Brent Ozar lays out an argument:
Accelerated Database Recovery (ADR) is a database-level feature that makes transaction rollbacks nearly instantaneous. Here’s how it works.
Without ADR, when you update a row, SQL Server copies the old values into the transaction log and updates the row in-place. If you roll that transaction back, SQL Server has to fetch the old values from the transaction log, then apply them to the row in-place. The more rows you’ve affected, the longer your transaction will take.
With ADR, SQL Server writes a new version of the row inside the table, leaving the old version in place as well.
Because you’re a smart cookie, you immediately recognize that storing multiple versions of a row inside the same table is going to cause a storage problem: we’re going to be boosting the size of our table, quickly. However, the problem’s even bigger than that, and it starts right from the beginning when we load the data.
This was an interesting analysis, looking at table growth with ADR + RCSI, with ADR or RCSI alone, and with neither feature. Given that I’m all-in on RCSI, this is particularly interesting to me. And if you want to dig really deeply into index maintenance, Jeff Moden has a fantastic set of presentations, which TriPASS recorded in 2021: GUIDs vs Fragmentation and LOB data. These two presentations help provide sound footing for deciding under what circumstances it makes sense to rebuild an index, and noting that (unless you’re Brent), the answer is probably “less often than you’d think.”
Leave a Comment