A client has reported repeated instances of Very strange behaviour when executing a stored procedure.
They have code which runs off a cached transposition of a volatile dataset. A stored proc was written to reprocess the dataset on demand if:
1. The dataset had changed since the last reprocessing
2. The datset has been unchanged for 5 minutes
(The second condition stops massive repeated recalculation during times of change.)
This worked fine for a couple of weeks, the SP was taking 1-2 seconds to complete the re-processing, and it only did it when required. Then...
The SP suddenly "stopped working" (it just kept running and never returned)
We changed the SP in a subtle way and it worked again
A few days later it stopped working again
Someone then said "we've seen this before, just recompile the SP"
With no change to the code we recompiled the SP, and it worked
A few days later it stopped working again
This has now repeated many, many times. The SP suddenly "stops working", never returning and the client times out. (We tried running it through management studio and cancelled the query after 15 minutes.)
Yet every time we recompile the SP, it suddenly works again.
I haven't yet tried WITH RECOMPILE on the appropriate EXEC statments, but I don't particularly want to do that any way. It gets called hundred of times an hour and normally does Nothing (It only reprocesses the data a few times a day). If possible I want to avoid the overhead of recompiling what is a relatively complicated SP "just to avoid something which "shouldn't" happen...
Has anyone experienced this before?
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to overcome it?
Cheers,
Dems.
EDIT:
The pseduo-code would be as follows:
read "a" from table_x
read "b" from table_x
If (a < b) return
BEGIN TRANSACTION
DELETE table_y
INSERT INTO table_y <3 selects unioned together>
UPDATE table_x
COMMIT TRANSACTION
The selects are "not pretty", but when executed in-line they execute in no time. Including when the SP refuses to complete. And the profiler shows it is the INSERT at which the SP "stalls"
There are no parameters to the SP, and sp_lock shows nothing blocking the process.
This is the footprint of parameter-sniffing. Yes, first step is to try RECOMPILE, though it doesn't always work the way that you want it to on 2005.
Update:
I would try statement-level Recompile on the INSERT anyway as this might be a statistics problem (oh yeah, check that automatics statistics updating is on).
If this does not seem to fit parameter-sniffing, then compare th actual query plan from when it works correctly and from when it is running forever (use estimated plan if you cannot get the actual, though actual is better). You are looking to see if the plan changes or not.
I totally agree with the parameter sniffing diagnosis. If you have input parameters to the SP which are varying (or even if they aren't varying) - be sure to mask them with a local variable and use the local variable in the SP.
You can also use the WITH RECOMPILE if the set is changing but the query plan is no longer any good.
In SQL Server 2008, you can use the OPTIMIZE FOR UNKNOWN feature.
Also, if your process involves populating a table and then using that table in another operation, I recommend breaking the process up into separate SPs and calling them individually WITH RECOMPILE. I think the plans generated at the outset of the process can sometimes be very poor (so poor as not to complete) when you populate a table and then use the results of that table to carry out an operation. Because at the time of the initial plan, the table was a lot different than after the initial insert.
As others have said, something about the way the data or the source table statistics are changing is causing the cached query plan to go stale.
WITH RECOMPILE will probably be the quickest fix - use SET STATISTICS TIME ON to find out what the recompilation cost actually is before dismissing it out of hand.
If that's still not an acceptable solution, the best option is probably to try to refactor the insert statement.
You don't say whether you're using UNION or UNION ALL in your insert statement. I've seen INSERT INTO with UNION produce some bizarre query plans, particularly on pre-SP2 versions of SQL 2005.
Raj's suggestion of dropping and
recreating the target table with
SELECT INTO is one way to go.
You could also try selecting each of
the three source queries into their own
temporary table, then UNION those temp tables
together in the insert.
Alternatively, you could try a
combination of these suggestions -
put the results of the union into a
temporary table with SELECT INTO,
then insert from that into the target
table.
I've seen all of these approaches resolve performance problems in similar scenarios; testing will reveal which gives the best results with the data you have.
Obviously changing the stored procedure (by recompiling) changes the circumstances that led to the lock.
Try to log the progress of your SP as described here or here.
I would agree with the answer given above in a comment, this sounds like an unclosed transaction, particularly if you are still able to run the select statement from query analyser.
Sounds very much like there is an open transaction with a pending delete for table_y and the insert can't happen at this point.
When your SP locks up, can you perform an insert into table_y?
Do you have an index maintenance job?
Are your statistics up to date? One way to tell is examine the estimated and actual query plans for large variations.
As others have said, this sounds very likely to be an uncommitted transaction.
My best guess:
You'll want to make sure that table_y can be deleted completely and quickly.
If there are other stored procedures or external pieces of code that ever hold transactions on this table, you may be waiting forever. (They may error out and never close the transaction)
Another note: try using truncate if possible. it uses fewer resources than a delete with no where clause:
truncate table table_y
Also, once an error happens within your OWN transaction, it will cause all following calls (every 5 minutes apparently) to "hang", unless you handle your error:
begin tran
begin try
-- do normal stuff
end try
begin catch
rollback
end catch
commit
The very first error is what will give you information about the actual error. Seeing it hang in your own subsequent tests is just a secondary effect.
If you are doing these steps:
DELETE table_y
INSERT INTO table_y <3 selects unioned together>
You might want to try this instead
DROP TABLE table_y
SELECT INTO table_y <3 selects unioned together>
Related
So, I can successfully run any SELECT statement, but doing any UPDATE statements just hang until they eventually time out. This occurs with trying to execute any stored procedures as well. Other users that connect to the database can run anything without running into this problem.
Is there a cache per user that I can dump or something along those lines? I usually get sick of waiting and cancel the operation, so I don't know if that has contributed to the problem or not.
Just for reference, it's things as simple as these:
UPDATE SOME_TABLE
SET SOME_COLUMN = 'TEST';
EXECUTE SOME_PROCEDURE(1234);
But this works:
SELECT * FROM SOME_TABLE; -- various WHERE clauses don't cause any problems.
UPDATE:
Probably a little disappointing for anyone who came here looking for an answer to a similar problem, but the issue ended up being twofold: The DBA didn't think it was important to give me many details, but there were limitations on the Oracle server that were intentionally set for procedures in general (temp space issues, and things of that ilk). And second, there was an update to the procedure that I wasn't aware of that'd run a sub-query for every record that's pulled in the query (thousands of records). That was removed and now it's running as expected.
In my experience this happens most often because there is another uncommitted operation on the table. For example: User 1 successfully issues an update but does not commit it or roll it back. User 2 (or even another session of User 1) issues another update which just hangs until the other pending update is committed or rolled back. You say that "other users" don't have the same problem, which makes me wonder if they are committing their changes. And if so, if they are updating the same table or a different one.
I have a SQL Script that inserts about 8000 rows into a TABLE variable.
After inserting into that variable, I use a WHILE loop to loop over that table and perform other operations. That loop is perhaps 60 lines of code.
If I run the TABLE variable insert part of the script, without the while loop, it takes about 5 seconds. That's great.
However, if I run the entire script, it takes about 15 minutes.
Here's what is interesting and what I can't figure out:
When I run the entire script, I don't see any print statements until many minutes into the script.
Then, once it figures out what to do (presumably), it runs the inserts into the table var, does the loop, and that all goes rather fast.
Then, toward the end of the loop, or even after it, it sits and hangs for many more minutes. Finally, it chugs through the last few lines or so of the script that come after the loop.
I can account for all the time taken during the insert, and then all the time taken in the loop. But I can't figure out why it appears to be hanging for so many minutes before and at the end of the script.
for kicks, I added a GO statement after the insert into the temp table, and everything up to that point ran as you'd expect; however, I can't do that because I need that variable, and the GO statement obviously kills that variable.
I believe I'm going to stop using the table variable and go with a real table so that I can issue the GO, but I would really like to know what's going on here.
Any thoughts on what SQL Server is up to during that time?
Thanks!
You can always check what a script is doing from the Activity Monitor or from the sys.dm_exec_requests view. The script will be blocked by something, and you'll be able to see what is that is blocking in the wait_type and wait_resource columns.
There are several likely culprits, like waiting on row locks or table locks, but from the description of the problem I suspect is a database or log growth event. Those tend to be very expensive once the database is a big enough and the default 10% increase means growth of GBs. If that's the case, try to pre-size the database at the required size and make sure Instant File Initialization is enabled for data files.
PRINTs are buffered, so you can't judge performance from them.
Use RAISERROR ('Message', 0, 1) WITH NOWAIT to see the output immediately.
To understand what the process is doing, I'd begin with calling sp_who2 a few times and looking at the values for the process of interest: isn't it being blocked, what are the wait types if any, and so on. Also, just looking at the server hardware load (CPU, disk activity) might help (unless there're other active processes).
And please post some code. Table var definition and the loop will be enough, I believe, no need for INSERT stuff.
If you are using the table variable, can you try substituting it with temp table and see if there is any change in performance?
And if possible, please post the code so that it can be analysed for possible area of interest.
From the wording of your question, it sounds like you're using a cursor to loop through the table. If this is the case, issuing a "SET NOCOUNT ON" command before starting the loop will help.
The table variable was mentioned in a previous answer, but as a general rule, you should really use a temp table if you have more than a few rows.
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"