Category: Performance Tuning

Daniel Janik shows one of the many pain points around user-defined functions in SQL Server:

Note that Query 1 uses a function around the column and this causes a scan which increases IO and CPU utilization. This is because every value in the column for the whole table must have the hyphen removed to see if it is a match.

In Query 2, we see a seek. This is because the value is modified instead of the column.

Click through for a few examples.

Grant Fritchey is asking for input on a new flowchart he has created:

Lots of people are confused by how to deal with bad parameter sniffing when it occurs. In an effort to help with this, I’m going to try to make a decision flow chart to walk you through the process. This is a rough, quite rough, first draft.

I would love to hear any input. For this draft, I won’t address the things I think I’ve left out. I want to see what you think of the decision flow and what you think might need to be included. Click on it to embiggen.

I think it’s a great first step.  I think a decision to add local variables and use them instead of parameters would be useful, particularly in contrast to using RECOMPILE and OPTIMIZE FOR UNKNOWN.

Erik Darling enumerates common performance tuning mistakes:

Coming in at number five and looking alive! Did you know that query plans can be different on busy servers? I bet not! And aside from that, your performance problem might not even be the query itself, it may be blocking, or a poison wait. This stuff may not show up in Dev, unless yous spend a lot of time and money engineering load tests.

This is what safety groups call “Situational Awareness”, and this is the kind of stuff that you really want a monitoring tool in place for. Sure, that query ran slowly, but if that’s all you know, and you can’t reproduce it, then you need to start digging deeper.

There are a number of tips here, and that number is five.

Lukas Eder shows the importance of minimizing the scope of update statements:

Optionally, just as with JPA, you can turn on optimistic locking on this statement. The important thing here is that the clicks and purchases columns are left untouched, because they were not changed by the client code. This is different from JPA, which either sends all the values by default, or if you specify @DynamicUpdate in Hibernate, it would send only the last_name column, because while first_name was changed it was not modified.

My definition:

• changed: The value is “touched”, its state is “dirty” and the state needs to be synched to the database, regardless of modification.
• modified: The value is different from its previously known value. By necessity, a modified value is always changed.

As you can see, these are different things, and it is quite hard for a JPA-based API like Hibernate to implement changed semantics because of the annotation-based declarative nature of how entities are defined. We’d need some sophisticated instrumentation to intercept all data changes even when the values have not been modified (I didn’t make those attributes public by accident).

I found this an interesting walkthrough of data layer-level mechanisms that directly affect database performance.

Aaron Bertrand shows why you might not want to oversize VARCHAR columns by too much:

Now, whether you go by the old standard or the new one, you do have to support the possibility that someone will use all the characters allowed. Which means you have to use 254 or 320 characters. But what I’ve seen people do is not bother researching the standard at all, and just assume that they need to support 1,000 characters, 4,000 characters, or even beyond.

So let’s take a look at what happens when we have tables with an e-mail address column of varying size, but storing the exact same data:

This is a good argument against automatically using VARCHAR(8000) (much less MAX) when creating columns.