Archive

Archive for the ‘Engines’ Category

Default Configuration of SQL Server (and query hints)

January 15, 2014 14 comments

Throughout the years, I have become convinced that the default settings used in SQL Server are often wrong for systems that need scale or are properly managed. There is a series of settings I find myself consistently changing when I audit or install a new server. They are “my defaults”

I thought I would share those here. Bear in mind that these are setting that assume a certain level of rational behaviour in the organisation you find yourself in. If you are working in a bank, they may not apply to you.

Read more…

Clustered Indexes vs. Heaps

January 12, 2014 21 comments

At Stack Overflow the other day, I once again found myself trying to debunk a lot of the “revealed wisdom” in the SQL Server community. You can find the post here: Indexing a PK GUID in SQL Server 2012 to read the discussion. However, this post is not about GUID or sequential keys, which I have written about elsewhere, it is about cluster indexes and the love affair that SQL Server DBAs seem to have with them.

Read more…

My Final SQL Server Presentations (until further Notice)

October 26, 2013 9 comments

imageAs my regular readers have noticed, activity on my blog has slowed down lately. My new job at Livedrive is keeping me very busy and excited. It’s the opportunity I have been looking for: right in the middle of the Open Source vs. Microsoft cloud battle (and in a hectic development environment). I am greatly enjoying myself in this space.

However, I have precious little time to blog about SQL Server. And quite frankly, by now I feel there isn’t much more left for me to say on this subject. The time has come for me to move on to other subject areas and master new skills.

How will this affect my public speaking appearances?

Read more…

MySQL – First Impressions

September 28, 2013 56 comments

imageIn my new job as the CTO of Livedrive, I have the pleasure of working with both Microsoft SQL Server and MySQL. We have a rather nice real estate with tens of petabytes online which keeps us entertained with scale challenges.

Having spent some time with MySQL lately, and being an old SQL Server user, I thought it might be interesting to share some of my early experiences. The good, the bad and the ugly.

Read more…

Myth Busting Query Optimisation

July 1, 2013 8 comments

imageIt’s been some time since I posted here, but recent customer events prompted me to write up some notes I have been taking the past years.

The problem I would like to talk to you about is one that is well examined and well understood, yet continues to create frustrations with customers. Unfortunately, some of these frustrations come from “best practices” that people apply consistently, which in turn consistently gets them into trouble.

When you are done reading this post, I hope you will have a better understanding on how to avoid these pitfalls. It is also my hope that some of your expectations about query optimisation will have been adjusted.

Read more…

Bottleneck Diagnosis on SQL Server – New Scripts

April 11, 2013 21 comments

Finally, I have found some time with my good colleagues at Fusion-io to work on some of my old SQL Scripts.

Our first script queries the servers for wait stats – a very common task for nearly all SQL Server DBAs. This is the first thing I do when I meet a new SQL Server installation and I have generally found that I apply the same filters over and over again. Because of this, I worked with Sumeet Bansal to standardise our approach to this.

You can watch Sumeet introduce the script in this YouTube video: http://youtu.be/zb4FsXYvibY. A TV star is born!

We have already used this script at several customers in a before/after Fusion-io situation. As you may know, the tuning game changes a lot when you remove the I/O bottleneck from the server.

Based on our experiences so far, I wanted to share some more exotic waits and latches we have been seeing lately.

Read more…

Quantifying the Cost of Compression

March 11, 2013 17 comments

Last week, at SQL Saturday Exeter, I did a new Grade of Steel experiment: to quantify just how expensive it is to do PAGE compression.

The presentation is a 45 minute show, but for those of you who were not there, here is a summary of the highlights of the first part.

My tests were all run on the TPC-H LINEITEM table at scale factor 10. That is about 6.5GB of data.

Test: Table Scan of Compressed Data

My initial test is this statement:

SELECT MAX(L_SHIPDATE)
, MAX(L_DISCOUNT)
, MAX(L_EXTENDEDPRICE)
, MAX(L_SUPPKEY)
, MAX(L_QUANTITY)
, MAX(L_RETURNFLAG)
, MAX(L_PARTKEY)
, MAX(L_LINESTATUS)
, MAX(L_TAX)
, MAX(L_COMMITDATE)
, MAX(L_RECEIPTDATA)
FROM LINEITEM

Because the statement only returns one row, the result measured does not drown in client transfer time. Instead, the raw cost of extracting the columns from the compressed format can be quantified.

The result was quite shocking on my home 12 core box:

image

Even when doing I/O, it still takes quite a bit longer to scan the compressed format. And when scanning from DRAM, the cost is a whopping 2x.

A quick xperf run shows where the time goes when scanning from memory

image

Indeed, the additional CPU cost explains the effect. The code path is simply longer with compression.

Test: Singleton Row fetch

By sampling some rows from LINEITEM, it is possible to measure the cost of fetching pages in an index seek. This is the test:

SELECT MAX(L_SHIPDATE)
, MAX(L_DISCOUNT)
, MAX(L_EXTENDEDPRICE)
, MAX(L_SUPPKEY)
, MAX(L_QUANTITY)
, MAX(L_RETURNFLAG)
, MAX(L_PARTKEY)
, MAX(L_LINESTATUS)
, MAX(L_TAX)
, MAX(L_COMMITDATE)
, MAX(L_RECEIPTDATA)
FROM LI_SAMPLES S
INNER LOOP JOIN LINEITEM L ON S.L_ORDERKEY = L.L_ORDERKEY
OPTION (MAXDOP 1) 

This gives us the plan:

image

Which has the desired characteristics of having the runtime dominated by the seek into the LINEITEM table.

The numbers again speak for themselves:

image

And again, the xperf trace shows that this runtime difference can be fully explained from longer code paths.

Test: Singleton UPDATE

Using the now familiar pattern, we can run a test that updates the rows instead of selecting them. By updating a column that is NOT NULL and an INT, we can make sure the update happens in place. This means we pay the price to decompress, change and recompress that row – which should be more expensive than reading. And indeed it is:

image

Summary

Quoting a few of my tests from my  presentation, I have shown you that PAGE compression carries a very heavy CPU cost for each page access. Of course, not every workload is dominated by accessing data in pages – some are more compute heavy on the returned data. However, in these days when I/O bottlenecks can easily be removed, it is worth considering if the extra CPU cycles to save space are worth it.

It turns out that it is possible to also show another expected results: that locks are held longer when updating compressed pages (Thereby limiting scalability if the workload contains heavily contended pages). But that is the subject of a new blog entry.