Background:
We have number of databases of the similar size and identical schema. All of them have identical settings and are placed on the same instance. Everyone uses an application to access and query databases. Within the application all connection strings are identical (except login and password) for all databases. Many users experience significant slowness when logging into and querying one of our databases, but not the other ones.
Problem:
One of the databases gradually became slower and slower to access. Query execution time is also affected, but not as significantly as the time it takes for the user to log in. Now it takes around 50 seconds to login. For all other databases log-in time is only about 4-5 seconds.
Question:
I would like to compare normal log-in sessions on "healthy databases" to the log-in session on the problematic database. Could you please suggest a way to monitor what exactly happens within the log-in session? I know how to trace queries run against specific database, but I don't know what to look for to find what makes logging in slow. Would either profiler or extended events show such information? Is there any other way to analyse what happens during the time user waits to log in?
You can use the SQL Server Profiler to trace every query sent to the ddbb, and with the ability to filter based on user name, database name, etc.
See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/en-en/library/ms175047.aspx
I would take a look at ddbb indexes and statistics, as these are the areas that could slow your ddbb if are not well maintained.
Related
Assuming query store is enabled, you can use query performance insights to see a query ID, CPU usage, execution time, and more. The problem I'm tasked with is attributing these queries to departments which share databases. How would you recommend tracing who initiated a query?
Query Store aggregates data across all users and does not try to give you a per-user view of what is happening. (That's not its job - it is about performance management and troubleshooting). If you want to have an audit trail of who executed every query in the system, then running an Xevent session is the right model to do this (tracking statement completed and login events so you can stitch together who did what when you want to link things together later).
Making query store try to track per-user operations would have made it too expensive to be on always in every application.
You can enable Auditing for the Azure SQL database and check the query that was executed and also the user
I've setup two SQL DBs on Azure with geo-replication. The primary is in Brazil and a secondary in West Europe.
Similarly I have two web apps running the same web api. A Brazilian web app that reads and writes on the Brazilian DB and a European web app that reads on the European DB and writes in the Brazilian DB.
When I test response times on read-only queries with Postman from Europe, I first notice that on a first "cold" call the European Web app is twice as fast as the Brazilian one. However, immediate next calls response times on the Bazilian web app are 10% of the initial "cold" call whereas response times on the European web app remain the same. I also notice that after a few minutes of inactivity, results are back to the "cold" case.
So:
why do query response times drop in Brazil?
whatever the answer is to 1, why doesn't it happen in Europe?
why does the response times optimization occurring in 1 doesn't last after a few minutes of inactivity?
Note that both web apps and DB are created as copy/paste (except geo-replication) from each other in an Azure ARM json file.
Both web apps are alwaysOn.
Thank you.
UPDATE
Actually there are several parts in action in what I see as a end user. The webapps and the dbs. I wrote this question thinking the issue was around the dbs and geo-replication however, after trying #Alberto's script (see below) I couldn,' see any differences in wait_times when querying Brazil or Europe so the problem may be on the webapps. I don't know how to further analyse/test that.
UPDATE 2
This may be (or not) related to query store. I asked on a new more specific question on that subject.
UPDATE 3
Queries on secondary database are not slower. My question was raised on false conclusions. I won't delete it as others took time to answer it and I thank them.
I was comparing query response times through rest calls to a web api running EF queries on a SQL Server DB. As rest calls to the web api located in the region querying the db replica are slower than rest calls to the same web api deployed in another region targeting the primary db, I concluded the problem was on the db side. However, when I run the queries in SSMS directly, bypassing the web api, I observe almost no differences in response times between primary and replica db.
I still have a problem but it's not the one raised in that question.
On Azure SQL Database your database' memory utilization may be dynamically reduced after some minutes of inactivity, and on this behavior Azure SQL differs from SQL Server on-premises. If you run a query two or three times it then start to execute faster again.
If you examine the query execution plan and its wait stats, you may find a wait named MEMORY_ALLOCATION_EXT for those queries executing after the memory allocation has been shrinked by Azure SQL Database service. Databases with a lot activity and query execution may not see its memory allocation reduced. For a detailed information of my part please read this StackOverflow thread.
Take in consideration also both databases should have the same service tier assigned.
Use below script to determine query waits and see what is the difference in terms of waits between both regions.
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS #before;
SELECT [wait_type], [waiting_tasks_count], [wait_time_ms], [max_wait_time_ms],
[signal_wait_time_ms]
INTO #before
FROM sys.[dm_db_wait_stats];
-- Execute test query here
SELECT *
FROM [dbo].[YourTestQuery]
-- Finish test query
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS #after;
SELECT [wait_type], [waiting_tasks_count], [wait_time_ms], [max_wait_time_ms],
[signal_wait_time_ms]
INTO #after
FROM sys.[dm_db_wait_stats];
-- Show accumulated wait time
SELECT [a].[wait_type], ([a].[wait_time_ms] - [b].[wait_time_ms]) AS [wait_time]
FROM [#after] AS [a]
INNER JOIN [#before] AS [b] ON
[a].[wait_type] = [b].[wait_type]
ORDER BY ([a].[wait_time_ms] - [b].[wait_time_ms]) DESC;
I've been using Access to rapid-prototype a DB. Now I'd like to do a small group online test so I split the DB and placed the back-end on Azure SQL Server, then re-linked. It's incredibly slow and I've been researching solutions for days without positive results. My local environment is Win10, Office2016 64bit and internet connection is fast and stable.
I have tried different ODBC drivers, including the SQL Native Client v11.
I've disabled auto-tuning level on the NIC.
I've recreated all queries from access on the server.
I've made sure that Tracing in ODBC is off.
But I enabled tracing temporarily to see what was happening. If I opened the front-end, logged in (Small user table), and did something on the first form (Add 1 record with 3 sub-records...and really...nothing fancy or heavy at all and this only takes 1 minute) then closed the DB, I see that the Tracing log file is 1.5MB.
So I created an empty Access file and an ODBC link to only the User table (12 columns, 20 records), and then monitored the tracing log file again. Opening access doesn't add anything to the log file, but opening this one, linked table made the log file grow to 255kb. Opening this table in access took 5 seconds.
Access sent about 800 requests to the server for opening just this one small table. If I paste all the User table data into a text file, it's only 2kb. SO why is it so slow?
Any ideas on this, and specifically other suggestions to get this working faster?
Kind regards,
Well, the reason why using Azure is slower than running Access connected to a local instance of SQL server is because, well slow is slow!
I mean, if you going to travel 30 miles, you have a choice to walk, or to take a car.
So here is the question you need to know:
Why is walking slower than driving a car?
Answer: Because you are travelling at a slower speed!
So why is using Azure slower the using an instance of SQL server running on your local computer or local network?
Answer:
Because the connection speed to Azure is about 100 times slower!
The idea here that you not going to take into account the DIFFERENCE in connection speed is the issue here. It is a disservice to the reading public that may conclude that such a setup (Access front end on a pc to Azure instance of SQL server) is not a viable setup.
So the first issue here is to make a note of your connection speed to the back end database.
A typical office local area network has a speed of 100mbits, or today most are 1gig – even the el-cheapo routers you purchase at Best Buy are now rated at 1gig (1000 mbits).
However, your typical high speed internet is rated at about 5, or 10 mbits. So that is 100 times slower. (Actually 1000/5 = 200 times slower!!!).
That means if something NOW takes 3 seconds on your office network with Access and SQL server? Well then a WAN (over the internet), then you need to multiple the time by the change in your connection speed (this is so simple – yet it seems to escape all!). So, if you lucky, you might have a 5 mbits speed rating for your internet. That means you go
1000 / 5 = 200
You now take the 200 and multiple the existing delay you have of say 3 seconds and you get 600 seconds (that is 10 minutes if you are wondering!). So you going from 3 seconds to 10 minutes!
This kind of comparison in speed would be like walking into a sports shop to purchase a rubber boat to cross the Atlantic. So not taking into account the change in internet speed and wondering why things are slow is the issue here.
You can most certainly use Access to Azure, but you have to realize two simple concepts.
a connection and test with a connection that is 50-200 times slower than your LAN is a test that going to run 50 to 200 times slower! The failure to mention and take into considering the MASSIVE DIFFERENCE in your speed connection of your LAN compared to a WAN is the simple issue here.
opening a form bound to a large table of data is going to case performance issues.
I was sitting at the bus stop talking to a 90 year old granny lady. I asked her the following:
Have you ever used an instant teller?
She said, why yes, I use them all the time.
I then asked here don’t you think it would be bad to have the teller machine download all the peoples accounts while you wait and THEN ask you for your account number?
The old lady stated, of course, that would be silly. I type in my account pin and the machine ONLY downloads my account information – this is practical and obvious.
In other words that old lady realised that downloading a bunch of data BEFORE you the user even types in or does anything is a waste of bandwidth.
So you never want to launch a form bound to a table and THEN ask the user what record to work on. Why have Access download large numbers of records into a form and THEN ask the user or allow the user to navigate to the required record?
Even when using Google, it does not download the whole internet into your web browser page and you then go ctrl+f to search the contents of that web page.
The same concepts should be applied to Access applications. A design that asks for what to work on and then launches a form bound to a table with a "where" clause will thus fix this issue.
So if you have a form (and even a sub form) that displays a customer invoice, you would FIRST ASK FOR the invoice number, and then simply launch that form using a where clause that restricts the form to the ONE invoice!
Keep in mind that you can STILL use that invoice form bound to a table of 1 million rows and ONLY THE ONE record will be pulled down the network connection *if one used the where clause.
So a typical internet connection has adequate speed to run a browser, and also has MORE than adequate bandwidth speed to pull down a few records. Access often gets a bad rap for poor performance, but that is ONLY DUE to Access developers IGNORING the obvious advice that downloading tons of things that you don’t yet need into a form will run slow.
So web based applications, or even desktop applications written in vb.net perform well with SQL Azure running in the cloud over that MUCH slower internet connection because those applications don’t launch forms bound to large datasets WITHOUT FIRST simply allowing the user to request what they need to see and view.
As for Access and using SharePoint? That setup can be VERY fast, and in fact MUCH faster than SQL Azure, MySQL or any traditional database system because when you using SharePoint tables and Access, then Access automatic syncs a copy of the data local. This setup means your application will continue to run WITHOUT ANY internet connection. The instant the connection is restored, then the data sync can resume.
This means that if you have a table with 15,000 rows and run a report on that data the report can run and launch in an instant with SharePoint back end since a local copy of the data exists in the front end at ALL TIMES! So this setup is VERY well suited an off line mode or in cases that you have a poor and slow internet connections since you as noted always have local copy of the data – only when a record is changed does a sync occur, and that sync can occur independent of Access. So you change one record – and it starts syncing with SharePoint.
However for larger data sets that have to be updated, then SQL server is far better since you can execute a sql update on 10,000 rows and ZERO network traffic and transfer of data need occur to update those 10,000 rows when using SQL server (a pass through query) and when using SharePoint, the 10,000 rows WILL transfer over the network since the local copy requires the rows to be updated. So that massive advantage of using SharePoint for the database backend does not exist for applications that have to update lots of rows or do lots of row update types of data processing.
So the key concepts and take away here:
The high speed internet connection you have is often 10-200 times slower than your typical cheap office (local) network. So that means a 2 second operation will now take 10-200 times longer.
The Access application needs to be optimized to avoid things like loading too many records into a form. So building search forms etc. That FIRST ASK the user what they need to work on is a basic and simple requirement for all good developers and that includes Access developers.
Access and SharePoint can be the BEST option, and such a setup allows the application to run EVEN WHEN there is no internet connection at all. If table sizes are below say 10,000 rows, then this setup can often be ideal. However for applications that have to update lots of rows and for data processing heavy applications this setup is poor since updates to any rows will case data syncing to occur over the network. This setup is also the cheapest, since a single office 365 account with SharePoint support for Access can be had for $6 per month, and that $6 account allows up to 500 free users and those 500 users can even use their Gmail or non-Microsoft account for this setup. And such access applications that do fit within the bounds of SharePoint tables tend to need far less changes and optimizing then using SQL server over the internet.
With SQL server, use of views, pass-tough query and in some cases writing store procedures allows updates and code to run WITHOUT using ANY bandwidth. So one can send a single update query to the server that updates 10,000 rows of data – the only network cost will be the “tiny” amount of bandwidth to send that sql statement.
So while bound forms can be used with SQL Azure running in the cloud, one needs to build software like those do for the web, or vb.net in which they FIRST ask the user what account or customer to work on and THEN launch the UI to display that given data.
So in access, you build a search form say like this:
So at the end of the day, it is important to ignore posts here that suggests Access to SQL in the cloud is not viable. Access with proper designs will work rather well over typical internet connections to SQL server running on Azure.
In fact I seen people use Access to SQL over a 56k modem!
One has to adopt sensible designs in which the data pulled for a given task is restricted – this is a hall mark of all developers – the only issue is Access does NOT enforce this approach while most other developer tools don’t let you hang yourself with things like bound forms to large tables! It not that Access is slow, but Access is slow when you make poor design decisions.
Access to SharePoint can be a real winner – especially for poor bandwidth, spotty bandwidth and even when the connection is lost, the application will continue to run and run faster than 99% of the cases if you were running the same application with a SQL back end. There is a BIG caveat here since only certain types of applications will work well with SharePoint tables. For me to explain the why, how, and when such applications are better is beyond a simple post here, but one simply needs to be aware that SharePoint can be incredible solution, but not for all applications and SQL server can and will be better choice. This SharePoint “better” choice can only be determined on a case by case evaluation of the given type of application in question.
The problem is simply that Azure SQL Database is not very fast running with small DTUs (Database Transaction Units) compared to, say, an in-house instance of SQL Server hosted on even a moderate modern server.
I've checked it out too, and it requires extremely careful design of queries and filtering - far from what you normally can get away with - to obtain acceptable overall speed. On the other hand, this is a giving experience that will bring focus to potential bottlenecks you otherwise wouldn't encounter before it might be too late.
OK, so after almost a week of trying to get this to work (Access front-end to SQL Server back-end on Azure), I've come to the conclusion that it's not a viable solution.
I've tried SQL Server, and setup a Sharepoint 2016 server on Azure, which also failed.
What has worked is using a product from Bullzipp called MS Access to MySQL to convert the access tables, then adding a MySQL DB on the server and importing the file generated by Bullzip. The only thing to note here is that Bullzip doesn't like the newer access formats (it wants an MDB file) so go to Access, create a new, empty file, but make sure you set its file type to MDB. then import your tables across and run Bullzip.
It's now working a hell of a lot faster than the SQL Server, but I am getting some write conflicts in Access, so I just need to go through the code and do whatever I need to so I can avoid those messages.
Using Access as a front to Azure SQL tables is the worst solution. But, sometimes you have to do it. I have a client who is adamant that she wants to keep her Access database. When she hired her very first employee, it became clear she needed to SQL tables behind the screens.
This was a bit of a nightmare. However, after redesigning some terrible table structures, creating views and many procs, I've been able to do it. I use local tables in some cases, and refill by pulling from a stored proc and inserting into the local table. I use linked tables for basic data edits, and do explicit save records almost constantly.
I also have a first-load module that opens all forms, goes to the last record, back to the first record, and then hides the form until needed. The load limps along for about 3
My only remaining issue is now that Azure will close connections after idle time of (I think) 30 or more minutes -- or maybe it's when the laptop sleeps? That kills the app and it has to be closed and re-opened.
I am currently administering/developing an Access 2010 frontend/SQL backend database. We are trying to improve frontend performance, and one solution that has been suggested is pushing a lot of the VBA that is running the front end down into stored procedures on the server. I'm fairly proficient in VBA, but very new to SQL and network architecture. Everything I've turned up on google has been information about splitting the database, which is already done, rather than information about network loads resulting from running stored procedures vs running VBA.
What is the difference in network traffic between the current setup and pushing this action down to a stored procedure?
As a specific example, if I'm populating a form in the current setup, there are a few queries run to provide data to different elements on the form. With the current architecture, does Access retrieve the queried tables from the backend, query them client-side and then populate the data? How would that be different in terms of network traffic from, say, executing a SP when the form loads, and only transferring the data necessary for displaying the form?
The end goal is to reduce the chattiness between Access and SQL, and I'm mostly trying to figure out exactly what is happening where.
As a general rule, if you launch a form open with a where clause to restrict the form to one record, then using a bound form, or adopting a stored procedure will NOT result in any difference or reduction in network traffic.
Any local access query based on a table simply will request the one record. There is no “local” concept of processing in this regards EVEN with a linked table. Note the word “table” or singular here.
Access does not and will not pull down a whole table unless you have such forms and quires without any “where” clause to restrict the data pulled.
In other words if you have a poorly designed form, dump and change that design to something in which you now ONLY pull down the one record, then of course the setup will result in reduced network traffic.
However the above reduction is NOT DUE to adopting the stored procedure but ONLY that of adopting a design in which you restrict the records requested into the form.
So doing something poorly and then improving that process is NOT a justification to adopt stored procedures.
Thus in the case of pulling records into a form the using a stored procedure will NOT improve performance. Worse is binding a form to a stored procedure results in a form that is READY ONLY anyway!
So stored procedures don’t necessary increase performance or reduce network traffic when talking about loading a record into a form in terms of response time or performance.
If you have to do large amounts of recordset processing then of course adopting a stored procedure can save network performance. So in place of some VBA code to process 100,000 payroll reocrds, then yes moving such code server side will help. However processing a 100,000 payroll records is NOT common task and is NOT a user interface issue in most cases anyway. In other words, you don’t have a slow loading form or slow response time to load such forms. In other words, such types of processing are NOT done interactive by users waiting for a form to load.
SQL server is indeed a high performance system, and also a system that can scale to many users.
If you write your application in c++, or VB or in your case with ms-access, in GENERAL the performance of all of these tools will BE THE SAME.
In other words...sql server is rather nice, and is a standard system used in the IT industry.
However, sql server will NOT solve your performance issues without efforts on your part. And, it turns out that MOST of those same efforts also make your non sql server Access applications run better.
In fact, we see many posts that mention moving the back end data
to sql server actually slowed things down. (and in fact on a single machine, Access JET (now called ACE) is actually FASTER THEN SQL server (so when single user on same machine – Access is faster than SQL server on the same machine in most cases).
A few things:
Having a table with 75k records is quite small. Let’s assume you have 12 users. With a just a 100% file base system (jet), and no sql server, then the performance of that system should really have screamed.
I have some applications out there with 50, or 60 HIGHLY related tables. With 5 to 10 users on a network, response time is instant. I don't think any form load takes more than one second. Many of those 60+ tables are highly relational and in the 50 to 75k records range.
So, with my 5 users I see no reason why I can’t scale to 15 users with such small tables in the 75,000 record range. And this is without SQL server.
If the application did not perform with such small tables of only 75k records then upsizing to sql server will do absolute nothing to fix performance issues. In fact, in the sql server newsgroups you see weekly posts by people who find that upgrading to sql actually slowed things down.
I even seem some very cool numbers showing that some queries where actually MORE EFFICIENT in terms of network use by JET then sql server.
My point here is that technology will NOT solve performance problems. However, good designs that make careful use of limited bandwidth resources is the key here. So, if the application was not written with good performance in mind then you kind are stuck with a poor design!
I mean, when using a JET file share, you grab a invoice from the 75k record table only the one record is transferred down the network with a file share (and, sql server will also only transfer one record). So, at this point, you
really will NOT notice any performance difference by upgrading to SQL Server. There is no magic here. And adopting a SQL stored procedure will be even a GREATER waste of time!
And adopting a stored procedure in place of above will NOT gain you performance either!
Sql server is a robust and more scalable product then is JET. And, security, backup and host of other reasons make sql server a good choice. However, sql server will NOT solve a performance problem with dealing with such small tables as 75k records
Of course, when efforts are made to utilize sql server, then significant advances in performance can be realized.
I will give a few tips...these apply when using ms-access as a file share (without a server), or even odbc to sql server:
** Ask the user what they need before you load a form!
The above is so simple, but so often I see the above concept ignored. For example, when you walk up to an instant teller machine, does it download every account number and THEN ASK YOU what you want to do?
In access, it is downright silly to open up form attached to a table WITHOUT FIRST asking the user what they want! So, if it is a customer invoice, get the invoice number, and then load up the form with the ONE record. How can one record be slow? When done editing the record and the form is closed, and you are back to the prompt ready to do battle with the next customer.
You can read up on how this "flow" of a good user interface works here (and this applies to both JET, and sql server applications):
http://www.kallal.ca/Search/index.html
My only point here is restrict the form to only the ONE record the user needs. You don't need nor gain by using a stored procedure to accomplish this task. I am always dismayed how often a developer builds a nice form, attaches it to a large table, and then opens it and the throws this form attached to some huge table and then tells the users to go have at this and have fun. Don't we have any kind of concern for those poor users? Often, the user will not even know how to search for something!
So prompt, and asking the user also makes a HUGE leap forward in usability. And, the big bonus is reduced network traffic too! Gosh better and faster, and less network traffic! What more do we want!
** USE CAUTION with quires that require more than one linked table
JET has a real difficult time joining odbc tables together. Often the Access data engine (jet/Ace) does a good job, but often such joins are slow. However most forms for editing data are NOT based on a multi-table query. (so again, a stored procedure will not speed up form load for editing of data).
The simple solution for such multiple joins (for both forms and reports) is build the sql server side as a view, and then link to that view.
This view approach is MUCH less work then a stored procedure and results in the joins occurring server side. And results view are updatable as opposed to READ ONLY when you adopt stored procedures. And performance of such views will again equal that of stored procedure in THIS context.
So once gain, adopting stored procedures DOES NOT help and is more expensive from a developer cost then simply using a view. Really this just amounts to people suggesting that you rack up bills and use developer time to create something that yields nothing over that of a view except more billable hours.
I don't think it needs pointing out that if the query in question already runs well, then the above can be ignored, but just keep in mind that local queries with more than one table based on links to sql server can often run slow. So, just be aware of the above.
This view trick also applies well to combo boxes.
So one can continue to use bound forms to a linked table but one simply needs to restrict the form to the ONE RECORD you need.
You can safely open up to a single invoice form etc. but simply ENSURE you open such forms (openForm) by restricting records via the "where" clause. No view, or stored procedure is required here.
Bound forms are way less work then un-bound forms and performance is generally just as good anyway when done right.
Avoid large loading of combo boxes. A combo box is good for about 100 entries. After that you are torturing the user (what they got to look through 100s of entries). So, keep things like combo boxes down to a min size. This is both faster and MORE importantly it is kinder to your users.
After all, at the end of the day what we really want is to treat users well. It seems that treating the users well, and reducing the bandwidth (amount of data) goes hand in hand.
So, better applications treat the users well and run faster! (this is good news!)
So, #1 tip is to reduce the data that you transfer into a form.
Using stored procedures is not required in the vast majority of cases and will not reduce bandwidth requirements anymore then adopting where clauses and views.
We have an application which needs to interact with 3 different databases
(SQL Server) to fetch the user details and display them on a web page. Is it a good option to use a linked server or should we copy the user details (via some daily job) to the application database?
Using a linked server will give you a round trip delay every time you query the data. If you only query the data once per day or per session this might be acceptable. If however you are issuing many queries to these servers you may find that the performance is so poor that your application is unusable.
You could use SQL replication to push (or pull) the data from each of the servers into a local copy on the application server. This will provide you with much better query performance (no round trip delay) while also ensuring that you have the latest data. There are lots of options with SQL replication you should be able to find something that suits your needs.
For more information on SQL Replication see http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151198.aspx
A linked server is only going to allow your databases to talk to each other. If the application is interacting with three discrete databases, then you simply need discrete connections. I would not recommend heavily using the linked servers unless you are moving a lot of data (since picking it up into the application and putting it into another database may take even longer).