Related
I'm trying to delete one single record from the database.
Code is very simple:
SELECT * FROM database.tablename
WHERE SerialNbr = x
This gives me the one record I'm looking for. It has that SerialNbr plus a number ids that are foreign keys to other tables. I took care of all foreign key constraints to where the next line of the code will start running.
After that the code is followed by:
DELETE FROM tablename
WHERE SerialNbr = x
This should be a relatively simple and quick query I would think. However it has now run for 30 minutes with no results. It isn't yelling about any problems with foreign keys or anything like that, it just is taking a very very long time to process. Is there anything I can do to speed up this process? Or am I just stuck waiting? It seems something is wrong that deleting one single record would take this long.
I am using Microsoft SQL Server 2008.
It's not taking a long time to delete the row, it's waiting in line for its turn to access the table. This is called blocking, and is a fundamental part of how databases work. Essentially, you can't delete that row if someone else has a lock on it - they may be reading it and want to be sure it doesn't change (or disappear) before they're done, or they may be trying to update it (to an unsatisfactory end, of course, if you wait it out, since once they commit your delete will remove it anyway).
Check the SPID for the window where you're running the query. If you have to, stop the current instance of the query, then run this:
SELECT ##SPID;
Make note of that number, then try to run the DELETE again. While it's sitting there taking forever, check for a blocker in a different query window:
SELECT blocking_session_id FROM sys.dm_exec_requests WHERE session_id = <that spid>;
Take the number there, and issue something like:
DBCC INPUTBUFFER(<the blocking session id>);
This should give you some idea about what the blocker is doing (you can get other information from sys.dm_exec_sessions etc). From there you can decide what you want to do about it - issue KILL <the spid>;, wait it out, go ask the person what they're doing, etc.
You may need to repeat this process multiple times, e.g. sometimes a blocking chain can be several sessions deep.
What I think is happening is there is some kind of performance hunt in the database or that particular table you can see that by simply run sp_who2 and kill the SP's. Be careful on running the kill sp because it might not be your query.
Delete From Database.Tablename
where SerialNbr=x
I'm using SQL Server 2008 on Windows Server 2008 R2, all sp'd up.
I'm getting occasional issues with SQL Server hanging with the CPU usage on 100% on our live server. It seems all the wait time on SQL Sever when this happens is given to SOS_SCHEDULER_YIELD.
Here is the Stored Proc that causes the hang. I've added the "WITH (NOLOCK)" in an attempt to fix what seems to be a locking issue.
ALTER PROCEDURE [dbo].[MostPopularRead]
AS
BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON;
SELECT
c.ForeignId , ct.ContentSource as ContentSource
, sum(ch.HitCount * hw.Weight) as Popularity
, (sum(ch.HitCount * hw.Weight) * 100) / #Total as Percent
, #Total as TotalHits
from
ContentHit ch WITH (NOLOCK)
join [Content] c WITH (NOLOCK) on ch.ContentId = c.ContentId
join HitWeight hw WITH (NOLOCK) on ch.HitWeightId = hw.HitWeightId
join ContentType ct WITH (NOLOCK) on c.ContentTypeId = ct.ContentTypeId
where
ch.CreatedDate between #Then and #Now
group by
c.ForeignId , ct.ContentSource
order by
sum(ch.HitCount * hw.HitWeightMultiplier) desc
END
The stored proc reads from the table "ContentHit", which is a table that tracks when content on the site is clicked (it gets hit quite frequently - anything from 4 to 20 hits a minute). So its pretty clear that this table is the source of the problem. There is a stored proc that is called to add hit tracks to the ContentHit table, its pretty trivial, it just builds up a string from the params passed in, which involves a few selects from some lookup tables, followed by the main insert:
BEGIN TRAN
insert into [ContentHit]
(ContentId, HitCount, HitWeightId, ContentHitComment)
values
(#ContentId, isnull(#HitCount,1), isnull(#HitWeightId,1), #ContentHitComment)
COMMIT TRAN
The ContentHit table has a clustered index on its ID column, and I've added another index on CreatedDate since that is used in the select.
When I profile the issue, I see the Stored proc executes for exactly 30 seconds, then the SQL timeout exception occurs. If it makes a difference the web application using it is ASP.NET, and I'm using Subsonic (3) to execute these stored procs.
Can someone please advise how best I can solve this problem? I don't care about reading dirty data...
EDIT:
The MostPopularRead stored proc is called very infrequently - its called on the home page of the site, but the results are cached for a day. The pattern of events that I am seeing is when I clear the cache, multiple requests come in for the home site, and they all hit the stored proc because it hasn't yet been cached. SQL Server then maxes out, and can only be resolved by restarting the sql server process. When I do this, usually the proc will execute OK (in about 200 ms) and put the data back in the cache.
EDIT 2:
I've checked the execution plan, and the query looks quite sound. As I said earlier when it does run it only takes around 200ms to execute. I've added MAXDOP 1 to the select statement to force it to use only one CPU core, but I still see the issue. When I look at the wait times I see that XE_DISPATCHER_WAIT, ONDEMAND_TASK_QUEUE, BROKER_TRANSMITTER, KSOURCE_WAKEUP and BROKER_EVENTHANDLER are taking up a massive amount of wait time.
EDIT 3:
I previously thought that this was related to Subsonic, our ORM, but having switched to ADO.NET, the erros is still live.
The issue is likely concurrency, not locking. SOS_SCHEDULER_YIELD occurs when a task voluntarily yields the scheduler for other tasks to execute. During this wait the task is waiting for its quantum to be renewed.
How often is [MostPopularRead] SP called and how long does it take to execute?
The aggregation in your query might be rather CPU-intensive, especially if there are lots of data and/or ineffective indexes. So, you might end up with high CPU pressure - basically, a demand for CPU time is too high.
I'd consider the following:
Check what other queries are executing while CPU is 100% busy? Look at sys.dm_os_waiting_tasks, sys.dm_os_tasks, sys.dm_exec_requests.
Look at the query plan of [MostPopularRead], try to optimize the query. Quite often an ineffective query is the root cause of a performance problem, and query optimization is much more straightforward than other performance improvement techniques.
If the query plan is parallel and the query is often called by multiple clients simultaneously, forcing a single-thread plan with MAXDOP=1 hint might help (abundant use of parallel plans is usually indicated by SOS_SCHEDULER_YIELD and CXPACKET waits).
Also, have a look at this paper: Performance tuning with wait statistics. It gives a pretty good summary of different wait types and their impact on performance.
P.S. It is easier to use SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED before a query instead of adding (nolock) to each table.
Remove the NOLOCK hint.
Open a query in SSMS, run SET STATISTICSIO ON and run the query in the procedure. Let it finish and post here the IO stats messages. Then post the table definitions and all indexes defined on them. Then somebody will be able to reply with the proper indexes you need.
As with all SQL performance problem, the text of the query is largely irrelevant without complete schema definition.
A guesstimate covering index would be:
create index ContentHitCreatedDate
on ContentHit (CreatedDate)
include (HitCount, ContentId, HitWeightId);
Update
XE_DISPATCHER_WAIT, ONDEMAND_TASK_QUEUE, BROKER_TRANSMITTER, KSOURCE_WAKEUP and BROKER_EVENTHANDLER: you can safely ignore all these waits. They show up because they represent threads parked and waiting to dispatch XEvents, Service Broker or internal SQL thread pool work items. As they spend most of their time parked and waiting, they get accounted for unrealistic wait times. Ignore them.
If you believe ContentHit to be the source of your problem, you could add a Covering Index
CREATE INDEX IX_CONTENTHIT_CONTENTID_HITWEIGHTID_HITCOUNT
ON dbo.ContentHit (ContentID, HitWeightID, HitCount)
Take a look at the Query Plan if you want to be certain about the bottleneck in your query.
By default settings sql server uses all the core/cpu for all queries (max DoP setting> advanced property, DoP= Degree of Parallelism), which can lead to 100% CPU even if only one core is actually waiting for some I/O.
If you search the net or this site you will find resource explaining it better than me (like monitoring your I/o despite you see a CPU-bound problem).
On one server we couldn't change the application with a bad query that locked down all resources (CPU) but by setting DoP to the half of the number of core we managed to avoid that the server get "stopped". The effect on the queries being less parallel was negligible in our case.
--
Dom
Thanks to all who posted, I got some great SQL Server perf tuning tips.
In the end we ran out time to resolve this mystery - we found a more effecient way to collect this information and cache it in the database, so this solved the problem for us.
i have a table which was always updatable before, but then suddenly i can no longer update the any of the columns in the table. i can still query the whole table and the results come back very fast, but the moment i try to update a column in the table, the update query simply stalls and does nothing.
i tried using
select req_transactionUOW
from master..syslockinfo
where req_spid = -2
to see if some orphaned transaction was locking the table, but it returns no results.
i can't seems to find signs of my table being locked, but simply cannot update it. any clues as to how to fix the table or whatever state it is in?
Could you please issue this query:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM mytable WITH (UPDLOCK, READPAST)
which will skip the locked records and make sure it returns the same number of records as
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM mytable
You may need to repeat it with every index on the table forced, to make sure that no index resources is locked as well.
When you say "times out", does it hit the client timeout? For example, the default .net command timeout is 30 seconds. I would suggest increasing this to a very large value or running the update in SQL tools (by default no timeout set).
Other than that, an update will finish at some point or error and rollback: are you leaving enough time?
There is also the blocking, last index rebuild, last statistics update, triggers, accidental cross join, MDF or LDF file growth, poor IO, OS paging... etc. And have you restarted the SQL instance or server to remove environmental issues and kill all other connections?
There simply isn't enough information to make a judgement right now sorry.
I'm guessing this isn't a permissions issue as you're not getting an error.
So the closest I have had to this before is when the indexes on the table have become corrupt. Have you tried dropping the indexes and recreating them? Try one by one at first.
If you suspect locking, one of the first things I would do would be to run sp_lock. It will give you a list of all of the current locks held. You can use the DB_NAME and OBJECT_NAME functions to get the names that correspond to the dbid and ObjId columns.
Have you got any triggers on the table?
If so it could be that the trigger is failing so preventing the update.
Can you update other tables? If not (or anyways, if you like) you could check if the transaction log is full (if you use the full recovery model)/the partition your transaction log resides on is full. I think if SQL Server is unable to write to the transaction log you would/could experience this behaviour.
DBCC would be your friend: DBCC SQLPERF(LOGSPACE) shows you, how much (in percent) of your log is used. If it is (close to) 100% this might be your issue.
Just my two pennies worth.
Using SQL Server Management Studio.
How can I test the performance of a large select (say 600k rows) without the results window impacting my test? All things being equal it doesn't really matter, since the two queries will both be outputting to the same place. But I'd like to speed up my testing cycles and I'm thinking that the output settings of SQL Server Management Studio are getting in my way. Output to text is what I'm using currently, but I'm hoping for a better alternative.
I think this is impacting my numbers because the database is on my local box.
Edit: Had a question about doing WHERE 1=0 here (thinking that the join would happen but no output), but I tested it and it didn't work -- not a valid indicator of query performance.
You could do SET ROWCOUNT 1 before your query. I'm not sure it's exactly what you want but it will avoid having to wait for lots of data to be returned and therefore give you accurate calculation costs.
However, if you add Client Statistics to your query, one of the numbers is Wait time on server replies which will give you the server calculation time not including the time it takes to transfer the data over the network.
You can SET STATISTICS TIME ON to get a measurement of the time on server. And you can use the Query/Include Client Statistics (Shift+Alt+S) on SSMS to get detail information about the client time usage. Note that SQL queries don't run and then return the result to the client when finished, but instead they run as they return results and even suspend execution if the communication channel is full.
The only context under which a query completely ignores sending the result packets back to the client is activation. But then the time to return the output to the client should be also considered when you measure your performance. Are you sure your own client will be any faster than SSMS?
SET ROWCOUNT 1 will stop processing after the first row is returned which means unless the plan happens to have a blocking operator the results will be useless.
Taking a trivial example
SELECT * FROM TableX
The cost of this query in practice will heavily depend on the number of rows in TableX.
Using SET ROWCOUNT 1 won't show any of that. Irrespective of whether TableX has 1 row or 1 billion rows it will stop executing after the first row is returned.
I often assign the SELECT results to variables to be able to look at things like logical reads without being slowed down by SSMS displaying the results.
SET STATISTICS IO ON
DECLARE #name nvarchar(35),
#type nchar(3)
SELECT #name = name,
#type = type
FROM master..spt_values
There is a related Connect Item request Provide "Discard results at server" option in SSMS and/or TSQL
The best thing you can do is to check the Query Execution Plan (press Ctrl+L) for the actual query. That will give you the best guesstimate for performance available.
I'd think that the where clause of WHERE 1=0 is definitely happening on the SQL Server side, and not Management Studio. No results would be returned.
Is you DB engine on the same machine that you're running the Mgmt Studio on?
You could :
Output to Text or
Output to File.
Close the Query Results pane.
That'd just move the cycles spent on drawing the grid in Mgmt Studio. Perhaps the Resuls to Text would be more performant on the whole. Hiding the pane would save the cycles on Mgmt Studio on having to draw the data. It's still being returned to the Mgmt Studio, so it really isn't saving a lot of cycles.
How can you test performance of your query if you don't output the results? Speeding up the testing is pointless if the testing doesn't tell you anything about how the query is going to perform. Do you really want to find out this dog of a query takes ten minutes to return data after you push it to prod?
And of course its going to take some time to return 600,000 records. It will in your user interface as well, it will probably take longer than in your query window because the info has to go across the network.
There is a lot of more correct answers of answers but I assume real question here is the one I just asked myself when I stumbled upon this question:
I have a query A and a query B on the same test data. Which is faster? And I want to check quick and dirty. For me the answer is - temp tables (overhead of creating temp table here is easy to ignore). This is to be done on perf/testing/dev server only!
Query A:
DBCC FREEPROCCACHE
DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS (to clear statistics
SELECT * INTO #temp1 FROM ...
Query B
DBCC FREEPROCCACHE
DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS
SELECT * INTO #temp2 FROM ...
I have a query that runs each night on a table with a bunch of records (200,000+). This application simply iterates over the results (using a DbDataReader in a C# app if that's relevant) and processes each one. The processing is done outside of the database altogether. During the time that the application is iterating over the results I am unable to insert any records into the table that I am querying for. The insert statements just hang and eventually timeout. The inserts are done in completely separate applications.
Does SQL Server lock the table down while a query is being done? This seems like an overly aggressive locking policy. I could understand how there could be a conflict between the query and newly inserted records, but I would be perfectly ok if records inserted after the query started were simply not included in the results.
Any ways to avoid this?
Update:
The WITH (NOLOCK) definitely did the trick. As some of you pointed out, this isn't the cleanest approach. I can't really query everything into memory given the amount of records and some of the columns in this table are binary (some records are actually about 1MB of total data).
The other suggestion, was to query for batches of records at a time. This isn't a bad idea either, but it does bring up a new issue: database independent queries. Right now the application can work with a variety of different databases (Oracle, MySQL, Access, etc). Each database has their own way of limiting the rows returned in a query. But maybe this is better saved for another question?
Back on topic, the "WITH (NOLOCK)" clause is certainly SQL Server specific, is there any way to keep this out of my query (and thus preventing it from working with other databases)? Maybe I could somehow specify a parameter on the DbCommand object? Or can I specify the locking policy at the database level? That is, change some properties in SQL Server itself that will prevent the table from locking like this by default?
If you're using SQL Server 2005+, then how about giving the new MVCC snapshot isolation a try. I've had good results with it:
ALTER DATABASE SET SINGLE_USER WITH ROLLBACK IMMEDIATE;
ALTER DATABASE SET READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT ON;
ALTER DATABASE SET MULTI_USER;
It will stop readers blocking writers and vice-versa. It eliminates many deadlocks, at very little cost.
It depends what Isolation Level you are using. You might try doing your selects using the With (NoLock) hint, that will prevent the read locks, but will also mean the data being read might change before the selecting transaction completes.
The first thing you could do is try to add the "WITH (NOLOCK)" to any tables you have in your query. This will "Tame down" the locking that SQL Server does. An example of using "NOLOCK" on a join is as follows...
SELECT COUNT(Users.UserID)
FROM Users WITH (NOLOCK)
JOIN UsersInUserGroups WITH (NOLOCK) ON
Users.UserID = UsersInUserGroups.UserID
Another option is to use a dataset instead of a datareader. A datareader is a "fire hose" technique that stays connected to the tables while your program is processing and basically handling the table row by row through the hose. A dataset uses a "disconnected" methodology where all the data is loaded into memory and then the connection is closed. Your program can then loop the data in memory without having to worry about locking. However, if this is a really large amount of data, there maybe memory issues.
Hope this helps.
If you add the WITH (NOLOCK) hint after a table name in the FROM clause it should make sure it doesn't lock, and it doesn't care about reading data that is locked. You might get "out of date" results if you are writing at the same time, but if you don't care about that then you should be fine.
I reckon your best way of avoiding this is to do it in SQL rather than in the application.
You can add a
WAITFOR DELAY '000:00:01'
at the end of each loop iteration to provide time for other processes to run - just make sure that you haven't initiated a TRANSACTION such that all other processes are locked out anyway
The query is performing a table lock, thus the inserts are failing.
It sounds to me like you're keeping a lock on the table while processing the results.
You should instead load them into an array or collection of some sort, and close the database connection.
Then process the array.
In addition, while you're doing your select use either:
WITH(NOLOCK) or WITH(READPAST)
I'm not a big fan of using lock hints as you could end up with dirty reads or other weirdness. A couple of other ideas:
Can you break the number of rows down so you don't grab 200k at a time? Is there a way to tell whether you've processed a row - a flag, a timestamp - you could use to make the query? Your query could be 'SELECT TOP 5000 ...' getting a differnet 5k each time. Shorter queries mean shorter-lived locks.
If you can use smaller sets of rows I like the DataSet vs. IDataReader idea. You will be loading data into memory and not consuming any SQL locks, but the amount of memory can cause other problems.
-Brian
You should be able to set the isolation level at the .NET level so that you don't have to include the WITH (NOLOCK) hint.
If you want to go with the batching option, you should be able to specify the Rowcount setting from the .NET level which would tell the database to only return n number of records. By setting these settings at the .NET level they should become database independent and work across all the platforms.