the database and I don't think the images are stored "text in row" - I ran the command: €œSELECT OBJECTPROPERTY(OBJECT_ID('tblPosterArt'),'TableTextInRowLimit')€? and got a 0 return value.
My ultimate goal is to figure out: 1) why the timing is so different on the two databases even though the have the same data 2) is there something we can do to speed up the results on our production server
For the first goal, I'm heading down the path that something in the database backup/restore did not recreate the btree storage of the image data in the same manner. Would this be correct? If not, is there some kind of analysis that I can do that will tell me some useful information?
I've run the Stored Procedure for both databases in query analyzer with the "show execution plan", "trace", and "statistics" turned on. In the Execution Plan of the production database I see a significant amount of time in three areas: Nested Loops/Left Semi Join, Clustered Index Scan, and Clustered Index Seek. But being as I'm not a dba (nor do we have one on staff), I'm not sure how to interpret this data. I keep wanting to point to some sort of environment issue since the data is the same between the two machines.
I suppose there is nothing to do about the 2nd goal without knowing why the query on the one machine is taking so long. Any thoughts on how to get more information here?
