Hi,
It takes 4 minutes to insert 40 000 records on a SQL Server and 40 sec
on an other SQL Server. The slower run on windows 2000 terminal server
and the faster on windows 2000. The slower The slower have 2 Go of
ram, the faster 512 Mo!!!
How to diagnostic what's going wrong on the slower server? I can't
change the application who do the insertions.
Hi everybody !!! I have a problem with database SQL server 2000, and I need anyone help me.
I have PC machine with hardware configuration following:
+ RAM : 512M
+ CPU : 2.4 GHz (intel Pentium 4)
+ System : Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprice Edition , Service Pack 1
(this is call Machine1 )
and other Server machine with hardware configuration the following :
+ RAM : 2G
+ CPU : 3.6 GHz( intel Xeon)
+System : Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprice Edition , Service Pack 2
(use RAID 5)
(this is call Machine2 )
.And SQL Server 2000 is installed in these machine.
I created one table and one script to insert several records into this table. and script for inserting:
declare @count int , @max int
set @count =1
set @max = 5000
WHILE (@count < @max or @count = @max)
BEGIN
insert into TBAT_STOCKEOD(TRDT,SEQNO,COMPID,TRANSTYPE) values('20071219',cast(@count as varchar(5)),'13215','1')
set @count = @count +1
END
I execute this script on Machine1 and Machine2 :
+ Machine1 : spent 3 seconds.
+ Machine2 : spent 30 seconds. I don't understand why Machine2 is slower than Machine1 ( while configuration of Machine2 is better than Machine1's ). I don't know what happen.
I checked resource usages in perfmon when SQL server execute script and result following :
Machine1:
Proccessor used 100%
whereas,Machine2 used physical Disk 100%
Is there the way to configurate SQL server to improve speed writting of hard disk?
I am using an aggregate with the OVER clause.Running the script is fast less than 1 second but when I say insert into a temp table the execution plan is very different at it take 8 seconds.I have attached the execution plans. Also the Statistics IO, Time messages. I am using SQL Server 2014 with backward compatibility to 2008 R2.
if (select OBJECT_ID('tempdb..#MM')) is not null drop table #MM
CREATE TABLE #MM ([MyTableID] [int], [ParticipantID] [int], [ConferenceID] [nvarchar](50), [Points] [money], [DateCreated] [datetime], [StartPoints] [money], [EndPoints] [money], [LowPoints] [money], [HighPoints] [money])
insert into #MM ([MyTableID], [ParticipantID], [ConferenceID], [Points], [DateCreated], [StartPoints], [EndPoints], [LowPoints], [HighPoints])
selectmm.MyTableID, mm.ParticipantID, mm.ConferenceID, mm.Points, mm.DateCreated,
[code]....
Hi All
I decided to change over from Microsoft Access Database file to the New SQLServerCe Compact edition. Although the reading of data from the database is greatly improved, the inserting of the new rows is extremely slow.
I was getting between 60 to 70 rows per sec using OLEDB and an Access Database but now only getting 14 to 27 rows per sec using SQLServerCe.
I have tried the below code changes and nothing seams to increase the speed, any help as I would prefer to use SQLServerCe as the database is much smaller and I€™m use to SQL Commands.
Details:
VB2008 Pro
.NET Frameworks 2.0
SQL Compact Edition V3.5
Encryption = Engine Default
Database Size = 128Mb (But needs to be changes to 999Mbs)
Where Backup_On_Next_Run, OverWriteQuick, CompressAns are Booleans, all other column sizes are nvarchar and size 10 to 30 expect for Full Folder Address size 260
TRY1
Direct Insert Using Data Adapter.
Me.BackupDatabaseTableAdapter1.Insert(Group_Name1, Full_Folder_Address1, File1, File_Size_KB1, Schedule_To_Run1, Backup_Time1, Last_Run1, Result1, Last_Modfied1, Last_Modfied1, Backup_On_Next_Run1, Total_Backup_Times1, Server_File_Number1, Server_Number1, File_Break_Down1, No_Of_Servers1, Full_File_Address1, OverWriteQuick, CompressAns)
14 to 20 rows per second (Was 60 to 70 when using OLEDB Access)
TRY 2
Using Record Sets
Private Sub InsertRecordsIntoSQLServerce(ByVal Group_Name1 As String, ByVal Full_Folder_Address1 As String, ByVal File1 As String, ByVal File_Size_KB1 As String, ByVal Schedule_To_Run1 As String, ByVal Backup_Time1 As String, ByVal Last_Run1 As String, ByVal Result1 As String, ByVal Last_Modfied1 As String, ByVal Latest_Modfied1 As String, ByVal Backup_On_Next_Run1 As Boolean, ByVal Total_Backup_Times1 As String, ByVal Server_File_Number1 As String, ByVal Server_Number1 As String, ByVal File_Break_Down1 As String, ByVal No_Of_Servers1 As String, ByVal Full_File_Address1 As String, ByVal OverWriteQuick As Boolean, ByVal CompressAns As Boolean)
Dim conn As SqlCeConnection = Nothing
Dim CommandText1 As String = "INSERT INTO BackupDatabase (Group_Name, Full_Full_Folder_Adress, File1,File_Size_KB, Schedule_To_Run, Backup_Time, Last_Run, Result, Last_Modfied, Latest_Modfied, Backup_On_Next_Run, Total_Backup_Times, Server_File_Number, Server_Number, File_Break_Down, No_Of_Servers, Full_File_Address, OverWrite, Compressed) VALUES ('" & Group_Name1 & "', '" & Full_Folder_Address1 & "', '" & File1 & "', '" & File_Size_KB1 & "', '" & Schedule_To_Run1 & "', '" & Backup_Time1 & "', '" & Last_Run1 & "', '" & Result1 & "', '" & Last_Modfied1 & "', '" & Latest_Modfied1 & "', '" & CStr(Backup_On_Next_Run1) & "', '" & Total_Backup_Times1 & "', '" & Server_File_Number1 & "', '" & Server_Number1 & "', '" & File_Break_Down1 & "', '" & No_Of_Servers1 & "', '" & Full_File_Address1 & "', '" & CStr(OverWriteQuick) & "', '" & CStr(CompressAns) & "')"
Try
conn = New SqlCeConnection(strConn)
conn.Open()
Dim cmd As SqlCeCommand = conn.CreateCommand()
cmd.CommandText = "SELECT * FROM BackupDatabase"
cmd.ExecuteNonQuery()
Dim rs As SqlCeResultSet = cmd.ExecuteResultSet(ResultSetOptions.Updatable Or ResultSetOptions.Scrollable)
Dim rec As SqlCeUpdatableRecord = rs.CreateRecord()
rec.SetString(1, Group_Name1)
rec.SetString(2, Full_Folder_Address1)
rec.SetString(3, File1)
rec.SetSqlString(4, File_Size_KB1)
rec.SetSqlString(5, Schedule_To_Run1)
rec.SetSqlString(6, Backup_Time1)
rec.SetSqlString(7, Last_Run1)
rec.SetSqlString(8, Result1)
rec.SetSqlString(9, Last_Modfied1)
rec.SetSqlString(10, Latest_Modfied1)
rec.SetSqlBoolean(11, Backup_On_Next_Run1)
rec.SetSqlString(12, Total_Backup_Times1)
rec.SetSqlString(13, Server_File_Number1)
rec.SetSqlString(14, Server_Number1)
rec.SetSqlString(15, File_Break_Down1)
rec.SetSqlString(16, No_Of_Servers1)
rec.SetSqlString(17, Full_File_Address1)
rec.SetSqlBoolean(18, OverWriteQuick)
rec.SetSqlBoolean(19, CompressAns)
rs.Insert(rec)
Catch e As Exception
MessageBox.Show(e.Message)
Finally
conn.Close()
End Try
End Sub
€™20 to 24 rows per sec
TRY 3
Using SQL Commands Direct
Private Sub InsertRecordsIntoSQLServerce(ByVal Group_Name1 As String, ByVal Full_Folder_Address1 As String, ByVal File1 As String, ByVal File_Size_KB1 As String, ByVal Schedule_To_Run1 As String, ByVal Backup_Time1 As String, ByVal Last_Run1 As String, ByVal Result1 As String, ByVal Last_Modfied1 As String, ByVal Latest_Modfied1 As String, ByVal Backup_On_Next_Run1 As Boolean, ByVal Total_Backup_Times1 As String, ByVal Server_File_Number1 As String, ByVal Server_Number1 As String, ByVal File_Break_Down1 As String, ByVal No_Of_Servers1 As String, ByVal Full_File_Address1 As String, ByVal OverWriteQuick As Boolean, ByVal CompressAns As Boolean)
Dim conn As SqlCeConnection = Nothing
Dim CommandText1 As String = "INSERT INTO BackupDatabase (Group_Name, Full_Full_Folder_Adress, File1,File_Size_KB, Schedule_To_Run, Backup_Time, Last_Run, Result, Last_Modfied, Latest_Modfied, Backup_On_Next_Run, Total_Backup_Times, Server_File_Number, Server_Number, File_Break_Down, No_Of_Servers, Full_File_Address, OverWrite, Compressed) VALUES ('" & Group_Name1 & "', '" & Full_Folder_Address1 & "', '" & File1 & "', '" & File_Size_KB1 & "', '" & Schedule_To_Run1 & "', '" & Backup_Time1 & "', '" & Last_Run1 & "', '" & Result1 & "', '" & Last_Modfied1 & "', '" & Latest_Modfied1 & "', '" & CStr(Backup_On_Next_Run1) & "', '" & Total_Backup_Times1 & "', '" & Server_File_Number1 & "', '" & Server_Number1 & "', '" & File_Break_Down1 & "', '" & No_Of_Servers1 & "', '" & Full_File_Address1 & "', '" & CStr(OverWriteQuick) & "', '" & CStr(CompressAns) & "')"
Try
conn = New SqlCeConnection(strConn)
conn.Open()
Dim cmd As SqlCeCommand = conn.CreateCommand()
cmd.CommandText = CommandText1
'cmd.CommandText = "INSERT INTO BackupDatabase (€¦"
cmd.ExecuteNonQuery()
Catch e As Exception
MessageBox.Show(e.Message)
Finally
conn.Close()
End Try
End Sub
€˜ 25 to 30 but mostly holds around 27 rows per sec I
Is this the best you can get or is there a better way. Any help would be greatly appericated
Kind Regards
John Galvin
I have a stored procedure that can take over 5 seconds to add simpledata. Please give any advice on optimizing?Here are the details:***** Access Info ******~10 rows are added to the table every secondthe table is read ~20 times a second (with no lock)***** Stored Procedures *****-------CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.getMessagesForSR@serviceRequestId numericASselect *from SRMessages with (nolock)where srid= sridorder by SRMessageIDGOSET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER OFFGOSET ANSI_NULLS ONGO--------CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.addMessage@sridnumeric,@timestamp bigint,@type smallint,@initiator nvarchar (100),@data ntextASINSERT INTO SRMessages VALUES(@srid,@timestamp,@type,@initiator,@data)GO---------***** The Table *****CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SRMessages] ([SRMessageId] [bigint] IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL ,[srid] [bigint] NOT NULL ,[Timestamp] [bigint] NOT NULL ,[Type] [smallint] NOT NULL ,[Initiator] [nvarchar] (100) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOTNULL ,[Data] [ntext] COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL) ON [PRIMARY] TEXTIMAGE_ON [PRIMARY]GOALTER TABLE [dbo].[SRMessages] ADDCONSTRAINT [PK_SRMessages] PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED([SRMessageId]) ON [PRIMARY]GOCREATE INDEX [SRMessages2] ON [dbo].[SRMessages]([srid]) ON [PRIMARY]GO
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi,
I have a table with 110 nvarchar (255) columns in the database. I receive the data from the server (array) and them loop through it to insert the data into the database. The problem is it takes more than 3 minutes to insert (or update) (in memory) the 310 records it got from the array. I am reusing the Statement (with parameters). How could I improve the performance?
It's really a small quantity of data, the CPU in the device is 520Mhz... it should be alright!
Can aynone help me please?
Thanks
Hello,
I don't know what to do anymore ;o(
I've got 2 servers, with sql server 2000 sp3 and ms windows 2003 server.
I've written a very simple stored procedure to insert 20,000 rows into a very simple table TEST (id int, msg varchar_50)
On the first server (P-IV 2 GHz), it takes 700 ms / 1000 insertions
and on the second (2x Xeon 2,6 GHz), it takes 13 s / 1000 insertions...
(insertion is : INSERT INTO TEST (id, msg) VALUES (@id, 'dummy text'))
...
SQL Server was installed exactly in the same way...
what could I do see where the problem is ? With profiler, I see no difference while logging all events....
please help or give ideas
We had a table that had logical fragmentation of 50%. After rebuilding(with default fillfactor 0) I noticed that inserts are much faster. Ifmy page density is 100% wouldn't I get more page splits? I know I ammissing something fundamental here. Could someone get me back ontrack?Table Size 1.5 millionInsert Size 70KBefore: 15 minutesAfter: 3 minutesIndex:Compound clustered across varchar columnsThere are also a couple non-clustered indexes
View 11 Replies View RelatedI support a website (ASP.NET 2.0) where recently users have been unable to insert data due to timeout issues. The functionality executes a query that inserts a single row into a SQL Server 2005 db table. I tried running this query from the backend, and it took 4:48 to insert a single row! Interestingly, after that initial agony any similar inserts I tried took no time whatsoever. I have checked the execution plan, but unfortunately don't really know what I'm looking for with inserts, as most of my experience with execution plans is with select statements. Any resources anyone could point me to for troubleshooting this would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
-Dave
Originally posted by Jeremy at 12/10/2001 11:39:38 AM
Hello all,
I've written a simple dts job that uses oracle (8.x) as a source and oracle (8.x) as a destination. I'm using SQL 2000 and Microsoft's oledb provider for oracle as the two connections. I've chosen "Transform Data Task" with the following SQL "SELECT * FROM REPORTER_STATUS
WHERE LASTOCCURRENCE > TRUNC(SYSDATE)". As you can see, it's very simple, however it's very very very slow. (averages about 1000 rows per minute). In my column transformations, I've selected many to many versus the one to one. There are no activex scripts or anything along those lines. Just a simple push of the data from one oracle box to the other. The table schemas are identical etc... I've had this problem before with writing to Oracle and I can't imagine that it's really supposed to be this slow. If you need more details, please just let me know.
Thank you,
Jeremy
-----------------------------More -------------------------------
The official response from microsoft is that dts only allows for single inserts... not bulk or bcp for oracle. There must be someone out there who has figured out how to configure / modify / call (something) from a dts pacakage to insert millions of records into Oracle in a decent time frame...
thnx again..
I am running A View that INSERTS into #Temp Table - On Only Certain Days the INSERT Speed into #tempDB is so slow.
Â
Attached snapshot that shows after one minute so many few records are inserted - and it dosent happen every day somedays its very fast.Â
Hello,
In a Data Flow Task, I have an insert that occurs into a SQL Server 2000 table from a fixed width flat file. The SQL Server table that the data goes into is accessed through an OLE DB connection manager that uses the Native OLE DBMicrosoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server.
In the OLE DB Destination, I changed the access mode from Table or View - fast load to Table or View because I needed to implement OLE DB Destination Error Output. The Error output goes to a SQL Server 2000 table that uses the same connection manager.
The OLE DB Destination Editor Error Output 'Error' option is configured to 'Redirect' the row. 'Set this value to selected cells' is set to 'Fail component'.
Was changing the access mode the simple reason why the insert from the flat file takes so much longer, or could there be other problems?
Thank you for your help!
cdun2
Hi there,
I was wondering if someone can point out the error or the thing I shouldn't be doing in a stored procedure on SQL Server 2005. I want to switch from SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005 which all seems to work just fine, but one stored procedure is causing me headache.
I could pin the problem down to this query:
DECLARE @Package_ID bigint
DECLARE @Email varchar(80)
DECLARE @Customer_ID bigint
DECLARE @Payment_Type tinyint
DECLARE @Payment_Status tinyint
DECLARE @Booking_Type tinyint
SELECT @Package_ID = NULL
SELECT @Email = NULL
SELECT @Customer_ID = NULL
SELECT @Payment_Type = NULL
SELECT @Payment_Status = NULL
SELECT @Booking_Type = NULL
CREATE TABLE #TempTable(
PACKAGE_ID bigint,
PRIMARY KEY (PACKAGE_ID))
INSERT INTO
#TempTable
SELECT
PACKAGE.PACKAGE_ID
FROM
PACKAGE (nolock) LEFT JOIN BOOKING ON PACKAGE.PACKAGE_ID = BOOKING.PACKAGE_ID
LEFT JOIN CUSTOMER (nolock) ON PACKAGE.CUSTOMER_ID = CUSTOMER.CUSTOMER_ID
LEFT JOIN ADDRESS_LINK (nolock) ON ADDRESS_LINK.SOURCE_TYPE = 1 AND ADDRESS_LINK.SOURCE_ID = CUSTOMER.CUSTOMER_ID
LEFT JOIN ADDRESS (nolock) ON ADDRESS_LINK.ADDRESS_ID = ADDRESS.ADDRESS_ID
WHERE
PACKAGE.PACKAGE_ID = ISNULL(@Package_ID,PACKAGE.PACKAGE_ID)
AND PACKAGE.CUSTOMER_ID = ISNULL(@Customer_ID,PACKAGE.CUSTOMER_ID)
AND PACKAGE.PAYMENT_TYPE = ISNULL(@Payment_Type,PACKAGE.PAYMENT_TYPE)
AND PACKAGE.PAYMENT_STATUS = ISNULL(@Payment_Status,PACKAGE.PAYMENT_STATUS)
AND BOOKING.BOOKING_TYPE = ISNULL(@Booking_Type,BOOKING.BOOKING_TYPE)
-- If this line below is included the request will take about 90 seconds whereas it takes 1 second if it is outcommented
--AND ADDRESS.EMAIl LIKE '%' + ISNULL(@Email, ADDRESS.EMAIL) + '%'
GROUP BY
PACKAGE.PACKAGE_ID
DROP TABLE #TempTable
The request is performing quite well on the SQL Server 2000 but on the SQL Server 2005 it takes much longer. I already installed the SP2 x64, I'm running the SQL Server 2005 on a x64 environment.
As I stated in the comment in the query it takes 90 seconds to finish with the line included, but if I exclude the line it takes 1 second.
I think there must be something wrong with the join's or something else which has maybe changed in SQL Server 2005. All the tables joined have a primary key.
Maybe you folks can spot the error / mistake / wrong type of doing things easily.
I would appreciate any help you can offer me to solve this problem.
On the web I saw that there is a Cumulative Update 4 for the SP2 which fixes the following:
942659 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942659/)
FIX: The query performance is slower when you run the query in SQL Server 2005 than when you run the query in SQL Server 2000
Anyhow I think the problem is something else, I haven't tried out the cumulative update yet, as I think it is something different, more general why this query takes ages to process.
Thanks again for any help
Best regards,
Pascal
Hi,
we have performance problems with MS SQL Server 2000. We upsized an Access
2000 application to MS SQL server, using linked tables. Most of the time
the performance is fine (there are at most 10 users connected to the server
at the same time). However, it regularly happens that the database stops
responding. Queries, which normally take 20 ms to execute, require 20
seconds or more. In the Access client this looks as if Access has hung, it
is not responding, even though it eventually comes back to live. What I
have found out is that if I restart the SQL server, the problem disappears
and the performance stays fine for some time. This in mind, I set up a
batch which stops and restarts the SQL at night. However, recently the
problem started appearing even when the SQL server was running for only a
few hours.
I also looked at the performance monitor at both the client workstation and
the server and even when the response time are slow, the processor usage
both at the workstations and the server is under 10 percent.
I wonder whether anybody could help me with this problem. I realise that
using linked tables in Access is not the best thing for achieving good
performance, but I still would expect at least decent performance. At the
moment the situation is worse than if we were using just Access.
For your information, the computer which the SQL server runs on is a dual
processor Pentium Pro 200 MHz, with 320 MB RAM and a SCSI RAID. The server
is the only Windows 2000 domain controller on the network and it runs
Active directory. Plus there is also Exchange server 5.5 installed on this
server. This looks like a lot for a single server, but please bear in mind
that there are only 15 users on the network.
It may be also interesting to know that we have only recently upgraded from
SQL server 7 to SQL server 2000, but we were experiencing the same problem
before, even though not so often.
Thank you for any help.
Tomas Koutny
Elink Ltd
When, at the same network, I run Windows Server 2003, with webserver on it, SQL clients connected to SQL server on other computer server, experience slow work with queries. What seems to be a problem? When I disconnect Windows 2003 Server everything go faster. Why?
View 2 Replies View RelatedHiya folks,
This is more a request for some input from peeps with more experience of SQL than myself. A problem has shown itself on my SQL server over the last week or so, in that the server will 'slow down' intermitently, almost as if the the connection to the server has been lost for about 30 seconds. All will be fine for another minute or so and then the same problem occurs.
The only way I've found to get round this problem is to stop the SQL server and completely restart the server that SQL resides on, then restart SQL. This cures the problem for about a day.
Any offers??
Hello,
I've written a program, which communicates via ODBC with multipe database platforms. In a local network it seems to be everthing OK, but when I connect via VPN (2MBit/s S-DSL) to the MSSQL (2000 SP3) the connection is not only very slow, it seems that the MSSQL only uses 1 % of the bandwith. I don't think that 0,25 KByte/s is quite normal speed. A query takes about 5 - 10 minutes. (And I do a lot of queries...)
If I connect to an Oracle-DB the full bandwith will used (125 KByte/s).
Is there a problem with the SQL2000? How can I solve this behaviour?
so long
Hi,
I am having a problem accessing my sql server database using either Enterprise Manager or Query Analyser. It is awfully slow. Each time I click to expand a database in Enterprise Manager it takes about 25mins to do anything. I was running a DTS package yesterday which failed and have had this problem since. If I access the database via my app everything seems to be running at a normal speed. If I go to my task manager the sql server process is using up 750MB of memory and 750MB of virtual memory??
Has anyone seen this and know how to fix it???
Thanks in advance
Does anyone have any experience with a server slowing down over time to the point that it must be rebooted? This occurs over a time frame of from a few days to as long as a week. The server has a single Xeon 3.6 processor and 8 GB of ram. It executes production SQL scripts against databases contained on the server as well as a data warehouse stored on an AS400 server.
After rebooting, all jobs seem to execute in a reasonable time frame, according to their size and scope.
server was running out of space. drop a database to free up space. the server is slow now like its taking more time to query or delete records than normal. what happend and how do i fix it?
=============================
http://www.sqlserverstudy.com
When I query or browse databases or tables in SQL Server 2000 it worksextremely slow. It started working like this from one day to another.I tried reinstalling but it stayed the same.Now I'm installing Service Pack 3, it's curious that executingreplsys.sql, replcom.sql and repltran.sql scripts in the installationis extremely slow too.Did anyone experienced this or have any idea?Thanks in advance.
View 5 Replies View RelatedAn SSIS package to transfer data from a DB instance on SQL Server 2005 to SQL Server 2000 is extremely slow. The package uses an OLEDB Source to OLEDB Destination for data transfer which is basically one table from sql server 2005 to sql server 2000. The job takes 5 minutes to transfer about 400 rows at night when there is very little activity on the server. During the day the job almost always times out.
On SQL Server 200 instances the job ran in minutes in the old 2000 package.
Is there an alternative to this. Tranfer Objects task does not work as there is apparently a defect according to Microsoft. Please let me know if there is any other option other than using a Execute 2000 package task or using an ActiveX Script to read records from one source and to insert them into the destination source, which I am not certain how long it might take and how viable will that be?
Any inputs will be much appreciated.
Thanks,
MShah
I had installed SQL 2005 in my server (very high spec server).
but i wonder why every time i launch the management studio, it tooks forever to load... about 5 minutes.
When i right click on a table and click on view properties, it can takes up to 5 minutes to display the detail.
Is there any setting / configuration that i configured wrongly?
Our server is running. There are no locks, and server has been rebooted but the problem is still there. This has been going on for some time now. I intend to restart the server. Does anybody have a quick solution, please help. Thanks for your assistance!!
View 4 Replies View RelatedPlease what do I look out for 6.5 if I want to troubleshoot for slow running.
Thanks.
Our SQL server needs to be rebooted every two weeks sometimes even earlier. Otherwise it gets extremely slow and I can even open any tables in enterprize manager. Also the users cannot type any info into the application screen, it takes forever to change from one screen to other. Can somebody please suggest me how to avoid this situation or any idea of why it happens.
Thanks a lot.
Hi,
When first time I start my sql server is running faster. After 10 to 15 days later, sql sever performance is very slow. After I restart SQL service, to become normal.
Thanks
Mohan
Hi
We are facing performance related problem using Sql server 2000.
We have one stand alone P4 Pc (128 ram) and around 30 users access the sql server through network.
We have written our aplication in VB 6 and backend as Sql Server 2000. We have used Stored Procedure where ever necessary. We have used cursor location as Server side.
When we start with 5 users it is not slow, when all the users say 30 comes in it is slow down.
Can some one help to find out what is the problem.
Thanks
I'm still new to SQL Server so some of my lingo/verbage may be incorrect, please bare with me.
The company I work for relies strictly on ASP and SQL Server for 85% of it's daily operations. We have some Access projects and some VB projects as well, but for the majority it's ASP and SQL Server.
Previously we had 2 T1 lines with something like 3MB a piece and a handfull of Dell Servers. Our main server is also a Dell running Windows Server 2003 and is hosted through a reputable company here in town. They have a host of fiber lines running all over so I know we're getting good throughput. We've actually just upgradded to a DS3 but we're still working out the kinks with that. Anyway, I just want to eliminate that up front - we have great connection speeds.
The problems lies, I believe in our database design. The company supposedly had a DBA come in and help setup the design some 3 or 4 years ago, however even with my limited knowledge I feel like something is just not working right.
Our main table is "Invoices" which is obviously all of our Invoices, ever. This table has an Identity field "JobID" which is also the Clustered Index. We have other Indexes as well, but it appears they're just scattered about. The table probably 30-40 fields per row and ONLY 740,000 rows. Tiny in comparison to what I'm told SQL Server can handle.
However, our performance is embarassing. We've just landed a new client who's going to be brining us big business and they're already complaining about the speed of their website. I am just trying to figure out ways to speed things up. SQL is on a dedicated machine I believe with dual Xeon processors and a couple gigs of ram. So that should be ok. THe invoices table I spoke of is constantly accessed by all kinds of operations as it's heart of what we do. We also have other tables such which are joined on this table to make up the reporting we do for clients.
So I guess my question is this. Should the Clustered Index be the identify field and is that causing us problems? We use this field alot for access a single Invoice at a time and from what I understand this makes it a good Clustered Index, because the index IS the jobID we're looking for. But when it comes time to do reporting for a client, we're not looking at this field. We just pull the records for that Clients Number. And we only have 1400 clients at this point. So if we were to make the "ClientID" field the Clustered Index, it would much faster to Zero in on the group of Invoices we wanted because the ClientID is ALWAYS included in our queries.
But because a "DBA" came in to design this setup, everyone is afraid to change it. I guess it's hard to explain without people sitting here going through the code and look at the structures of all our tables - but I guess what I need is like a guide of what to do to easily increase performance on SQL Server and the proper use of Clustered and Non-Clustered Indexs and how to mix and match those.
Sorry I wrote a book.
Ideas? This place has always helped me before, so thanks in advance!
Hi,
We just put on our main accounting (50 GB total, 8 GB largest table - GLTRAN) database on a new Windows Advanced 2003 server with 8 GBs of memory. Everything is essentially the same as the old box, aside from the fact that it's on Windows Advanced 2003 Server and it's using LUNS as the E: drive where the SQL database is kept. It runs fine for the most part, excpet this one report takes literally 20 times longer to run than on the pld box.
It's SQL Enterprise 2000 SP4 (also the same). Are there new config options for SQL when running on a 2003 server? Or is it how the OS is handling the SQL service? I'm perplexed. It's not indexes. I still have the old box and load the current dbase to it for testing purposes and the report runs like lightning on it.
Thanks,
Dave
Hi,
Our main production server has started running slow, it is a dual zeon thingy with plenty of ram so hardware is not an issue.
Basically a service connects to the database and executes a few stored procs, the only way I can get the system up to speed again is to recompile one of the SPs but that is only a temporary fix.
Anyone had a similar thing?
Can anyone give me help on performance tuning in SQL server 2000.
Thanks
Hi,
You know how there are lots of hosted applications out there, many of them provide you with your own database (not shared).
1. If a server has 1K databases on it, will this slow down the server just due to the # of databases? (each user has their own database, but they won't be accessing it that much really).
A seperate database is required for security purposes usually.
2. Can you still open up EM with 1K+ databases?
Hi
I'm using SQL Server 2000 with Small Business System 2003. I have a smallish database and an Access 2003 Front End, with ODBC links. The system has been running fine for about 2 months with 16 users. This weekend, I will be adding a further 30 users to the system.
I've been doing some work on a new copy of the front end over the past day or two, and found that occassionaly, the system runs really slowly, taking a couple of minutes to open my front screen which normally takes a few seconds.
The only solution I have found is to stop and start SQL Server Manager on the server, and then everything is fine. However this is clearly not an acceptable solution, because I'm doing it about twice a day.
can anybody suggest why this might be, or how I might fix the problem?
I have a maintenance plan in place, which runs overnight,
Thanks for any help,
Colin