Thinking About Parallelism

Grant Fritchey continues his thoughts on parallelism:

Microsoft set the default value for the Cost Threshold for Parallelism back in the 1990s. They were developing SQL Server 2000. That means this value was determined as a good starting point for query plan costs over 17 years ago. In case you’re not aware, technology, T-SQL, SQL Server, and all the databases and database objects within them shifted, just a little, in the intervening 17 years. We can argue whether or not this value made sense as a starting point (and remember, the default settings are meant to be starting points covering a majority of cases, not a final immutable value) for determining your Cost Threshold for Parallelism 17 years ago. I think we can agree that it’s no longer even a good starting point.

For more thoughts, check out a prior post on figuring out the cost threshold.

Related Posts

Oddity With User Write Count In dm_db_index_usage_stats

Shaun J. Stuart looks at an oddity with the user_updates column on sys.dm_db_index_usage_stats: This pulls both reads and writes from the sys.dm_db_index_usage_stats dynamic management view. A read is defined as either a seek, scan, or lookup and a write is defined as an update. All seemed good until I noticed something strange. One of the top written to tables was, based on our naming convention, a […]

Read More

Safely Dropping Databases

Bob Pusateri notes a little issue when it comes to dropping databases: At a previous employer, we had a well-defined process when dropping databases for a client. It went something like this: Confirm in writing the databases on which servers/instances to be dropped Take a final full backup of databases Take databases offline Wait at […]

Read More

Categories

March 2017
MTWTFSS
« Feb Apr »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031