I run heavy query on IBM i. First time it takes a long time, Subsequent times are much faster. It seems to be creating temporary index. How can I remove this index, so I can re-test like the first time?
Use the Visual Explain (VE) tool in the Run SQL Scripts component of ACS to see the differences between runs.
If indeed the issue is a system maintained temporary index (MTI), you can track it down via the schema's tooling in ACS and delete it if you so desire.
However, an MTI only gets deleted by the system when the system reboots (IPL).
So if you seeing differences without rebooting the server, I suspect the differences are caused by psuedo-closing. By default, once the DB see's the same query a few times (3 is the default), instead of hard closing it's cursors, it will psuedo-close them.
Again, VE will show "hard opens" and "pseudo opens".
To get the pseduo closed cursors to hard close, simply disconnect and reconnect.
Related
I just want to ask if I can use the stored procedure sp_clean_db_free_space as part of preventive maintenance?
What are the pros and cons of this built in stored procedure? I just want to hear the inputs of someone who already uses this.
Thank you
You would typically not need to explicitly run this, unless you have specific reasons.
Quoting from SQL Server Books Online's page for sp_clean_db_free_space:
Delete operations from a table or update operations that cause a row
to move can immediately free up space on a page by removing references
to the row. However, under certain circumstances, the row can
physically remain on the data page as a ghost record. Ghost records
are periodically removed by a background process. This residual data
is not returned by the Database Engine in response to queries.
However, in environments in which the physical security of the data or
backup files is at risk, you can use sp_clean_db_free_space to clean
these ghost records.
Notice that SQL Server already has a background process to achieve the same result as sp_clean_db_free_space.
The only reason you might wish to explicitly run sp_clean_db_free_space is if there is a risk that the underlying database files or backups can be compromised and analysed. In such cases, any data that has not yet been swept up by the background process can be exposed. Of course, if your system has been compromised in such a way, you probably also have bigger problems on your hands!
Another reason might be that you have a time-bound requirement that deleted data should not be retained in any readable form. If you have only a general requirement that is not time-bound, then it would be acceptable to wait for the regular background process to perform this automatically.
The same page also mentions:
Because running sp_clean_db_free_space can significantly affect I/O
activity, we recommend that you run this procedure outside usual
operation hours.
Before you run sp_clean_db_free_space, we recommend
that you create a full database backup.
To summarize:
You'd use the sp_clean_db_free_space stored procedure only if you have a time-bound requirement that deleted data should not be retained in any readable form.
Running sp_clean_db_free_space is IO intensive.
Microsoft recommend a full database backup prior to this, which has its own IO and space requirements.
Take a look at this related question on dba.stackexchange.com: https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/11280/how-can-i-truly-delete-data-from-a-sql-server-table-still-shows-up-in-notepad/11281
I'm starting to assess our company using RavenDB for storing some stuff that doesn't really belong in a relational database (we're traditionally a SQL Server shop). I installed RavenDB locally on my machine, created a database, added a document. Nice!
Being a DBA, I decided to see how backups/restores work. I backed up my database, deleted it, then restored it from the backup. After refreshing my admin screen, I saw my database. I clicked on it, and got a message that the database doesn't exist.
After a couple hours, I tried again. Still doesn't exist. A full day later, I walk into work, and try again. This time the database works. I've had similar situations with updating documents. The update seems to take anywhere between 1 second - several hours to show an update...
Is this normal for RavenDB?? Am I completely misconfigured?? I run SQL Server on my local machine and it's lightning-fast, so I can't imagine updating a single document could take that long. As-is, I can't imagine recommending we use RavenDB for anything.
Are you querying using indexes or getting documents by ID? Documents should be updated immediately (ACID). If indexes are slow to update (check their status using RavenDB Studio), it could be a configuration problem or something external like an anti-virus software can cause them to update slowly.
Apparently, at least for the document-update latency, the default for caching in queries is enabled, so I was getting cached results.
Jeffery,
No, that isn't normal by a long short. You should be able to immediately see what was changed.
Note that certain AV products will interfere with the HTTP pipeline and can affect RavenDB's usage. The studio will also auto update things only every 5 seconds (to reduce UI jitter), but that is about it.
Restoring a database (from the same machine), should take only as long as it take to copy the files (pure I/O bound operation).
If this is from another machine using a different version of Windows, we might need to run a check on the file, which can take a bit of time, but that doesn't sound like your scenario
I'm running the following setup:
Physical Server
Windows 2003 Standard Edition R2 SP2
IIS 6
ColdFusion 8
JDBC connection to iSeries AS400 using JT400 driver
I am running a simple SQL query against a file in the database:
SELECT
column1,
column2,
column3,
....
FROM LIB/MYFILE
No conditions.
The file has 81 columns - aplhanumeric and numeric - and about 16,000 records.
When I run the query in the emulator using the STRSQL command, the query comes back immediately.
When I run the query on my Web Server, it takes about 30 seconds.
Why is this happening, and is there any way to reduce this time?
While I cannot address whatever overhead might be involved in your web server, I can say there are several other factors to consider:
This may likely have to do primarily in the differences between the way the two system interfaces work.
Your interactive STRSQL session will start displaying results as quickly as it receives the first few pages of data. You are able to page down through that initial data, but generally at some point you will see a status message at the bottom of the screen indicating that it is now getting more data.
I assume your web server is waiting until it receives the entire result set. It wants to get all the data as it is building the HTML page, before it sends the page. Thus you will naturally wait longer.
If this is not how your web server application works, then it is likely to be a JT400 JDBC Properties issue.
If you have overridden any default settings, make sure that those are appropriate.
In some situations the OPTIMIZATION_GOAL settings might be a factor. But if you are reading the table (aka physical file or PF) directly, in its physical sequence, without any index or key, then that might not apply here.
Your interactive STRSQL session will default to a setting of *FIRSTIO, meaning that the query is optimized for returning the first pages of data quickly, which corresponds to the way it works.
Your JDBC connection will default to a "query optimize goal" of "0", which will translate to an OPTIMIZATION_GOAL setting of *ALLIO, unless you are using extended dynamic packages. *ALLIO means the optimizer will try to minimize the time needed to return the entire result set, not just the first pages.
Or, perhaps first try simply adding FOR READ ONLY onto the end of your SELECT statement.
Update: a more advanced solution
You may be able to bypass the delay caused by waiting for the entire result set as part of constructing the web page to be sent.
Send a web page out to the browser without any records, or limited records, but use AJAX code to load the remainder of the data behind the scenes.
Use large block fetches whenever feasible, to grab plenty of rows in one clip.
One thing you need to remember, the i saves the access paths it creates in the job in case they are needed again. Which means if you log out and log back in then run your query, it should take longer to run, then the second time you run the query it'll be faster. When running queries in a web application, you may or may not be reusing a job meaning the access paths have to be rebuilt.
If speed is important. I would:
Look into optimizing the query. I know there are better sources, but I can't find them right now.
Create a stored procedure. A stored procedure saves the access paths created.
With only 16000 rows and no WHERE or ORDER BY this thing should scream. Break the problem down to help diagnose where the bottleneck is. Go back to the IBM i, run your query in the SQL command line and then use the B, BOT or BOTTOM command to tell the database to show the last row. THAT will force the database to cough up the entire 16k result set, and give you a better idea of the raw performance on the IBM side. If that's poor, have the IBM administrators run Navigator and monitor the performance for you. It might be something unexpected, like the 'table' is really a view and the columns you are selecting might be user defined functions.
If the performance on the IBM side is OK, then look to what Cold Fusion is doing with the result set. Not being a CF programmer, I'm no help there. But generally, when I am tasked with solving multi-platform performance issues, the client side tends to consume the entire result set and then use program logic to choose what rows to display/work with. The server is MUCH faster than the client, and given the right hints, the database optimiser can make some very good decisions about how to get at those rows.
I have been struggling with a problem that only happens when the database has been idle for a period of time for the data queried. The first query will be extremely slow, on the order of 30 seconds and then related queries will be fast like 0.1 seconds. I am assuming this is related to caching, but I have been unable to find the cause of it.
Changing the mysql variables tmp_table_size, max_heap_table_size to a larger size had no effect except to create the temp tables in memory.
I do not think this is related to the query itself as it is well indexed and after the first slow query, variants of the same query do not show up in the slow query log. I am most interested in trying to determine the cause of this or a way to reset the offending cache so I can troubleshoot the issue.
Pages of the innodb data files get cached in the innodb buffer pool. This is what you'd expect. Reading files is slow, even on good hard drives, especially random reads which is mostly what databases see.
It may be that your first query is doing some kind of table scan which pulls a lot of pages into the buffer pool, then accessing them is fast. Or something similar.
This is what I'd expect.
Ideally, use the same engine for all tables (exceptions: system tables, temporary tables (perhaps) and very small tables or short-lived ones). If you don't do this then they have to fight for ram.
Assuming all your tables are innodb, make the buffer pool use up to 75% of the server's physical ram (assuming you don't run too many other tasks on the machine).
Then you will be able to fit around 12G of your database into ram, so once it's "warmed up", the "most used" 12G of your database will be in ram, where accessing it is nice and fast.
Some users of mysql tend to "warm up" production servers following a restart by sending them queries copied from another machine for a while (these will be replication slaves) until they add them into their production pool. This avoids the extreme slowness seen while the cache is cold. For example, Youtube does this (or at least it used to; Google bought them and they may now use Google-fu)
MySQL Workbench:
The below isn't 100% related to this SO question, but the symptoms are very related and this is the first SO result when searching for "mysql workbench slow" or related terms, so hopefully it's useful for others.
Clear the query history! - following the process at MySql workbench query history ( last executed query / queries ) i.e. create / alter table, select, insert update queries to clear MySQL Workbench's query history really sped up the program for me.
In summary: change the Output pane to History Output, right click on a Date and select Delete All Logs.
The issue I was experiencing was "slow first query" in that it would take a few seconds to load the results even though the duration/fetch were well under 1 second. After clearing my query history, the duration/fetch times stayed the same (well under 1 second, so no DB behavior actually changed), but now the results loaded instantly rather than after a few second delay.
Is anything else running on your mysql server? My thought is that maybe after the first query, your table is still cached in memory. Once it's idle, another process is causing it to be de-cached. Just a guess though.
How much memory do you have any what else is running?
I had an SSIS package that was timing out. The query was very simple, from a single MySQL table, but it sometimes returned a lot of records and would sometimes take a few minutes initially to execute, then only a few milliseconds afterwards if I wanted to query it again. We were stuck with the ADO connection, which meant it would time out after 30 seconds, so about half the databases we were trying to load were failing.
After beating my head against the wall I tried performing an initial query first; very simple and only returning a few rows. Since it was so simple it executed fast and set the table in the cache for faster querying. In the next step of the package I would do the more complex query which returned the large data set that kept timing out. Problem solved - all tables loaded. I may start doing this on a regular basis, the complex queries execute much faster by doing a simple query first.
Ttry and compare the output of "vmstat 1" on the linux command line when running the query after a period of time, vs when you re-run it and get results fast. Specifically check the "bi" column (that's the kb read from disk per second).
You may find the operating system is caching the disk blocks in the fast case (and thus a low "bi" figure), but not in the slow case (and hence a large "bi" figure).
You might also find that vmstat shows high/low cpu usage in either case. If it's low when fast, and disk throughput is also low, then your system may still be returning a cached query, even though you've indicated the relevant config value is set to zero. Perhaps check the output of show engine innodb status and SHOW VARIABLES and confirm.
innodb_buffer_pool_size may also be set high (it should be...), which would cache the blocks even before the OS can return them.
You might also find that "key_buffer" is set high - this would cache the keys in the indexes, which could make your select blindingly fast.
Try check the mysql performance blog site for lots of useful info.
I had issue when MySQL 5.6 was slow on first query after idle period. This was a connection problem, not MySQL instance problem, e.g. if you run MYSQL Query Browser execute "select * from some_queue", leave it alone for a couple of hours, then execute any query, it runs slow, while at the same time processes on server or new instance of Browser will select from same tables instantly.
Adding skip-host-cache, skip-name-resolve to my.ini file solved this problem.
I don't know why is that. Why I tried this: MySQL 5.1 without those options was slowly establishing connections from other networks (e.g. server is 192.168.1.100, 192.168.1.101 connects fast, 192.168.2.100 connects slow), MySQL 5.6 didn't have such problem to start with so we didn't add these to my.ini initially.
UPD: Solved half the cases, actually. Setting wait_timeout to maximum integer fixed the other half. Maybe I even now can remove skip-host-cache, skip-name-resolve and it won't slow down in 100% of the cases
We are using Replication and seem to be having endless problems with it. It seems to shut down for unknown reasons. It needs to be shut down to remove a column and only starts back up half the time. Does anyone have any advice on how to properly use replication or some alternatives to it.
Edit:
We are using Sql Server 2005, We cannot use database mirroring as we used the other database for reporting. As far as I am aware you cannot query from a mirrored database.
If you need just couple of tables from your DB for reports, replication is more useful, but you also can set up log shipping with secondary server in STAND BY mode (especially if you need significant part of your data for reports), then you can run reports on secondary server. You just have to remember that log shipping will interfere with transaction log backups, so you have to use the same folder with log backup files for both processes.
I would think the combination of database mirroring and database snapshots will solve your issues.
First, database mirroring is very easy to setup and I have never had any problems with it (using it for the past 4+ years).
Second, creating a database snapshot on your failover server will allow you to run reports. You can setup a sql agent job to drop and re-create the snapshot on whatever acceptable interval you like.
Of course this is all dependent on if you need your reports to run on real-time data or if they can be delayed somewhat.
Here are a list of the problems that I have had to resolve to get replication working:
1) The replication sometimes lies to me and tells me this, even when its working fine.
"The server 'Bob' is not a Subscriber. (.Net SqlClient Data Provider)" I have tried to re-initialise it thinking that it was broken and it never was...
2) It can take a little while to restart itself, especially if your remote DB is on the other side of the planet, which it is in my case. If you are on a slow network connection, or it is not 100% reliable, then you can have problems. Also, the jobs which restart the process can sometimes take a while to run, which also delays things further.
3) Some changes require full re-initalisation which involves sending a new snapshot out. If you don't have your permissions quite right, and you can re-initialise manually, but it doesn't happen automatically, then this can be a another reason for problems.
We have a SQL transactional replication which runs perfectly happily. You seem to say that it is when you are making schema changes to the publisher that you get problems. Each time we do a schema change we drop the publication, subscription and the subscription database. Do the change, then re-build it all. We can do this becuase we can tolerate the time it takes to re-apply the snapshot. There are ways to apply schema changes to the publication and have them propogate to the subscriber. Take a look at sp_register_custom_scripting. We have made this work once, so I can give some more information about it if you need.
As #Jason says, you can report from a mirrored database by using a snapshot. Beware that the snapshot will take up space, and cause more work for the mirror server. Although how much space will depend on how much data is changing and how big your original database is. We do use a snapshot on a mirrored database for occasional reports because our entire database is not replicated.
log shipping http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187103.aspx
What version of SQL Server are you using?
We're using replication now for a particular solution, and it seems to just work, day in, day out.
I would examine your event log's, and SQL Server logs to see if you can determine why it is shutting down, and why it doesn't start up.
Are you possibly patching the servers, or are you having network errors?
The alternatives to replication are log shipping, or database mirroring.
I personally prefer Database Mirroring, but it really depends what you're trying to do, as some of these aren't appropriate for certain situations.
We also have used SQL transactional replication. We had the same pains with updating schema, which requires dropping the publication on all servers, performing the updates, and then reinitializing replication, and hoping for the best. Sometimes it would not initialize, or a node would fall behind and we'd get little warning for it. A few times we even lost all the stored procedure execute permissions causing pretty much total failure on the websites.
We have a rather large database so reinitialization could take quite some time, meaning all updates had to be done at 2am on Sunday - not exactly when we're awake and alert and able to use all our faculties to deal with a problem that might arise.
We are ditching replication in favor of failover clustering on SQL 2008, but it can still be done all the way back to SQL 2000.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc917693.aspx