If I create a SQL Server table that has more than 8060 bytes per page, will the querying be considerably hurt for columns that exceed this limit?
I also don't understand quite right if a row occupies the whole 8060 bytes even if it's empty.. in the case it's true, will the query performance be impacted just for the particular rows that exceed the limit or for all rows?
For the first Question:
Yes, it could affect performance. Having a combination of varchar, nvarchar, sql_variant and varbinary in one table, with total size greater than 8,060 bytes results in reallocation data to another page.
While this affects update, I'm not sure if it's too important for reading a data. Internally, SQL Server puts a pointer to the reallocated portion of data within new page so I guess it's quite fast operation.
It's up to you (DBA/developer) to analyze and predict the percentage of such rows in table. If it occurs too often, consider moving large columns into separate table(s).
Use sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats to find out what's going on with your data.
Second Question:
I guess you asked for situation when some columns (especially varchar) are empty. You can "help" SQL Server to save space using sparse columns
Also, I'd recommend this article.
Related
I've read up on this on MSDN forums and here and I'm still not clear. I think this is correct: Varchar(max) will be stored as a text datatype, so that has drawbacks. So lets say your field will reliably be under 8000 characters. Like a BusinessName field in my database table. In reality, a business name will probably always be under (pulling a number outta my hat) 500 characters. It seems like plenty of varchar fields that I run across fall well under the 8k character count.
So should I make that field a varchar(500) instead of varchar(8000)? From what I understand of SQL there's no difference between those two. So, to make life easy, I'd want to define all my varchar fields as varchar(8000). Does that have any drawbacks?
Related: Size of varchar columns (I didn't feel like this one answered my question).
One example where this can make a difference is that it can prevent a performance optimization that avoids adding row versioning information to tables with after triggers.
This is covered by Paul White here
The actual size of the data stored is immaterial – it is the potential
size that matters.
Similarly if using memory optimised tables since 2016 it has been possible to use LOB columns or combinations of column widths that could potentially exceed the inrow limit but with a penalty.
(Max) columns are always stored off-row. For other columns, if the data row size in the table definition can exceed 8,060 bytes, SQL Server pushes largest variable-length column(s) off-row. Again, it does not depend on amount of the data you store there.
This can have a large negative effect on memory consumption and performance
Another case where over declaring column widths can make a big difference is if the table will ever be processed using SSIS. The memory allocated for variable length (non BLOB) columns is fixed for each row in an execution tree and is per the columns' declared maximum length which can lead to inefficient usage of memory buffers (example). Whilst the SSIS package developer can declare a smaller column size than the source this analysis is best done up front and enforced there.
Back in the SQL Server engine itself a similar case is that when calculating the memory grant to allocate for SORT operations SQL Server assumes that varchar(x) columns will on average consume x/2 bytes.
If most of your varchar columns are fuller than that this can lead to the sort operations spilling to tempdb.
In your case if your varchar columns are declared as 8000 bytes but actually have contents much less than that your query will be allocated memory that it doesn't require which is obviously inefficient and can lead to waits for memory grants.
This is covered in Part 2 of SQL Workshops Webcast 1 downloadable from here or see below.
use tempdb;
CREATE TABLE T(
id INT IDENTITY(1,1) PRIMARY KEY,
number int,
name8000 VARCHAR(8000),
name500 VARCHAR(500))
INSERT INTO T
(number,name8000,name500)
SELECT number, name, name /*<--Same contents in both cols*/
FROM master..spt_values
SELECT id,name500
FROM T
ORDER BY number
SELECT id,name8000
FROM T
ORDER BY number
From a processing standpoint, it will not make a difference to use varchar(8000) vs varchar(500). It's more of a "good practice" kind of thing to define a maximum length that a field should hold and make your varchar that length. It's something that can be used to assist with data validation. For instance, making a state abbreviation be 2 characters or a postal/zip code as 5 or 9 characters. This used to be a more important distinction for when your data interacted with other systems or user interfaces where field length was critical (e.g. a mainframe flat file dataset), but nowadays I think it's more habit than anything else.
There are some disadvantages to large columns that are a bit less obvious and might catch you a little later:
All columns you use in an INDEX - must not exceed 900 bytes
All the columns in an ORDER BY clause may not exceed 8060 bytes. This is a bit difficult to grasp since this only applies to some columns. See SQL 2008 R2 Row size limit exceeded for details)
If the total row size exceeds 8060 bytes, you get a "page spill" for that row. This might affect performance (A page is an allocation unit in SQLServer and is fixed at 8000 bytes+some overhead. Exceeding this will not be severe, but it's noticable and you should try to avoid it if you easily can)
Many other internal datastructures, buffers and last-not-least your own varaibles and table-variables all need to mirror these sizes. With excessive sizes, excessive memory allocation can affect performance
As a general rule, try to be conservative with the column width. If it becomes a problem, you can easily expand it to fit the needs. If you notice memory issues later, shrinking a wide column later may become impossible without losing data and you won't know where to begin.
In your example of the business names, think about where you get to display them. Is there really space for 500 characters?? If not, there is little point in storing them as such. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_the_United_States lists some company names and the max is about 50 characters. So I'd use 100 for the column max. Maybe more like 80.
Apart from best practices (BBlake's answer)
You get warnings about maximum row size (8060) bytes and index width (900 bytes) with DDL
DML will die if you exceed these limits
ANSI PADDING ON is the default so you could end up storing a wholeload of whitespace
Ideally you'd want to go smaller than that, down to a reasonably sized length (500 isn't reasonably sized) and make sure the client validation catches when the data is going to be too large and send a useful error.
While the varchar isn't actually going to reserve space in the database for the unused space, I recall versions of SQL Server having a snit about database rows being wider than some number of bytes (do not recall the exact count) and actually throwing out whatever data didn't fit. A certain number of those bytes were reserved for things internal to SQL Server.
I have a multiple tables in my application that are both very wide and very tall. The width comes from sometimes 10-20 columns with a variety of datatypes varchar/nvarchar as well as char/bigint/int/decimal. My understanding is that the default page size in SQL is 8k, but can be manually changed. Also, that varchar/nvarchar columns are except from this restriction and they are often(always?) moved to a separate location, a process called Row_Overflow. Evenso, MS documentation states that Row-Overflowed data will degrade performance. "querying and performing other select operations, such as sorts or joins on large records that contain row-overflow data slows processing time, because these records are processed synchronously instead of asynchronously"
They recommend moving large columns into joinable metadata tables. "This can then be queried in an asynchronous JOIN operation".
My question is, is it worth enlarging the page size to accomodate the wide columns, and are there other performance problems thatd come up? If I didnt do that and instead partitioned the table into 1 or more metadata tables, and the tables got "big" like in the 100MM records range, wouldnt joining the partitioned tables far outweigh the benefits? Also, if the SQL Server is on a single core machine (or on SQL Azure) my understanding is that parallelism is disabled, so would that also eliminate the benefit of moving the tables intro partitions given that the join would no longer be asynchronous? Any other strategies that you'd recommend?
EDIT: Per the great comments below and some additional reading (that I shouldve done originally), you cannot manually alter SQL Server page size. Also, related SO post: How do we change the page size of SQL Server?. Additional great answer there from #remus-rusanu
You cannot change the page size.
varchar(x) and (MAX) are moved off-row when necessary - that is, there isn't enough space on the page itself. If you have lots of large values it may indeed be more effective to move them into other tables and then join them onto the base table - especially if you're not always querying for that data.
There is no concept of synchronously and asynchronously reading that off-row data. When you execute a query, it's run synchronously. You may have parallelization but that's a completely different thing, and it's not affected in this case.
Edit: To give you more practical advice you'll need to show us your schema and some realistic data characteristics.
My understanding is that the default page size in SQL is 8k, but can
be manually changed
The 'large pages' settings refers to memory allocations, not to change the database page size. See SQL Server and Large Pages Explained. I'm afraid your understanding is a little off.
As a general non-specific advice, for wide fixed length columns the best strategy is to deploy row-compression. For nvarchar, Unicode compression can help a lot. For specific advice, you need to measure. What is the exact performance problem you encountered? How did you measured? Did you used a methodology like Waits and Queues to identify the bottlenecks and you are positive that row size and off-row storage is an issue? It seems to me that you used the other 'methodology'...
you can't change the default 8k page size
varchar and nvarchar are treated like any other field, unless the are (max) which means they will be stored a little bit different because they can extend the size of a page, which you cant do with another datatype, also because it is not possible
For example, if you try to execute this statement:
create table test_varchars(
a varchar(8000),
b varchar(8001),
c nvarchar(4000),
d nvarchar(4001)
)
Column a and c are fine because both on them are max 8000 bytes in length.
But, you would get the following errors on columns b and d:
The size (8001) given to the column 'b' exceeds the maximum allowed for any data type (8000).
The size (4001) given to the parameter 'd' exceeds the maximum allowed (4000).
because both of them exceed the 8000 bytes limit. (Remember that the n in front of varchar or char means unicode and occupies double of space)
I've read up on this on MSDN forums and here and I'm still not clear. I think this is correct: Varchar(max) will be stored as a text datatype, so that has drawbacks. So lets say your field will reliably be under 8000 characters. Like a BusinessName field in my database table. In reality, a business name will probably always be under (pulling a number outta my hat) 500 characters. It seems like plenty of varchar fields that I run across fall well under the 8k character count.
So should I make that field a varchar(500) instead of varchar(8000)? From what I understand of SQL there's no difference between those two. So, to make life easy, I'd want to define all my varchar fields as varchar(8000). Does that have any drawbacks?
Related: Size of varchar columns (I didn't feel like this one answered my question).
One example where this can make a difference is that it can prevent a performance optimization that avoids adding row versioning information to tables with after triggers.
This is covered by Paul White here
The actual size of the data stored is immaterial – it is the potential
size that matters.
Similarly if using memory optimised tables since 2016 it has been possible to use LOB columns or combinations of column widths that could potentially exceed the inrow limit but with a penalty.
(Max) columns are always stored off-row. For other columns, if the data row size in the table definition can exceed 8,060 bytes, SQL Server pushes largest variable-length column(s) off-row. Again, it does not depend on amount of the data you store there.
This can have a large negative effect on memory consumption and performance
Another case where over declaring column widths can make a big difference is if the table will ever be processed using SSIS. The memory allocated for variable length (non BLOB) columns is fixed for each row in an execution tree and is per the columns' declared maximum length which can lead to inefficient usage of memory buffers (example). Whilst the SSIS package developer can declare a smaller column size than the source this analysis is best done up front and enforced there.
Back in the SQL Server engine itself a similar case is that when calculating the memory grant to allocate for SORT operations SQL Server assumes that varchar(x) columns will on average consume x/2 bytes.
If most of your varchar columns are fuller than that this can lead to the sort operations spilling to tempdb.
In your case if your varchar columns are declared as 8000 bytes but actually have contents much less than that your query will be allocated memory that it doesn't require which is obviously inefficient and can lead to waits for memory grants.
This is covered in Part 2 of SQL Workshops Webcast 1 downloadable from here or see below.
use tempdb;
CREATE TABLE T(
id INT IDENTITY(1,1) PRIMARY KEY,
number int,
name8000 VARCHAR(8000),
name500 VARCHAR(500))
INSERT INTO T
(number,name8000,name500)
SELECT number, name, name /*<--Same contents in both cols*/
FROM master..spt_values
SELECT id,name500
FROM T
ORDER BY number
SELECT id,name8000
FROM T
ORDER BY number
From a processing standpoint, it will not make a difference to use varchar(8000) vs varchar(500). It's more of a "good practice" kind of thing to define a maximum length that a field should hold and make your varchar that length. It's something that can be used to assist with data validation. For instance, making a state abbreviation be 2 characters or a postal/zip code as 5 or 9 characters. This used to be a more important distinction for when your data interacted with other systems or user interfaces where field length was critical (e.g. a mainframe flat file dataset), but nowadays I think it's more habit than anything else.
There are some disadvantages to large columns that are a bit less obvious and might catch you a little later:
All columns you use in an INDEX - must not exceed 900 bytes
All the columns in an ORDER BY clause may not exceed 8060 bytes. This is a bit difficult to grasp since this only applies to some columns. See SQL 2008 R2 Row size limit exceeded for details)
If the total row size exceeds 8060 bytes, you get a "page spill" for that row. This might affect performance (A page is an allocation unit in SQLServer and is fixed at 8000 bytes+some overhead. Exceeding this will not be severe, but it's noticable and you should try to avoid it if you easily can)
Many other internal datastructures, buffers and last-not-least your own varaibles and table-variables all need to mirror these sizes. With excessive sizes, excessive memory allocation can affect performance
As a general rule, try to be conservative with the column width. If it becomes a problem, you can easily expand it to fit the needs. If you notice memory issues later, shrinking a wide column later may become impossible without losing data and you won't know where to begin.
In your example of the business names, think about where you get to display them. Is there really space for 500 characters?? If not, there is little point in storing them as such. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_the_United_States lists some company names and the max is about 50 characters. So I'd use 100 for the column max. Maybe more like 80.
Apart from best practices (BBlake's answer)
You get warnings about maximum row size (8060) bytes and index width (900 bytes) with DDL
DML will die if you exceed these limits
ANSI PADDING ON is the default so you could end up storing a wholeload of whitespace
Ideally you'd want to go smaller than that, down to a reasonably sized length (500 isn't reasonably sized) and make sure the client validation catches when the data is going to be too large and send a useful error.
While the varchar isn't actually going to reserve space in the database for the unused space, I recall versions of SQL Server having a snit about database rows being wider than some number of bytes (do not recall the exact count) and actually throwing out whatever data didn't fit. A certain number of those bytes were reserved for things internal to SQL Server.
Instead of using NVarchChar (max) for my field I am limiting the lengths arbitrarily. WHen does limiting these fields really make a significant difference in terms of performance? Every 100? 200? 1000 characters?
Your question implies that you are using SQL Server 2005/2008, so I'll take a crack at it. With the current architecture, the importance is in the storage itself. When you store more than 8k in a row, it will either go into a separate internal table partition for row overflow or for text (or large object data).
Depending on your settings, SQL will make a pointer to this other partition of nvarchar data. Upon retrieval of the data, SQL has to get the page, then do a look-up to another page to get the entire contents of the row.
IF the definition of the table leaves out the possibility of hitting that 8060 byte maximum, then you can guarantee that you don't have to do spurious lookups from pointers (which increases reads).
Also, keep in mind that SQL 2008 (Enterprise edition) can use page and row level compression, so the rules change a little when using that feature.
SQL uses blocks of 4K ie 4000 chars (2000 if using NVARCHAR as each chr is doubled). You may see significant performance issues if you set it to TEXT or varchar(max) /nvachar(max) if the data is more than 4000/2000 respecively, as the database then has to start paging the results internally.
How are varchar columns handled internally by a database engine?
For a column defined as char(100), the DBMS allocates 100 contiguous bytes on the disk. However, for a column defined as varchar(100), that presumably isn't the case, since the whole point of varchar is to not allocate any more space than required to store the actual data value stored in the column. So, when a user updates a database row containing an empty varchar(100) column to a value consisting of 80 characters for instance, where does the space for that 80 characters get allocated from?
It seems that varchar columns must result in a fair amount of fragmentation of the actual database rows, at least in scenarios where column values are initially inserted as blank or NULL, and then updated later with actual values. Does this fragmentation result in degraded performance on database queries, as opposed to using char type values, where the space for the columns stored in the rows is allocated contiguously? Obviously using varchar results in less disk space than using char, but is there a performance hit when optimizing for query performance, especially for columns whose values are frequently updated after the initial insert?
You make a lot of assumptions in your question that aren't necessarily true.
The type of the a column in any DBMS tells you nothing at all about the nature of the storage of that data unless the documentation clearly tells you how the data is stored. IF that's not stated, you don't know how it is stored and the DBMS is free to change the storage mechanism from release to release.
In fact some databases store CHAR fields internally as VARCHAR, while others make a decision about how to the store the column based on the declared size of the column. Some database store VARCHAR with the other columns, some with BLOB data, and some implement other storage, Some databases always rewrite the entire row when a column is updated, others don't. Some pad VARCHARs to allow for limited future updating without relocating the storage.
The DBMS is responsible for figuring out how to store the data and return it to you in a speedy and consistent fashion. It always amazes me how many people to try out think the database, generally in advance of detecting any performance problem.
The data structures used inside a database engine is far more complex than you are giving it credit for! Yes, there are issues of fragmentation and issues where updating a varchar with a large value can cause a performance hit, however its difficult to explain /understand what the implications of those issues are without a fuller understanding of the datastructures involved.
For MS Sql server you might want to start with understanding pages - the fundamental unit of storage (see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190969.aspx)
In terms of the performance implications of fixes vs variable storage types on performance there are a number of points to consider:
Using variable length columns can improve performance as it allows more rows to fit on a single page, meaning fewer reads
Using variable length columns requires special offset values, and the maintenance of these values requires a slight overhead, however this extra overhead is generally neglible.
Another potential cost is the cost of increasing the size of a column when the page containing that row is nearly full
As you can see, the situation is rather complex - generally speaking however you can trust the database engine to be pretty good at dealing with variable data types and they should be the data type of choice when there may be a significant variance of the length of data held in a column.
At this point I'm also going to recommend the excellent book "Microsoft Sql Server 2008 Internals" for some more insight into how complex things like this really get!
The answer will depend on the specific DBMS. For Oracle, it is certainly possible to end up with fragmentation in the form of "chained rows", and that incurs a performance penalty. However, you can mitigate against that by pre-allocating some empty space in the table blocks to allow for some expansion due to updates. However, CHAR columns will typically make the table much bigger, which has its own impact on performance. CHAR also has other issues such as blank-padded comparisons which mean that, in Oracle, use of the CHAR datatype is almost never a good idea.
Your question is too general because different database engines will have different behavior. If you really need to know this, I suggest that you set up a benchmark to write a large number of records and time it. You would want enough records to take at least an hour to write.
As you suggested, it would be interesting to see what happens if you write insert all the records with an empty string ("") and then update them to have 100 characters that are reasonably random, not just 100 Xs.
If you try this with SQLITE and see no significant difference, then I think it unlikely that the larger database servers, with all the analysis and tuning that goes on, would be worse than SQLITE.
This is going to be completely database specific.
I do know that in Oracle, the database will reserve a certain percentage of each block for future updates (The PCTFREE parameter). For example, if PCTFREE is set to 25%, then a block will only be used for new data until it is 75% full. By doing that, room is left for rows to grow. If the row grows such that the 25% reserved space is completely used up, then you do end up with chained rows and a performance penalty. If you find that a table has a large number of chained rows, you can tune the PCTFREE for that table. If you have a table which will never have any updates at all, a PCTFREE of zero would make sense
In SQL Server varchar (except varchar(MAX)) is generally stored together with the rest of the row's data (on the same page if the row's data is < 8KB and on the same extent if it is < 64KB. Only the large data types such as TEXT, NTEXT, IMAGE, VARHCAR(MAX), NVARHCAR(MAX), XML and VARBINARY(MAX) are stored seperately.