Suppose we have a poorly performing stored procedure with 6 parameters. If one of the six parameters is transferred to a local variable within the stored procedure, is that enough to disable parameter sniffing or is it necessary to transfer all 6 parameters that're passed to the stored procedure into local variables within the stored procedure?
Per Paul White's comment, assigning a variable to a local variable is a workaround from older versions of SQL Server. It won't help with sp_executesql, and Microsoft could write a smarter parser that would invalidate this workaround. The workaround works by confusing the parser about a parameter's value, so in order for it to work for each parameter, you'd have to store each parameter in a local variable.
More recent versions of SQL Server have better solutions. For an expensive query that is not run often, I'd use option (recompile). For example:
SELECT *
FROM YourTable
WHERE col1 = #par1 AND col2 = #par2 AND ...
OPTION (RECOMPILE)
This will cause the query planner to recreate ("recompile") a plan every time the stored procedure is called. Given the low cost of planning (typically below 25ms) that is sensible behavior for expensive queries. It's worth 25ms to check if you can create a smarter plan for specific parameters to a 250ms query.
If your query is run so often that the cost of planning is nontrivial, you can use option (optimize for unknown). That will cause SQL Server to create a plan that it expects to work well for all values of all parameters. When you specify this option, SQL Server ignores the first values of the parameters, so this literally prevents sniffing.
SELECT *
FROM YourTable
WHERE col1 = #par1 AND col2 = #par2 AND ...
OPTION (OPTIMIZE FOR UNKNOWN)
This variant works for all parameters. You can use optimize for (#par1 unknown) to prevent sniffing for just one parameter.
I got tired off for last two days, and now I find a solution. If anyone get relief, so I posted my experience here.
I have a query, fairly complex, having 5 CTEs and an union already known for parameter sniffing from its design. We opted OPTION RECOMPILE to solve it, and it works fairly good. After 2 years, we create a high available cluster and separate the report server. All works well for 1 year and now cause of Covid19 we need to shut down for 30 days. Server is on but all activity goes quite. Meanwhile we need to truncate the database because of extreme log size and data growth, taking out of available groups and re adding to availability. From last two date this query shows parameter sniffing activity, and no remedy works except one.
The silver bullet saves me is EXEC sp_updatestats.
This works for me, and now I have time to find a proper solution for permanent fix.
Related
I am working with MS SQL Server 2008 R2. I have a stored procedure named rpt_getWeeklyScheduleData. This is the query I used to look up its execution plan in a specific database:
select
*
from
sys.dm_exec_cached_plans cp
CROSS APPLY sys.dm_exec_sql_text(cp.plan_handle) st
where
OBJECT_NAME(st.objectid, st.dbid) = 'rpt_getWeeklyScheduleData' and
st.dbid = DB_ID()
The above query returns me 9 rows. I was expecting 1 row.
This stored procedure has been modified multiple times so I believe SQL Server has been building a new execution plan for it whenever it was modified and run. Is it correct explanation? If not then how can you explain this?
Also is it possible to see when each plan was created? If yes then how?
UPDATE:
This is the stored proc's signature:
CREATE procedure [dbo].[rpt_getWeeklyScheduleData]
(
#a_paaipk int,
#a_location_code int,
#a_department_code int,
#a_week_start_date varchar(12),
#a_week_end_date varchar(12),
#a_language_code int,
#a_flag int
)
as
begin
...
end
The stored proc is long; has only 2 if conditions both for #a_flag parameter.
if #a_flag = 0
begin
...
end
if #a_flag = 1
begin
...
end
Depending on the nature of the stored procedure (which wasn't provided) this is very possible for any number of reasons (most likely not limited to below):
Does the proc use a lot of if this then this select, else this select/update
Does the proc contain dynamic sql?
Are you executing the SP from both web and SSMS? Then you're likely executing the SP with different connection settings.
Does the stored proc have parameters? Sometimes a difference in parameters can cause one execution plan to be terrible for a specific set, so a different plan is used.
Going to try an analogy which might help... maybe...
Say you have a stored procedure for your weekend shopping.
You typically need to get groceries, sometimes an air filter, and even less often a big pack of something that needs replacing 4 times a year.
The grocery store can handle groceries, and is the closest to your house (5 minutes).
Target can handle the air filter and groceries, but add 25 minutes travel time.
"Big place of everything" has everything you'd possibly need, but is an hours drive away.
So here, depending on your parameters #needsAirFilter and #needsBigPackOfSomething could vastly change your "execution plan" of your stored procedure of "shopping".
If #needsAirFilter and #needsBigPackOfSomething is false, there's no reason to make the 30 minute or hour drive, as everything you need is at the grocery store.
One a month, #needsAirFilter is true, in that case we need to go to Target, as the grocery store's execution plan is insufficient.
4 times a year #needsBigPackOfSomething is true, and we need to make the hour drive to get the big pack of something, while grabbing groceries, and airfilter since we're there.
Sure... we could make the hour drive every time to get groceries, and the other things when needed (imagine single execution plan). But this is in no way the most efficient way to do it. In instances like this, we have different execution plans for what information/goods are actually needed.
No idea if that helps... but I had fun :D
Typically SQL Server will generate a new query plan depending on the values of the parameters being passed in (this can determine what indexes, if any, it will use) and if indexes are added, changed or updated (on the tables/views being used in the proc) so SQL Server may decide that it is more effective to use one or more indexes that it previously ignored. The more involved the SQL in the proc will also kick off more work on SQL Server side as it attempts to optimize the query. If the data changes (suddenly you have many more customers in NJ and there is a query and index for states) it may decide that its going to use that index and the query plan is changed. If any of the tables or views involved in the query change (schema change) will also invalidate an existing plan and result in a new plan being generated.
I'm working on updated procedures that I inherited from someone who is no longer at the company.
I have found procedures that include WITH RECOMPILE option after the header. In the notes it says that it was added "to mitigate timeouts from blocking"
ALTER PROC ups_SomeProc (#pMyParameter INT) WITH RECOMPILE
AS
BEGIN
In all my experience I never heard of WITH RECOMPILE option helping with blocking or even be related to blocking in any way.
Am I missing some understanding about this option or the person who implemented it was the one who got confused on what it does? Have anyone heard of this before as a solution for blocking?
Note: This was done when server was still running SQL Sever 2008 edition.
OPTION WITH RECOMPILE forces Sql Server to Recompile an execution plan even if there is an existing plan cached in the memory.
If the underlying data changes dramaticly and very quickly the cached execution plan becomes less efficient. Therefore in such situation using WITH RECOMPILE option executes the procedure much faster then it would execute if it had used the already compiled execution plan.
My guess the developer/person experienced some long delays when he executed the stored procedure. and when he used the WITH RECOMPILE option it got executed faster. So maybe he thought executing this procedure without recompile option causes blocking. :) funny story but I think this is what happened.
I can think of one way it could help (which I actually experienced myself). Each stored proc has a query plan cached. There could be a problem sometimes if the way the stored is executed varies wildly based on some values as the cached query plan may be completely unsuitable.
Let's say you have a stored proc that looks like
create procedure SomeProc
as
begin
declare #value int
select #value = somevalue from atable where date = getdate() -- getting different value every time
if #value = 1 then -- do one thing
if #value = 2 then -- do something different
if #value = 3 then -- do something completely different
end
The query plan might have been cached when the value was 1. When you run it again and the value is now 2 or 3, the information is not suitable and may result in a query execution that takes very long time. You can sometimes spot such queries by having wildly varied number of reads, etc.
When you use WITH RECOMPILE, it can mitigate those problems by forcing SQL Server to come up with a new execution plan.
So basically I have this relatively long stored procedure. The basic execution flow is that it SELECTS INTO some data into temp tables declared with the # sign and then runs a cursor through these tables to generate a 'running total' into a third temp table which is created using CREATE. Then this resulting temp table is joined with other tables in the DB to generated the result after some grouping etc. The problem is, this SP had been running fine until now returning results in 1-2 minutes. And now, suddenly, its taking 12-15 minutes. If I extract the query from the SP and executed it in management studio by manually setting the same parameters, it returns results in 1-2 minutes but the SP takes very long. Any idea what could be happening? I tried to generate the Actual Execution plans of both the query and the SP but it couldn't generate it because of the cursor. Any idea why the SP takes so long while the query doesn't?
This is the footprint of parameter-sniffing. See here for another discussion about it; SQL poor stored procedure execution plan performance - parameter sniffing
There are several possible fixes, including adding WITH RECOMPILE to your stored procedure which works about half the time.
The recommended fix for most situations (though it depends on the structure of your query and sproc) is to NOT use your parameters directly in your queries, but rather store them into local variables and then use those variables in your queries.
its due to parameter sniffing. first of all declare temporary variable and set the incoming variable value to temp variable and use temp variable in whole application here is an example below.
ALTER PROCEDURE [dbo].[Sp_GetAllCustomerRecords]
#customerId INT
AS
declare #customerIdTemp INT
set #customerIdTemp = #customerId
BEGIN
SELECT *
FROM Customers e Where
CustomerId = #customerIdTemp
End
try this approach
Try recompiling the sproc to ditch any stored query plan
exec sp_recompile 'YourSproc'
Then run your sproc taking care to use sensible paramters.
Also compare the actual execution plans between the two methods of executing the query.
It might also be worth recomputing any statistics.
I'd also look into parameter sniffing. Could be the proc needs to handle the parameters slighlty differently.
I usually start troubleshooting issues like that by using
"print getdate() + ' - step '". This helps me narrow down what's taking the most time. You can compare from where you run it from query analyzer and narrow down where the problem is at.
I would guess it could possible be down to caching. If you run the stored procedure twice is it faster the second time?
To investigate further you could run them both from management studio the stored procedure and the query version with the show query plan option turned on in management studio, then compare what area is taking longer in the stored procedure then when run as a query.
Alternativly you could post the stored procedure here for people to suggest optimizations.
For a start it doesn't sound like the SQL is going to perform too well anyway based on the use of a number of temp tables (could be held in memory, or persisted to tempdb - whatever SQL Server decides is best), and the use of cursors.
My suggestion would be to see if you can rewrite the sproc as a set-based query instead of a cursor-approach which will give better performance and be a lot easier to tune and optimise. Obviously I don't know exactly what your sproc does, to give an indication as to how easy/viable this is for you.
As to why the SP is taking longer than the query - difficult to say. Is there the same load on the system when you try each approach? If you run the query itself when there's a light load, it will be better than when you run the SP during a heavy load.
Also, to ensure the query truly is quicker than the SP, you need to rule out data/execution plan caching which makes a query faster for subsequent runs. You can clear the cache out using:
DBCC FREEPROCCACHE
DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS
But only do this on a dev/test db server, not on production.
Then run the query, record the stats (e.g. from profiler). Clear the cache again. Run the SP and compare stats.
1) When you run the query for the first time it may take more time. One more point is if you are using any corellated sub query and if you are hardcoding the values it will be executed for only one time. When you are not hardcoding it and run it through the procedure and if you are trying to derive the value from the input value then it might take more time.
2) In rare cases it can be due to network traffic, also where we will not have consistency in the query execution time for the same input data.
I too faced a problem where we had to create some temp tables and then manipulating them had to calculate some values based on rules and finally insert the calculated values in a third table. This all if put in single SP was taking around 20-25 min. So to optimize it further we broke the sp into 3 different sp's and the total time now taken was around 6-8 mins. Just identify the steps that are involved in the whole process and how to break them up in different sp's. Surely by using this approach the overall time taken by the entire process will reduce.
This is because of parameter snipping. But how can you confirm it?
Whenever we supposed to optimize SP we look for execution plan. But in your case, you will see an optimized plan from SSMS because it's taking more time only when it called through Code.
For every SP and Function, the SQL server generates two estimated plans because of ARITHABORT option. One for SSMS and second is for the external entities(ADO Net).
ARITHABORT is by default OFF in SSMS. So if you want to check what exact query plan your SP is using when it calls from Code.
Just enable the option in SSMS and execute your SP you will see that SP will also take 12-13 minutes from SSMS.
SET ARITHABORT ON
EXEC YourSpName
SET ARITHABORT OFF
To solve this problem you just need to update the estimate query plan.
There are a couple of ways to update the estimate query plan.
1. Update table statistics.
2. recompile SP
3. SET ARITHABORT OFF in SP so it will always use query plan created for SSMS (this option is not recommended)
For more options please refer to this awesome article -
http://www.sommarskog.se/query-plan-mysteries.html
I would suggest the issue is related to the type of temp table (the # prefix). This temp table holds the data for that database session. When you run it through your app the temp table is deleted and recreated.
You might find when running in SSMS it keeps the session data and updates the table instead of creating it.
Hope that helps :)
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.
I have a web-service that calls a stored procedure from a MS-SQL2005 DB. My Web-Service was timing out on a call to one of the stored procedures I have (this has been in production for a couple of months with no timeouts), so I tried running the query in Query Analyzer which also timed out. I decided to drop and recreate the stored procedure with no changes to the code and it started performing again..
Questions:
Would this typically be an error in the TSQL of my Stored Procedure?
-Or-
Has anyone seen this and found that it is caused by some problem with the compilation of the Stored Procedure?
Also, of course, any other insights on this are welcome as well.
Similar:
SQL poor stored procedure execution plan performance - parameter sniffing
Parameter Sniffing (or Spoofing) in SQL Server
Have you been updating your statistics on the database? This sounds like the original SP was using an out-of-date query plan. sp_recompile might have helped rather than dropping/recreating it.
There are a few things you can do to fix/diagnose this.
1) Update your statistics on a regular/daily basis. SQL generates query plans (think optimizes) bases on your statistics. If they get "stale" your stored procedure might not perform as well as it used to. (especially as your database changes/grows)
2) Look a your stored procedure. Are you using temp tables? Do those temp tables have indexes on them? Most of the time you can find the culprit by looking at the stored procedure (or the tables it uses)
3) Analyze your procedure while it is "hanging" take a look at your query plan. Are there any missing indexes that would help keep your procedure's query plan from going nuts. (Look for things like table scans, and your other most expensive queries)
It is like finding a name in a phone book, sure reading every name is quick if your phone book only consists of 20 or 30 names. Try doing that with a million names, it is not so fast.
This happend to me after moving a few stored procs from development into production, It didn't happen right away, it happened after the production data grew over a couple months time. We had been using Functions to create columns. In some cases there were several function calls for each row. When the data grew so did the function call time.The original approach was good in a testing environment but failed under a heavy load. Check if there are any Function calls in the proc.
I think the table the SP is trying to use is locked by some process. Use "exec sp_who" and "exec sp_lock" to find out what is going on to your tables.
If it was working quickly, is (with the passage of several months) no longer working quickly, and the code has not been changed, then it seems likely that the underlying data has changed.
My first guess would be data growth--so much data has been added over the past few months (or past few hours, ya never know) that the query is now bogging down.
Alternatively, as CodeByMoonlight implies, the data may have changed so much over time that the original query plan built for the procedure is no longer good (though this assumes that the query plan has not cleared and recompiled at all over a long period of time).
Similarly Index/Database statistics may also be out of date. Do you have AutoUpdateSatistics on or off for the database?
Again, this might only help if nothing but the data has changed over time.
Parameter sniffing.
Answered a day or 3 ago: "strange SQL server report performance problem related with update statistics"