Unable to access one of the table in SQL Server database - sql

I have a production database which has 200 tables. Since last week I am unable to access one of the tables. When I just select top 100 rows it keeps on running.
How can I find out why the table is not accessible? How can I find if there is any lock on the table? All the other tables are running fine

From what I understood, you are not able to get any results when you query it.
There may be a lot of reasons for that.
1) It could be locked.
To do a dirty read, try querying with NOLOCK hint.
SELECT Column1 FROM TableName WITH (NOLOCK)
To check if there are locks on the table, use the script below:
declare #a table (
spid int,
[dbid] int,
objid int,
indid int,
[type] varchar(10),
resource varchar(100),
mode varchar(2),
[status] varchar(20)
);
insert into #a
exec sp_lock
select object_name(objid) tablename, * from #a where object_name(objid) = 'TableName'
2) Queries might be slow when statistics are outdated. Try updating them.
UPDATE STATISTICS dbo.TableName;
3) The TOP operator itself. The top operator basically takes the entire set of data and sorts it and gives you the first 100. You can add query hints to get some data before it is sorted.
SELECT TOP 10 Column1 FROM TableName (OPTION FAST(1))
--Have avoided doing a `SELECT * FROM....`
SELECT 1 FROM TableName (OPTION FAST(1))
--Without `TOP`

Check Permissions on the table. Right click on the table and select properties. Click on the permissions tab and make sure you have access to that table.

Related

SQL - Split query data stream into 2 separate tables [Theoretical Optimisation]

I am writing some SQL code to be run in MapBasic (MapInfo's Programming language). The best way to describe the question is with an example:
I want to select all records where ShipType="Barge" into a query named Barges and I want all the remaining records to be put in a query OtherShips.
I could simply use the following SQL commands:
select * from ShipsTable where ShipType = "Barge" into Barges
select * from ShipsTable where ShipType <> "Barge" into OtherShips
That's fine and all but I can't help but feel that this is inefficient. Won't SQL be searching through the database twice? Won't it find the rows of data that fit the 2nd Query during the processing of the 1st?
Instead, it would be faster if there was a command like:
select * from ShipsTable where ShipType = "Barge" into Barges ELSE into OtherShips
My question is, can you do this? Is there a command that fits this spec?
Thanks,
You could do this quite easily in SSIS with a conditional split and two different destinations.
But not really in TSQL.
However for "fun" some possibilities are looked at below.
You could create a partitioned view but the requirements that you need to meet for this are quite arduous and the execution plan just loads it all into a spool and then reads the spool twice with two different filters anyway.
CREATE TABLE Barges
(
Id INT,
ShipType VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL CHECK (ShipType = 'Barge'),
PRIMARY KEY (Id, ShipType)
)
CREATE TABLE OtherShips
(
Id INT,
ShipType VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL CHECK (ShipType <> 'Barge'),
PRIMARY KEY (Id, ShipType)
)
CREATE TABLE ShipsTable
(
ShipType VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL
)
go
CREATE VIEW ShipsView
AS
SELECT *
FROM Barges
UNION ALL
SELECT *
FROM OtherShips
GO
INSERT INTO ShipsView(Id, ShipType)
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY ##SPID), ShipType
FROM ShipsTable
Or you could use the OUTPUT clause and composable DML but that would require inserting both sets of rows into the first table and then cleaning out the unwanted rows afterwards (the second table would only get the correct rows and not need any clean up).
CREATE TABLE Barges2
(
ShipType VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL
)
CREATE TABLE OtherShips2
(
ShipType VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL
)
CREATE TABLE ShipsTable2
(
ShipType VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL
)
INSERT INTO Barges2
SELECT *
FROM
(
INSERT INTO OtherShips2
OUTPUT INSERTED.*
SELECT *
FROM ShipsTable2
) D
WHERE D.ShipType = 'Barge';
DELETE FROM OtherShips2 WHERE ShipType = 'Barge';
MapBasic does provide you access to MapInfo's 'Invert Selection' which would give you anything that wasn't selected from your first query (assuming your first query does return results). You can call it by using it's menu ID (found in Menu.def) which is 311 or if you include menu.def at the top of the file you can reference it through the constant M_QUERY_INVERTSELECT.
eg.
Select * from ShipsTable where ShipType = "Barge" into Barges
Run Menu Command 311
or
Run Menu Command M_QUERY_INVERTSELECT if you have included the menu definitions file.
I believe this would give you better performance than doing a second selection as per your example but you wouldn't be able to then name the results table with an alias without doing another selection. Depends on your use case whether this is worth using or not, for a large query that takes quite a while it could well save on some processing time.

Nested Loop in Where Statement killing performance

I am having serious performance issues when using a nested loop in a WHERE clause.
When I run the below code as is, it takes several minutes. The trick is I'm using the WHERE clause to pull ALL data if the report_id is NULL, but only certain report_id's if I set them in the parameter string.
The function [fn_Parse_List] turns a VARCHAR string such as '123,456,789' into a table where each row is each number in integer form, which is then used in the IN clause.
When I run the code below with report_id = '456' (the dashed out portion), the code takes seconds, but passing the temporary table and using the SELECT statement in the WHERE clause kills it.
alter procedure dbo.p_revenue
(#report_id varchar(max) = NULL)
as
select cast(value as int) Report_ID
into #report_ID_Temp
from [fn_Parse_List] (#report_id)
SELECT *
FROM BIGTABLE
where #report_id is null
or a.report_id in (select Report_ID from #report_ID_Temp)
--Where #report_id is null or a.report_id in (456)
exec p_revenue #report_id = '456'
Is there a way to optimize this? I tried a JOIN with the table #report_ID_Temp, but it still takes just as long and doesn't work when the report_id is NULL.
You're breaking three different rules.
If you want two query plans, you need two queries: OR does not give you two query plans. IF does.
If you have a temporary table, make sure it has a primary key and any appropriate indexes. In your case, you need an ALTER TABLE statement to add the primary key clustered index. Or you can CREATE TABLE to declare the structure in the first place.
If you think fn_Parse_List is a good idea, you haven't read enough Sommarskog
If I were to write the Stored Procedure for your case, I would use a Table Valued Parameter (TVP) instead of passing multiple values as a comma-seperated string.
Something like the following:
-- Create a type for the TVP
CREATE TYPE REPORT_IDS_PAR AS TABLE(
report_id INT
);
GO
-- Use the TVP type instead of VARCHAR
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.revenue
#report_ids REPORT_IDS_PAR READONLY
AS
BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON;
IF NOT EXISTS(SELECT 1 FROM #report_ids)
SELECT
*
FROM
BIGTABLE;
ELSE
SELECT
*
FROM
#report_ids AS ids
INNER JOIN BIGTABLE AS bt ON
bt.report_id=ids.report_id;
-- OPTION(RECOMPILE) -- see remark below
END
GO
-- Execute the Stored Procedure
DECLARE #ids REPORT_IDS_PAR;
-- Empty table for all rows:
EXEC dbo.revenue #ids;
-- Specific report_id's for specific rows:
INSERT INTO #ids(report_id)VALUES(123),(456),(789);
EXEC dbo.revenue #ids;
GO
If you run this procedure with a TVP with a lot of rows or a wildly varying number of rows, I suggest you add the option OPTION(RECOMPILE) to the query.
I see 2 possible things that could help improve performance. Depends on which part is taking the longest. First off, SELECT INTO is a single threaded operation until SQL Server 2014. If this is taking a long time, create an explicitly defined temp table with CREATE TABLE. Secondly, depending on the number of records inserted into the temp table, you probably need an index on the Report_ID column. That can all be done in the body of the stored procedure. If you do end up using an explicitly defined temp table, I would create the index after the data is loaded.
If that doesn't help, first check that the report_id column on the BIGTABLE is indexed. Then try splitting the select into 2 and combining with a UNION ALL like this:
ALTER PROCEDURE dbo.p_revenue
(
#report_id VARCHAR(MAX) = NULL
)
AS
SELECT CAST(value AS INT) Report_ID
INTO #report_ID_Temp
FROM fn_Parse_List(#report_id);
SELECT *
FROM BIGTABLE
WHERE #report_id IS NULL
UNION ALL
SELECT *
FROM BIGTABLE
WHERE a.report_id IN ( SELECT Report_ID
FROM #report_ID_Temp );
GO
EXEC p_revenue #report_id = '456';
Are you saying I should have two queries, one where it pulls if the report_id doesn't exists and one where there is a list of report_ids?
Yes, yes, yes. The fact, that it somehow works when You enter the numbers directly, distracts You from the core problem. You need table scan when #report_id is null and index seek when it is not and You can not have both in one execution plan. The performance would inevitably have to suffer, one way or another.
I would prefer not to, as the table i'm pulling from is actually a
view with 800 lines with an additional parameter not shown above.
I do not see where is the problem, SELECT * FROM BIGTABLE and SELECT * FROM BIGVIEW seems the same. If You need parameters You can use inline table valued function. If You have more parameters with variable selectivity like #report_id, I guess You would end up with dynamic sql anyway, sooner or later.
UNION ALL as proposed by #db_brad would help, but one of those subquery is executed even when there is no need for it.
As a quick patch You can append OPTION(RECOMPILE) to the SELECT and have table scan one time and index seek the other time, but recompiling every time would induce nontrivial overhead.

Track number of rows in a #table which the population is in progress

I am working in SQL Server 2012 Management studio.
In a SQL query window, an insert into a #table is happening. It is expected to insert somewhere around 80 million rows with 3 INT columns each.
The query execution is going on.
Is there a way that I can track the no of rows in the #table?
Since you cannot run two queries in the same window simultaneously and temp tables are not accessible in other sessions if they are declared with a single #, you should try defining it with a double # in your insert query.
Then you could try querying it using WITH(NOLOCK).
Open a new query window on the same db and try
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM ##YourTableName WITH(NOLOCK)
This will get dirty reads, but i do not think it would be a problem in your case as you would like a rough measure on where your INSERT is.
One method is to query the DMVs using the temp table object id. You can get the local temp table object id from the session that created it using this query:
SELECT OBJECT_ID(N'tempdb..#table', 'U');
Then run the script below in another windows, supplying the object_id value from the above query (-1180342868 in this example):
DECLARE #object_id int = -1180342868;
SELECT SUM(rows)
FROM tempdb.sys.partitions
WHERE
object_id = #object_id
AND index_id IN(0,1);
Of course, this method assumes you had the foresight to get the temp table object id before running the insert. If the query is currently running, you could run the script below and make an educated guess as to which object might be the temp table being loaded.
USE tempdb;
SELECT OBJECT_NAME(object_id), SUM(rows)
FROM tempdb.sys.partitions
WHERE
index_id IN(0,1)
AND OBJECTPROPERTYEX(object_id, 'IsUserTable') = 1
GROUP BY
OBJECT_NAME(object_id);
Be aware that this might not be a reliable way to track the load progress. Much depends on the query plan particulars. It could be that the costly operators are earlier in the plan and the actual insert won't occur until the last minute.
If you wish to run the query to count rows in another window or outside the scope where the table was declared, please use a global temp table.
For Example,
CREATE TABLE ##table(
a int,
b int,
c int)
And the in another window you can run, this will work
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ##table WITH (NOLOCK)

Having a same temp table name with 2 different IF statements

I have resolved this problem because I have overlooked something that is already part of my code and this situation is not needed.
In SQL Server 2008, I have two IF statements
If value = ''
begin
select * into #temptable from table 1
end
Else If value <> ''
begin
select * into #temptable from table 2
end
but when I try to execute it gives me because of the second
temptable:
There is already an object named '#temptable' in the database.
I don't want to use another temp table name as I would have to change the after code a lot. Is there a way to bypass this?
I would recommend making some changes so that your code is a little more maintainable. One problem with the way you have it set up here is with the SELECT * syntax you're using. If you later decide to make a change to the schema of table1 or table2, you could have non-obvious consequences. In production code, it's better to spell these things out so that it's clear exactly which columns you're using and where.
Also, are you really using all of the columns from table 1 and table 2 in the code that follows? You might be taking a performance hit loading more data than you need. I'd go through the code that uses #temptable and figure out which columns it's actually using. Then start by creating your temp table:
CREATE TABLE #temptable(col1 int, col2 int, col3 int, col4 int)
Include all of the possible columns that could be used, even if some of them might be null in certain cases. Presumably, the code that follows already understands that. Then you can set up your IF statements:
IF value = ''
BEGIN
INSERT INTO #temptable(col1, col2, col3)
SELECT x,y,z
FROM table1
END
ELSE
INSERT INTO #temptable(col1, col4)
SELECT alpha,beta
FROM table2
END
Your SELECT statement, as written, is creating the temp table and INSERTING into it all in one statement. Create the temp table separately with a CREATE TABLE statement, then INSERT INTO in your two IF statements.
Using SELECT INTO creates the table on the fly, as you know. Even if your query only referenced #temptable once, if you were to run it more than once (without dropping the table after the first run), you would get the same error (although if it were inside a stored procedure, it would probably only exist in the scope of the stored procedure).
However, you can't even compile this query. Using the Parse command (Ctrl+F5) on the following query, for example, fails even though the same table is used as the source table.
select * into #temptable from SourceTable
select * into #temptable from SourceTable
If the structure of tables 1 and 2 were the same, you could do something like the following.
select * into #temptable from
(select * from Table1 where #value = ''
union
select * from Table2 where #value <> '') as T
If, however, the tables have different structures, then I'm not sure what you can do, other than what agt and D. Lambert recommended.

Using User Defined Functions and performance?

I'm using stored procedure to fetch data and i needed to filter dynamically. For example if i dont want to fetch some data which's id is 5, 10 or 12 im sending it as string to procedure and im converting it to table via user defined function. But i must consider performance so here is a example:
Solution 1:
SELECT *
FROM Customers
WHERE CustomerID NOT IN (SELECT Value
FROM dbo.func_ConvertListToTable('4,6,5,1,2,3,9,222',','));
Solution 2:
CREATE TABLE #tempTable (Value NVARCHAR(4000));
INSERT INTO #tempTable
SELECT Value FROM dbo.func_ConvertListToTable('4,6,5,1,2,3,9,222',',')
SELECT *
FROM BusinessAds
WHERE AdID NOT IN (SELECT Value FROM #tempTable)
DROP TABLE #tempTable
Which solution is better for performance?
You would probably be better off creating the #temp table with a clustered index and appropriate datatype
CREATE TABLE #tempTable (Value int primary key);
INSERT INTO #tempTable
SELECT DISTINCT Value
FROM dbo.func_ConvertListToTable('4,6,5,1,2,3,9,222',',')
You can also put a clustered index on the table returned by the TVF.
As for which is better SQL Server will always assume that the TVF will return 1 row rather than recompiling after the #temp table is populated, so you would need to consider whether this assumption might cause sub optimal query plans for the case that the list is large.