I have windows server 2008 r2 with microsoft sql server installed.
In my application, I am currently designing a tool for my users, that is querying database to see, if user has any notifications. Since my users can access the application multiple times in a short timespan, i was thinking about putting some kind of a cache on my query logic. But then I thought, that my ms sql server probably does that already for me. Am I right? Or do I need to configure something to make it happen? If it does, then for how long does it keep the cache up?
It's safe to assume that MSSQL will has the caching worked out pretty well =)
Don't bother trying to build anything yourself on top of it, simply make sure that the method you use to query for changes is efficient (eg. don't query on non-indexed columns).
PS: wouldn't caching locally defeat the whole purpose of checking for changes on the database?
Internally the database does all sorts of things, including 'caching', but at all times it works incredibly hard to make sure your users see up-to-date data. So it has to do some work each time your application makes a request.
If you want to reduce the workload by keeping static data in your application then you have to implement it yourself.
The later versions of the .net framework have caching features built in so you should take a look at those (building your own caching can get very complex).
SQL Server will handle caching for you, yes. When you create a query or a stored procedure SQL Server will cache that execution plan and reuse it accordingly. From MSDN:
SQL Server execution plans have the following main components: Query
Plan The bulk of the execution plan is a re-entrant, read-only data
structure used by any number of users. This is referred to as the
query plan. No user context is stored in the query plan. There are
never more than one or two copies of the query plan in memory: one
copy for all serial executions and another for all parallel
executions. The parallel copy covers all parallel executions,
regardless of their degree of parallelism.
Execution Context, each user that is currently executing the query has a data structure that holds
the data specific to their execution, such as parameter values. This
data structure is referred to as the execution context. The execution
context data structures are reused. If a user executes a query and one
of the structures is not being used, it is reinitialized with the
context for the new user.
If you wish to clear this cache you can execute sp_recompile or DBCC FREEPROCHCACHE
Related
We have an AS400 mainframe running our DB2 transactional database. We also have a SQL Server setup that gets loaded nightly with data from the AS400. The SQL Server setup is for reporting.
I can link the two database servers, BUT, there's concern about how big a performance hit DB2 might suffer from queries coming from SQL Server.
Basically, the fear is that if we start hitting DB2 with queries from SQL Server we'll bog down the transactional system and screw up orders and shipping.
Thanks in advance for any knowledge that can be shared.
Anyone who has a pat answer for a performance question is wrong :-) The appropriate answer is always 'it depends.' Performance tuning is best done via measure, change one variable, repeat.
DB2 for i shouldn't even notice if someone executes a 1,000 row SELECT statement. Take Benny's suggestion and run one while the IBM i side watch. If they want a hint, use WRKACTJOB and sort on the Int column. That represents the interactive response time. I'd guess that the query will be complete before they have time to notice that it was active.
If that seems unacceptable to the management, then perhaps offer to test it before or after hours, where it can't possibly impact interactive performance.
As an aside, the RPG guys can create Excel spreadsheets on the fly too. Scott Klement published some RPG wrappers over the Java POI/HSSF classes. Also, Giovanni Perrotti at Easy400.net has some examples of providing an Excel spreadsheet from a web page.
I'd mostly agree with Buck, a 1000 row result set is no big deal...
Unless of course the system is looking through billions of rows across hundreds of tables to get the 1000 rows you are interested in.
Assuming a useful index exists, 1000 rows shouldn't be a big deal. If you have IBM i Access for Windows installed, there's a component of System i Navigator called "Run SQL Scripts" that includes "Visual Explain" that provides a visual explanation of the query execution plan. View that you can ensure that an index is being used.
On key thing, make sure the work is being done on the i. When using a standard linked table MS SQL Server will attempt to pull back all the rows then do it's own "where".
select * from MYLINK.MYIBMI.MYLIB.MYTABE where MYKEYFLD = '00335';
Whereas this format sends the statement to the remote server for processing and just gets back the results:
select * from openquery(MYLINK, 'select * from mylib.mytable where MYKEYFLD = ''00335''');
Alternately, you could ask the i guys to build you a stored procedure that you can call to get back the results you are looking for. Personally, that's my preferred method.
Charles
I have two very busy tables in an email dispatch system. One is for batching mail for dispatch, the other is used for logging. Expensive queries are ran that use both of these tables to produce stats for a UI. I would like to remove the reporting overhead on these tables as I am seeing timeouts during report generation.
My question is - what are my options for reducing the query overhead on these two tables while generating the report data.
I've considered using triggers to create exact copies of the tables. Is there any built in functionality in SQL server for mirroring data within a database? If I can avoid growing the database unnecessarily though that would be an advantage. It doesn't matter if the stats are not real time.
There is a built in functionality for this scenario and it's known as Database Snapshot.
If you run a query against a DB snapshot table, no shared locks should be created on original database.
You can use Resource Governor for SQL Server. Unfortunately, I have only read about it and haven't used it yet. It is used to isolate workloads on SQL Server.
Please try and let us know if it helps.
Some helpful links: MSDN SQLBlog technet
Kind Regards,
Sumit
My boss and I have been trying to see what sort of auditing plan we could try for our stored procedures. Currently there're two external applications taking information from our database through stored procedures and we're interested in auditing when they're being executed, and what values are passed as parameters. So far what I've done is simply create a table for the stored procedures one of the apps is using, and as they use the same input parameters, have one column per parameter. Obviously this isn't the best choice, but we wanted to get quick info to see if they were running batch processes and when they were running them. I've tried SQL Server Audit, but it doesn't catch the parameters unless you're executing a SP in a query.
SQL Server Profiler will do this for you; its included for free. Setup a trace and let it run.
You can also apply quite a bit of filtering to the trace, so you don't need to track everything; you can also direct the output to a file, or sql table for later analysis. This is probably your best bet for a time limited audit.
I think I've used the SQL Server Profiler (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms181091.aspx) in the past to audit SQL execution. It's not something you would run all the time, but you can get a snapshot of what's running and how it's being executed.
I haven't tried using them, but you might look at event notifications and see if they will work for you.
From BOL
Event notifications can be used to do the following:
Log and review changes or activity occurring on the database.
I am thinking about creating stored procedures on the fly.
ie running CREATE PROCEDURE... when the (web) application is running.
What are the risks or problems that it can cause?
I know that the database account needs to have the extra privileges.
It does NOT happen everyday. Only from time to time.
I am using sql server and interested in mysql and postgres as well.
Update1:
Thanks to comments, I am considering creating a new version of stored procedure and switching over instead of ALTERing the sp. example: sp1 -> sp2 -> sp3
Update2:
The reason:
My schema changes because of custom fields (unknown number and type of columns)
I tried dynamic sql and sp_executesql first. Of course it works. Dynamic sql works greate for 1,2,3 simple update,inserts.
But it got too ugly and a lot of work and it does not mix well with stored procedure, problems with sql parameterization because it is used inside a stored procedure and the number and type of params is not known at compile time (long story).
At least the basic scenario for this solution is not that complicated.
The logic of the sp does NOT change. For each custom field I have to add a new parameter to sp and add a column to update, insert, etc.
I also considered making stored procedure parameters dynamic like sp_executesql that accepts any number and type of params but could not find a way.
For a transactional system it's probably quite expensive. If you have a large batch job and want to use a code generator for some reason (quite a common architecture in ETL tools, notably Oracle Warehouse Builder and Wherescape Red), it's not unreasonable to do this.
You mentioned that you would be adding and/or changing the calling profile of the stored procedure when you do this alteration. How are you lock-stepping the new calling profile with the application that makes the call to this? What's your roll-back plan if you ever have to revert a change that was made?
In the past what I've done is just append an incrementing numeric suffix to the stored procedure name with the new calling profile -- then you can modify the old version of the SP to call the new one with a default value for the parameter, and then you can release your software calling the new version.
If something breaks in your new version and you have to rollback, calls to the old stored proc will still work without error, and just populate the custom fields with your default values.
Firstly, the answer to this question really depends on what exactly this stored procedure is intended to do. If it's just reading data or creating a result set for reporting and you don't mind if it's a little inconsistent, then you're probably fine. If it's doing anything remotely interesting with your data then it's a very risky thing to be doing. You should think about whether it's possible (and what would happen) for two users users (or the same user twice) to run multiple versions of the the same stored procedure at the same time. Smells like a train wreck to me. One option is to only allow this procedure alteration to take place when no other users are logged into the system, or forcibly boot them off the database if they are. Another option is to create your new stored procedure with a slightly different name and swap them over when you deem it safe to do so.
Another issue is that one of the major benefits of stored procedures is that the execution plan is cached, meaning it will execute faster. If you are creating them on the fly you lose that advantage.
If you really need to do this then you should randomise the name of the procedure to avoid clashing with other users. Remember always that other users may be doing their own thing at the same time - most database systems won't give transactional isolation for stored procedures (Postgres is the only one I know of that does).
It would be extremely rare that this would be a desirable thing to do - could you elaborate at all on what made you choose this approach?
I would not do that personally.
As you mentioned you will need extra privileges to grant access to create/alter database objects. That can create a serious security risk as nothing would stop your application from creating a malicious stored procedure if someone discovered a security hole in it.
If your schema changes, change the stored procedures with the schema.
You will not be able to alter the procedure if one or more users are running the procedure, or another procedure that references your procedure. You will block until all the dependent procedures and the procedure you want to compile (and I think the procedure s you invoke from your procedure, but I am not certain) are not in use. This may be a long time on a busy production system, and if you are unlucky, you may timeout waiting for all the dependencies to not be in use (5 minutes on Oracle).
You can also get into very ugly situations (I have). Take for example stored procedures B and C, both of which call A, the procedure that you are trying to compile. When no one is running B, the system locks B. Now any user trying to run B will stall. The system then tries to lock C, but C is generating a very lengthy report that will not be done for another 10 minutes. You will timeout waiting for the lock, and some of your users will have an unresponsive system for 5 minutes. My experience is with Oracle, I would make sure your target DBMS does not behave in the same fashion, or has quicker failures or a better lock acquisition strategy.
I guess I am cautioning that what looks like may work on a development server may fail dramatically on a busy production system.
I'm not sure that the locking discussed by Tony BanBrahim is true in SQL Server 2005.
I have some long-running SPs (a 3 hours batch process of about 30 sub-processes), and I have been able to alter the SP while it is still running. (I don't believe the changes take effect until the next run, but it doesn't cause any blocking or any error). Now the outer long-running SP does both call SPs dynamically with EXEC and statically, but I've change both the root and nested SPs while they are running without error messages or blocks.
WRT your original question, I would think that your tactic is fine if used in a controlled way.
I don't know for sure, but it sounds like one or both:
an architectural problem
is existing code locking the schema tables from the application?
I'd take a look to see what code is locking the schema tables and rewrite that code. Do you have a 3rd party something or other that is locking those tables?
I have a database on ms sql 2000 that is being hit by hundreds of users at a time. There are intense reports using reporting services 2005 hitting the same database.
When there are lots of reports running and people using the database concurrently we see blocking processes to the level that the system starts to give time out to any transaction made after some time in that situation.
Is there a global way of minimize blocking so the transaction can continue to flow.
Use optimistic locking, if updates are not happening often and the database is mainly used for reporting.
SQL Server has quite a pessimistic locking default.
A look into SQL Server Table Hints might get you started.
The reports can use WITH(NOLOCK).
Other possibilities are having the reports run off a read-only replica of the database or running off a datawarehouse version of the database which is optimized for the reporting needs.
Since you are already using NOLOCK hints and READ UNCOMMITTED isolation level for your reports, the investigation needs to turn to the transactional queries coming in. This may get deep. Perhaps applications are keeping transactions open too long. It may also be the case that you have a lot of table scans or range scans in some of the other query volume, and those may be holding shared locks for long-running transactions. Those shared locks will block your writers.
You need to start looking at sp_lock, and seeing what kinds of locks are outstanding, see what locks the blocked queries are trying to obtain, and then examine the queries that are blocking the requestors.
This will help you if you are unfamiliar with SQL Server locking:
Understanding SQL Server 2000 Locking
Also, perhaps you could describe your disk subsystem. It may be undersized.
Thanks everyone for your support. What we do to mitigate the problem was to create a new database whit a logshipping procedure every hour to mantain in sync to the real one. The reports that do no need real time data where point to that database and the ones that needs real time data where restricted so only a few people can access them. The drawbacks whit the method is tha the data will be up to one hour out of sync and we need to create a new server for that purpose only. Also when the loggshipping procedure runs every connetion is drop for a very short period of time but it can be a problem to really long procedures or reports. After this I will verify the querys from the reports so I can understand what can be optimize. Thanks and I will recomend the site to the whole IT department.