How to spread traffic on a table
-
Sorry I could not give more info but I have only played around with publish replication (no actual usage). We do log shipping which also could work but I think the publish would be better for you.
Don't worry about it, I don't mind doing the research. That nudge in the right direction was really all I needed.
My advice is free, and you may get what you paid for.
-
Thanks a lot for these tips. We are in fact using an ERP product, so I am indeed not allowed to touch the db really. I am going to look into replication for now, but in a couple of years we are up for a new server (hardware), and I will start looking into spreading file groups over several disks then.
My advice is free, and you may get what you paid for.
Excellent idea to spread the load into filegroups across separtate physical disks. (Notice I say physical disks, if the disks are part of an array and you move filegroups from E: to F: and they are part of the same array, then nothing is really done.) Also, check into SQL Profiler, use this while investigating what your report queries are actually doing. You might be suprised that a report query is not using an index. Sounds like you've gotten a whole pile of advice and you are moving along. Report back what you've found. We all may find it valuable. Good luck.
-
No problem. Before going to replication which requires a bit more administration I would suggest to have a look at the standby databases in SQL Server. I'm suggesting this since from administrative point of view you won't have issues if the structure of the db is changed etc. Of course if you want to modify the data when it's transferred from primary to secondary database then replication is a better option.
The need to optimize rises from a bad design.My articles[^]
An interesting suggestion. As I understand what I just quickly looked up on standby servers, the principal goal is fail over. However, using such a "backup" database for my purposes would obviously be perfect, as I will only need to read from it. As I also understand it though, the basic idea is (*and which would mean for us*): 1. make a backup (10 - 15 min) 2. copy the backup elsewhere (we wouldn't need to do this) 3. restore the backup to another database (15 - 20 min) That would be approximately 25 - 35 min per operation. How much or little does the operation affect the server performance during that time? Also, does it make sense to do this on one and the same physical server ?
My advice is free, and you may get what you paid for.
-
Excellent idea to spread the load into filegroups across separtate physical disks. (Notice I say physical disks, if the disks are part of an array and you move filegroups from E: to F: and they are part of the same array, then nothing is really done.) Also, check into SQL Profiler, use this while investigating what your report queries are actually doing. You might be suprised that a report query is not using an index. Sounds like you've gotten a whole pile of advice and you are moving along. Report back what you've found. We all may find it valuable. Good luck.
You actually just mentioned a problem that we are dealing with as well. We use a RAID 5 (I think ?) disk system. The one that spreads the data out over all physical disks, so any one disk failing is not a show stopper. This means that I can't dedicate a single drive just to my database to increase read/write performance. A mistake I will not make with the next server.
My advice is free, and you may get what you paid for.
-
An interesting suggestion. As I understand what I just quickly looked up on standby servers, the principal goal is fail over. However, using such a "backup" database for my purposes would obviously be perfect, as I will only need to read from it. As I also understand it though, the basic idea is (*and which would mean for us*): 1. make a backup (10 - 15 min) 2. copy the backup elsewhere (we wouldn't need to do this) 3. restore the backup to another database (15 - 20 min) That would be approximately 25 - 35 min per operation. How much or little does the operation affect the server performance during that time? Also, does it make sense to do this on one and the same physical server ?
My advice is free, and you may get what you paid for.
Exactly, few comments:
Johan Hakkesteegt wrote:
1. make a backup (10 - 15 min)
Log backup
Johan Hakkesteegt wrote:
2. copy the backup elsewhere (we wouldn't need to do this)
This can be automated
Johan Hakkesteegt wrote:
3. restore the backup to another database (15 - 20 min)
As well as this
Johan Hakkesteegt wrote:
That would be approximately 25 - 35 min per operation
Don't know about that, depends on the system. Typically log backup is very fast. Of course the files must be transferred and reapplied (preferrably by SQL Server) so it takes some time, but not much.
Johan Hakkesteegt wrote:
How much or little does the operation affect the server performance during that time
It's a backup so yes it affects performance (a bit, again depending on the system).
Johan Hakkesteegt wrote:
Also, does it make sense to do this on one and the same physical server ?
Well, if you're going to setup a standby, why not create it on a separate server while your at it. Now you gain both new place for ad-hoc queries along with safer environment. Another point why I wouldn't put it on the same server is that you want to have all your resources (CPU, memory, disks) to the OLTP database. If you install the standby to the same physical server the instances will have to share these resources so there's not so much benefit as if they are separated.
The need to optimize rises from a bad design.My articles[^]
-
An interesting suggestion. As I understand what I just quickly looked up on standby servers, the principal goal is fail over. However, using such a "backup" database for my purposes would obviously be perfect, as I will only need to read from it. As I also understand it though, the basic idea is (*and which would mean for us*): 1. make a backup (10 - 15 min) 2. copy the backup elsewhere (we wouldn't need to do this) 3. restore the backup to another database (15 - 20 min) That would be approximately 25 - 35 min per operation. How much or little does the operation affect the server performance during that time? Also, does it make sense to do this on one and the same physical server ?
My advice is free, and you may get what you paid for.
As stated we use log shipping for fail over. This requires a second server where-as replication can be done on the same instance (different database). Since this is an ERP it should not change often thus the replication should not need changed often. The backup (transaction log) copy and restore does not interfere with the production system workings. We have a database being backed up every fifteen minutes and one backed up every eight hours, and several between. It depends on the amount of change to the database. I assume that yours is a typical order entry/production database that would need log shipped more often, say every ten minutes.
-
I use both normal joins and inline views, but I didn't know that using aggregation with straightforward joins performs different from inline views. Also I have never seen this WITH structure you used in your example. Thanks very much for that. I am going to check a lot of our apps and queries now, to see if I can streamline them this way.
My advice is free, and you may get what you paid for.
The problem is that a CTE may create a temporary table (which you will then see as a Worktable in the plan), but it is not guaranteed to do that, the optimizer can still choose to do it the wrong way. And Sqlserver doesn't as far as i know have a materialize hint like in Oracle.
-
Exactly, few comments:
Johan Hakkesteegt wrote:
1. make a backup (10 - 15 min)
Log backup
Johan Hakkesteegt wrote:
2. copy the backup elsewhere (we wouldn't need to do this)
This can be automated
Johan Hakkesteegt wrote:
3. restore the backup to another database (15 - 20 min)
As well as this
Johan Hakkesteegt wrote:
That would be approximately 25 - 35 min per operation
Don't know about that, depends on the system. Typically log backup is very fast. Of course the files must be transferred and reapplied (preferrably by SQL Server) so it takes some time, but not much.
Johan Hakkesteegt wrote:
How much or little does the operation affect the server performance during that time
It's a backup so yes it affects performance (a bit, again depending on the system).
Johan Hakkesteegt wrote:
Also, does it make sense to do this on one and the same physical server ?
Well, if you're going to setup a standby, why not create it on a separate server while your at it. Now you gain both new place for ad-hoc queries along with safer environment. Another point why I wouldn't put it on the same server is that you want to have all your resources (CPU, memory, disks) to the OLTP database. If you install the standby to the same physical server the instances will have to share these resources so there's not so much benefit as if they are separated.
The need to optimize rises from a bad design.My articles[^]
Ok thanks a lot, I am going to look into this.
My advice is free, and you may get what you paid for.
-
Ok thanks a lot, I am going to look into this.
My advice is free, and you may get what you paid for.
-
I am not sure if I am phrasing the question right, which is probably also why I haven't been able to find an answer anywhere. The situation is as follows: I have an ERP system using an MS SQL 2005 database. There are several tables in the database that contain document data (i.e. orders, deliveries, invoices, etc). These tables get a lot of read and write action under normal use of the ERP system. There are several heavy ad hoc queries saved in the system, and also some user applications and timed console apps that run heavy queries (sales reports, purchase forecasts, and such). The result is that in daily use such a strain is placed on the document tables that we get constant timeouts, and/or applications (and the ERP system itself) grinding to a halt when too many users / applications are using the system at the same time. The question is: Considering that I can hardly or not at all touch database settings, and I certainly can not fool around with the table structures themselves, I am thinking of making our applications and ad hoc queries not perform read operations directly on the tables in question. Also most of the data should be up to date to within say an hour. What are my options ? Would using views or a synchronized db help ? Any other solution ? Cheers, Johan
My advice is free, and you may get what you paid for.