It's my first time using CRM as an app. I have been using SQL Server for quite a while now. Our company is experiencing issues with emails, thus having warnings in event viewer
Query execution time of 17.3 seconds exceeded the threshold of 10 seconds.'
for almost all select statements.
My main concern here is I am in doubt that the CRM job tool for reindexing is not running properly. Also, I have checked the reindex maintenance plan in the SQL Server, no configurations were made for reindex.
I hope someone can help me. Thanks!
In Dynamics 2016 On Premises you are free to create and maintain your own indexes. What is needed really depends on how your company is using the system. Sometimes recalculating statistics does the trick (as far as I remember this is part of the built-in maintenance jobs), sometimes you may even want to partition the database.
E-mail storage in MS Dynamics can quickly grow out of hand, because attachments (e.g. these colorful company footers) use to take up a lot of valuable database space. Decide what e-mail really needs to be tracked, if attachments and images can be stripped from them or if they can be stored in a separate file group. (To mention a few options.)
Poor SQL Server management is actually often the ground reason for performance issues on MS Dynamics. Your skills will be of much value!
Related
So as they say, everyday is a school day. Today I learned that my workplace, runs SQL Server Standard edition, where I would have assumed Enterprise was in place. Although in reality shouldn't be surprised!
For some context, we have a very large database that houses our warehouse data. As the database has grown to a large size, it's causing issues with space on the server along with some application performance. So looking at it from my perspective I suggested we archive and purge the PROD database, to house only 18 months data in the PROD environment.
Wrote my scripts and tested them and all fine. I then went to compress the tables I had deleted data from, to find error messages that compression is not available in SQL Server Standard and requires Enterprise edition.
Wondering what my next steps are here? My assumption is that even though I am deleting a lot of data, we won't actually benefit in terms of performance, and space requisition until the tables get compressed.
Shrinking is something I guess I've always shy'd away from, many articles or posts here would advise not to use it.
Wondering, what sort of options do I have here?
Is my assumption correct, in that without compressing, we won't regain space from the trimmed database?
Moving this to resolved as opening query in specific DBA portion of the site
I am starting a new project using SQL Server for a medical office. Their current database (SQL Server 2008) have over 500,000 rows that span across 15+ tables. Currently they are complaining that their data entry application is very slow to generate reports and insert new data.
For my new system I was thinking of developing a two tiered database approach where the primary used SQL Server 2012 will only contain 3 months worth of rows and the second SQL Server 2012 would maintain all the data for the system. This way when users insert new data it will be entered into a much smaller system and when they query recent data the query should execute much faster. This system will also have reporting, but I think the reports will have to be generated from the larger data set.
My questions are as follows
Will a solution like this improve the overall performance of the database
Are there any scalability concerns with this solution?
What is the best way to transfer that data between the two servers each night?
If my solution makes no sense please feel free to offer any other solutions.
Don't do this. Splitting your app into multiple databases will be a management nightmare. Plus, 500k records isn't that many, assuming that the records are of reasonable size.
Instead, go after the low-hanging fruit. Turn on logging and look at the access patterns. Which queries are slow? Figure out why. Do they lack indexes? Can the queries be simplified? Debug the problem.
Keep in mind that sometimes throwing hardware at the problem is the right solution. If you can solve the problem with an $800 server, do it. That's a lot cheaper than your time.
To chime in: 500K records is not so big. You ought to be able to make the db work very speedily as is with some tuning.
I have a client who wants to develop an application using Access 2007. For the stated short term purposes, Access 2007 fits their specification:
approx 30K master records
6 or fewer users
department file server
The issue is that the client is very technically naive and isn't at all aware of the trouble they might get into if the scope increases. The application will be storing master data that will be uploaded into an enterprise system and I fear that six months from now I'll be hearing any of the following issues:
we need to keep all of the historical data (suddenly we have 3M rows)
we need fine grained and airtight user level security
we keep getting corrupt data records
our database wasn't backed up for three months (because a user kept it open)
I've done a few small Access databases but I'm a SQL server dev by trade and I know how to use it to solve most any problem. I don't know if my client should be worried about their choice of technology - and if they should, I'm not 100% sure how best to communicate the risks to them.
I fear that six months from now I'll be hearing any of the following issues:
we need to keep all of the historical data (suddenly we have 3M
rows)
Three million rows isn't necessarily a deal-breaker for a Jet/ACE data store. Depends on amount of data in each of those rows.
we need fine grained and airtight user level security
This is a compelling reason to move data storage to client-server db.
we keep getting corrupt data records
That should almost never happen with a proper Access implementation, contrary to claims by Access bigots. It will happen if you're running across an unreliable network. But, if that's your client's situation, you should either fix the network problems or ditch Access for data storage.
our database wasn't backed up for three months (because a user kept
it open)
You can build on Arvin Meyer's KickEmOff approach. But with <= 6 users currently, it might be easier to deal with the situation without code for now. Just ask them to close out long enough for the backup. You could have your automated backup routine create a notice when its attempt fails, so this shouldn't have to be a constant thing.
In any case, suggest you design the current application so that an eventual migration to SQL Server will be less troublesome. Avoid Access-specific features: hyperlink data type; lookup fields; multi-value fields; attachment fields; and so forth. Since you're experienced with SQL Server, it should be fairly easy to create a test SQL Server database and link a copy of your Access front-end to it. Test periodically as you develop the Access front-end. Then you look like a hero when the client recognizes a need to move the data storage to SQL Server.
I'm in a mixed Sql/Access dev shop and understand your concerns, but the sheer usability of Access often wins out for users. Where we have mission critical data and need to use Access we simply used Linked tables - best of both worlds, Sql handles Security, Backups etc and Access provides the front end.
To me, the obvious answer is to develop an Access front end to an Access back end for the initial implementation, but doing the development with upsizing the back end to SQL Server in mind.
That means just applying commonsense to what you do, as #HansUp suggests (i.e., not using Access-specific functionality), and designing your data retrieval so that it will work well with a server back end.
If, on the other hand, either the increased amount of data or the security issues are actually not just remote possibilities but likely to become issues during the lifetime of the app, I'd go with a SQL Server back end from the beginning. But your description of the situation really doesn't sound like that's the case at all.
Certainly the corruption and backup concerns are completely misplaced. Proper maintenance and backup has to be in place, and the operating environment has to be stable, but all of that applies to any database engine, not just to Jet/ACE.
Explain to your client that you will have to charge much more money to create, implement, maintain, repair and later upsize the application. Explain that they will not save money in the long run and that they will be better off if they go ahead and allow you to properly prepare now. That being said, I agree with #HansUp suggestions. You can give the customer what they want and still prepare for the likely eventualities. Think of it as job security.
There are Price and GUI advantages to using Access over SQL that for the non-technical people are really attractive. I think given your scenario then maybe the "customer" is right - aren't they always!
However, your 4 "following issues" really answer your own question.
If your user is technically naive then there is not much point in using technical language. If at all possible when l speak to users the language and terms I used are the same my users understand. Also compliment your users when possible it makes them feel good and make you look good in their eyes. Here's some suggested ideas.
Using Access 2007 is an excellent idea, easy to develop with and change to met your needs. However there are a number of very strong technical reasons for using another free tool, namely SQL express to store the data.
Why use SQL express?
Its free !
Security of the data will be a very high priority (even if client has not mentioned this use this as a reason). Point out how easy it would be to steal all the data from Access compared to SQL server. See this book for excellent detail regarding Access security. The user level security for SQL server is much simpler and easier with SQL server, and will cost less money to implement, as well as being more secure.
Backing up of data. In order to back up the access database no one can be using the database or even connected to the database. With SQL server can back it up at any time. Less down time or in other words greater productivity using this other FREE tool.
Data corruption. One issue with Access database, is corruption of the database. What does this mean? It is possible to lose up to a days worth of work, with SQL server this issue is much very much less likely to occur. There are even situations where it is not possible to recover the database. Hence this loss of productivity can be minimised if using SQL server.
When this tool gains greater recognition and other departments wish to use it, as no doubt it will. Moving to a larger enterprise database system will be much easier and less costly to develop, if you use SQL server express as the data store.
The above are just suggestions, based on the assumption you user is wishing to expend as little money as possible, and the limitations / resources you put in your posting.
I also appreciate that not every one will agree with what l have put in the suggestions above. They are not meant as detailed technical points, more as suggested ways of persuading a technically naive client to consider using SQL server express as the back end db for an Access db used for a departmental application
I am working for a company and I need to create a program really fast. My program will run with 100 users and they will make approximately 100 transactions each per day. As I am under time pressure, and various other constraints it is not possible to set up a proper database running on a server. I am therefore looking for alternatives that have some sort of transaction support without running on a server. I believe this could be solved using Microsoft Access, which is an alright solution, though I believe I will run into locking problems. Isn't is so that a whole table is locked as soon as one user attempts to read from it? Anyways... My question is what other alternatives there are.
The real answer is likely to vary significantly depending on what quantity of data is being talked about here.
I'd take a look at SQLite. It supports transactions, triggers, etc and is supported by things like NHibernate which may make your database mapping life much easier.
Check out SQLite.
Is sqlite a proper solution? Not sure how remote storage is supported, though. That's not a common feature.
You could look into SQL CE, it's a very good local database from Microsoft.
There are many options. As others have stated, setting up and running with SQLLite, SQL Server Express, or any of a number of other small, light, and free databases.
Assuming you need this today, I would go with the one you know most about. Further, I would stay away from anything resembling Access. If you don't already have experience in using it for multi user access, you are going to burn too much time figuring out the problems.
That said, I'd lean towards SQL Server express first. It's free and can scale up to full sql server with no code changes.
I believe this could be solved using Microsoft Access, which is an alright solution, though I believe I will run into locking problems.
I'd say locking and queuing would be the least of your worries. With 100 concurrent users, Access will probably corrupt itself in minutes. With 10k+ records/day, it will likely bog down your entire network in a month or so.
As I am under time pressure, and various other constraints it is not possible to set up a proper database running on a server.
You can bring a database server up in an hour. Much less time than you'll spend hacking away at Access. There's open-source virtual machine images, MSSQL Express, hosted solutions, etc. Time and cost should be non-issues.
About the only thing I can think of that would have you using Access is the Forms support (which can be hooked to MSSQL Server) or DBA maintenance. Frankly, though, at 100 users Access will take so much babysitting that you can afford a hosted SQL instance and still come out ahead.
I think that Firebird can be a very good alternative.
Firebird is available in embedded and can also work with server. It have many features.
We have literally 100's of Access databases floating around the network. Some with light usage and some with quite heavy usage, and some no usage whatsoever. What we would like to do is centralise these databases onto a managed database and retain as much as possible of the reports and forms within them.
The benefits of doing this would be to have some sort of usage tracking, and also the ability to pay more attention to some of the important decentralised data that is stored in these apps.
There is no real constraints on RDBMS (Oracle, MS SQL server) or the stack it would run on (LAMP, ASP.net, Java) and there obviously won't be a silver bullet for this. We would like something that can remove the initial grunt work in an automated fashion.
We upsize (either using the upsize wizard or by hand) users to SQL server. It's usually pretty straight forward. Replace all the access tables with linked tables to the sql server and keep all the forms/reports/macros in access. The investment in access isn't lost and the users can keep going business as usual. You get reliability of sql server and centralized backups. Keep in mind - we’ve done this for a few large access databases, not hundreds. I'd do a pilot of a few dozen and see how it works out.
UPDATE:
I just found this, the sql server migration assitant, it might be worth a look:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/solutions/migration/default.mspx
Update: Yes, some refactoring will be necessary for poorly designed databases. As for how to handle access sprawl? I've run into this at companies with lots of technical users (engineers esp., are the worst for this... and excel sprawl). We did an audit - (after backing up) deleted any databases that hadn't been touched in over a year. "Owners" were assigned based the location &/or data in the database. If the database was in "S:\quality\test_dept" then the quality manager and head test engineer had to take ownership of it or we delete it (again after backing it up).
Upsizing an Access application is no magic bullet. It may be that some things will be faster, but some types of operations will be real dogs. That means that an upsized app has to be tested thoroughly and performance bottlenecks addressed, usually by moving the data retrieval logic server-side (views, stored procedures, passthrough queries).
It's not really an answer to the question, though.
I don't think there is any automated answer to the problem. Indeed, I'd say this is a people problem and not a programming problem at all. Somebody has to survey the network and determine ownership of all the Access databases and then interview the users to find out what's in use and what's not. Then each app should be evaluated as to whether or not it should be folded into an Enterprise-wide data store/app, or whether its original implementation as a small app for a few users was the better approach.
That's not the answer you want to hear, but it's the right answer precisely because it's a people/management problem, not a programming task.
Oracle has a migration workbench to port MS Access systems to Oracle Application Express, which would be worth investigating.
http://apex.oracle.com
So? Dedicate a server to your Access databases.
Now you have the benefit of some sort of usage tracking, and also the ability to pay more attention to some of the important decentralised data that is stored in these apps.
This is what you were going to do anyway, only you wanted to use a different database engine instead of NTFS.
And now you have to force the users onto your server.
Well, you can encourage them by telling them that you aren't going to overwrite their data with old backups anymore, because now you will own the data, and you won't do that anymore.
Also, you can tell them that their applications will run faster now, because you are going to exclude the folder from on-access virus scanning (you don't do that to your other databases, which is why they are full of sql-injection malware, but these databases won't be exposed to the internet), and planning to turn packet signing off (you won't need that on a dedicated server: it's only for people who put their file-share on their domain-server).
Easy upgrade path, improved service to users, greater centralization and control for IT. Everyone's a winner.
Further to David Fenton's comments
Your administrative rule will be something like this:
If the data that is in the database is just being used by one user, for their own work (alone), then they can keep it in their own network share.
If the data that is in the database is for being used by more than one person (even if it is only two), then that database must go on a central server and go under IT's management (backups, schema changes, interfaces, etc.). This is because, someone experienced needs to coordinate the whole show or we will risk the time/resources of the next guy down the line.