We have a complex stored procedure that is sometimes subject to parameter sniffing. It is a large, "all-in-one" procedure that is called by many different parts of the system and so it stands to reason that one query plan would not fit all use cases.
This works fine except periodically ONE particular report goes from seconds to minutes. In the past, a quick exec sp_recompile would speed it back up immediately. Now that never works. The report just eventually "fixes itself" in a day or two, meaning it goes back to taking seconds.
Refactoring the stored procedure is currently not an option and I don't want to do the other recommended approaches (saving parameters to local variables, WITH RECOMPILE, OPTIMIZE FOR UNKNOWN) as those are said to have other side effects.
So I have these questions:
Why wouldn't exec sp_recompile speed it up like before?
How can I tell if exec sp_recompile actually cleared the query plan cache? What should be run before, and after, the exec? I've tried some queries from the web but can't clearly tell if something changed, so a specific recipe would be great to have.
Would it be reasonable to clone the procedure with a different name, and call that clone just for this one report? The goal would be to get SQL Server to cache a separate plan just for the report. But I'm not sure if SQL Server is caching plans by procedure name, or if it caches the various queries inside the stored procedures. (If it's the latter, then there's no use to this approach, as the any clones of the procedure would have the same queries.)
Using several CTEs, especially complex queries (just like when joining with views) can potentially cause the query optimiser problems with producing an optimal execution plan.
If you have a lot of CTE definitions used, SQL Server will be attempting to construct a single monolithic execution plan and you could have a plan compilation timeout resulting in a sub-optimal plan being used.
You could instead replace the CTEs with temp tables - using intermediate results often has better performance as each query executes in isolation with a dedicated optimal (or at least better) plan. This can help the optimizer make a better choice for joins and index usage.
If you can benefit from two key different types of parameters that ideally require their own optimal plan then an option would be, as you suggest, to duplicate the procedure specific to each use-case.
You can confirm that this results in a separate execution plan by querying for your procedure name using dm_exec_sql_text
select s.plan_handle, t.text
from sys.dm_exec_query_stats s
cross apply Sys.dm_exec_sql_text(s.plan_handle)t
where t.text like '%proc name%'
You will note you have a different plan_handle for each procedure.
We have run into a strange issue recently. We have a lot of stored procedures on a SQL Azure database and it appears that a number of them keep choosing poor plans to execute the query. We are updating stats on the databases nightly. When we see a stored procedure timing out over and over we tried executing sp_recompile passing in the procedure name and it does get recompiled but doesn't solve the bad plan problem. We tried actually rerunning the ALTER PROCEDURE statement (without changing the actual contents of the procedure) and that did nothing. Then on a whim we change the text of the procedure by adding a newline at the end of it right before the END statement. When we do this and run the ALTER PROCEDURE statement, the procedure suddenly kicks into gear and runs fast again.
I assume alerting the text of the procedure "changes" the procedure more than sp_recompile does and forces a "harder" recompilation and thus a better query plan is chosen? The problem is, while this solves the issue, there is now way to maintain a system of over 100 production databases where this seems to randomly happen. Has anyone else seen this type off issue and know what the underlying problem may be? How does one maintain a system like this?
I have two SQL queries with about 2-3 INNER JOINS each. I need to do an INTERSECT between them.
Problem is that indiividually the queryes work fast, but after intersecting take about 4 seconds in total.
Now, if I put an OPTION (RECOMPILE) at the end of this whole query, the query works great again working quite fast returning almost instantly!.
I understand that option recopile forces a rebuild of execution plan, so I am confused now if my earler query taking 4 seconds is better or now the one with recompile, but taking 0 seconds is better.
Rather than answer the question you asked, here's what you should do:
Update your statistics:
EXEC sp_updatestats
If that doesn't work, rebuild indexes.
If that doesn't work, look at OPTIMIZE FOR
WITH RECOMPILE is specified SQL Server does not cache a plan for this stored procedure,
the stored procedure is recompiled each time it is executed.
Whenever a stored procedure is run in SQL Server for the first time, it is optimized and a query plan is compiled and cached in SQL Server's memory. Each time the same stored procedure is run after it is cached, it will use the same query plan eliminating the need for the same stored procedure from being optimized and compiled every time it is run. So if you need to run the same stored procedure 1,000 times a day, a lot of time and hardware resources can be saved and SQL Server doesn't have to work as hard.
you should not use this option because by using this option, you lose most of the advantages you get by substituting SQL queries with the stored procedures.
I am breaking my head on this issue since long. I have stored procedure in MS SQl and when I try to execute that procedure by providing all the parameters in SQL Query, it takes long time to execute but when I try to directly run the query which is there in SP it executes in no time. This is affecting my application performance also as we are using stored procedures to fetch the data from DB Server.
Please help.
Regards,
Vikram
Looks like parameter sniffing.
Here is a nice explanation: I Smell a Parameter!
Basically, sql server has cached query execution plan for the parameters it was first run with so the plan is not optimal for the new values you are passing. When you run the query directly the plan is generated at that moment so that's why it's fast.
You can mark the procedure for recompilation manually using sp_recompile or use With Recompile option in its definition so it is compiled on every run.
I know this has something to do with parameter sniffing, but I'm just perplexed at how something like the following example is even possible with a piece of technology that does so many complex things well.
Many of us have run into stored procedures that intermittently run several of orders of magnitude slower than usual, and then if you copy out the sql from the procedure and use the same parameter values in a separate query window, it runs as fast as usual.
I just fixed a procedure like that by converting this:
alter procedure p_MyProc
(
#param1 int
) as -- do a complex query with #param1
to this:
alter procedure p_MyProc
(
#param1 int
)
as
declare #param1Copy int;
set #param1Copy = #param1;
-- Do the query using #param1Copy
It went from running in over a minute back down to under one second, like it usually runs. This behavior seems totally random. For 9 out of 10 #param1 inputs, the query is fast, regardless of how much data it ends up needing to crunch, or how big the result set it. But for that 1 out of 10, it just gets lost. And the fix is to replace an int with the same int in the query?
It makes no sense.
[Edit]
#gbn linked to this question, which details a similar problem:
Known issue?: SQL Server 2005 stored procedure fails to complete with a parameter
I hesitate to cry "Bug!" because that's so often a cop-out, but this really does seem like a bug to me. When I run the two versions of my stored procedure with the same input, I see identical query plans. The only difference is that the original takes more than a minute to run, and the version with the goofy parameter copying runs instantly.
The 1 in 10 gives the wrong plan that is cached.
RECOMPILE adds an overhead, masking allows each parameter to be evaluated on it's own merits (very simply).
By wrong plan, what if the 1 in 10 generates an scan on index 1 but the other 9 produce a seek on index 2? eg, the 1 in 10 is, say, 50% of the rows?
Edit: other questions
Known issue?: SQL Server 2005 stored procedure fails to complete with a parameter
Stored Procedure failing on a specific user
Edit 2:
Recompile does not work because the parameters are sniffed at compile time.
From other links (pasted in):
This article explains...
...parameter values are sniffed during compilation or recompilation...
Finally (edit 3):
Parameter sniffing was probably a good idea at the time and probably works well mostly. We use it across the board for any parameter that will end up in a WHERE clause.
We don't need to use it because we know that only a few (more complex eg reports or many parameters) could cause issues but we use it for consistency.
And the fact that it will come back and bite us when the users complain and we should have used masking...
It's probably caused by the fact that SQL Server compiles stored procedures and caches execution plans for them and the cached execution plan is probably unsuitable for this new set of parameters. You can try WITH RECOMPILE option to see if it's the cause.
EXECUTE MyProcedure [parameters] WITH RECOMPILE
WITH RECOMPILE option will force SQL Server to ignore the cached plan.
I have had this problem repeatedly on moving my code from a test server to production - on two different builds of SQL Server 2005. I think there are some big problems with the parameter sniffing in some builds of SQL Server 2005. I never had this problem on the dev server, or on two local developer edition boxes. I've never seen it it be such a big problem on SQL Server 2000 or any version going back to 6.5 either.
The cases where I found it, the only workaround was to use parameter masking, and I'm still hoping the DBAs will patch up the production server to SP3 so it will maybe go away. Things which did not work:
using the WITH RECOMPILE hint on EXEC or in the SP itself.
dropping and recreating the SP
using sp_recompile
Note that in the case I was working on, the data was not changing since an earlier invocation - I had simply scripted the code onto the production box which already had data loaded. All the invocations came with no changes to the data since before the SPs existed.
Oh, and if SQL Server can't handle this without masking, they need to add a parameter modifier NOSNIFF or something. What happens if you mask all your parameters, so you have #Something_parm and #Something_var and someone changes the code to use the wrong one and all of a sudden you have a sniffing problem again? Plus you are polluting the namespace within the SP. All these SPs I am "fixing" drive me nuts because I know they are going to be a maintenance nightmare for the less experienced satff I will be handing this project off to one day.
Could you check on the SQL Profiler how many reads and execution time when it is quick and when it is slow? It could be related to the number of rows fetched depending on the parameter value. It doesn't sound like a cache plan issue.
I know this is a 2 year old thread, but it might help someone down the line.
Once you analyze the query execution plans and know what the difference is between the two plans (query by itself and query executing in the stored procedure with a flawed plan), you can modify the query within the stored procedure with a query hint to resolve the issue. This works in a scenario where the query is using the incorrect index when executed in the stored procedure. You would add the following after the table in the appropriate location of your procedure:
SELECT col1, col2, col3
FROM YourTableHere WITH (INDEX (PK_YourIndexHere))
This will force the query plan to use the correct index which should resolve the issue. This does not answer why it happens but it does provide a means to resolve the issue without worrying about copying the parameters to avoid parameter sniffing.
As indicated it be a compilation issue. Does this issue still occur if you revert the procedure? One thing you can try if this occurs again to force a recompilation is to use:
sp_recompile [ #objname = ] 'object'
Right from BOL in regards to #objname parameter:
Is the qualified or unqualified name of a stored procedure, trigger, table, or view in the current database. object is nvarchar(776), with no default. If object is the name of a stored procedure or trigger, the stored procedure or trigger will be recompiled the next time that it is run. If object is the name of a table or view, all the stored procedures that reference the table or view will be recompiled the next time they are run.
If you drop and recreate the procedure you could cause clients to fail if they try and execute the procedure. You will also need to reapply security settings.
Is there any chance that the parameter value being provided is sometimes not int?
Is every query reference to the parameter comparing it with int values, without functions and without casting?
Can you increase the specificity of any expressions using the parameter to make the use of multifield indexes more likely?
It is a problem with plan caching, and it isn't always related to parameters, as it was in your scenario.
(Parameter Sniffing problems occur when a proc is called with unusual parameters the FIRST time it runs, and so the cached plan works great for those odd values, but lousy for most other times the proc is called.)
We had a similar situation when the app team deleted all old records from a highly-used log table on a production server. Removing records improves performance, right? Nope, performance immediately tanked.
Turns out that a frequently-used stored proc was recompiled right when the table was nearly empty, and it cached an extremely poor execution plan ("hey, there's only 50 records here, might as well do a Table Scan!"). Would have happened no matter what the initial parameters.
Our fix was to force a recompile with sp_recompile.