Query Store Improvements I’d Like To See For SQL Server: Recent Actual Plans

Spirited Away


This week’s posts are a series of short, and, admittedly lazy ones about improvements I’d like to see in Query Store.

I’m away from home for the Holiday Week, and I don’t have a lot of time to write at the moment. Normally I’d put these all into one post. I do hope you, dear reader, will forgive me. In the spirit of the holidays, or something.

Problem One


Query Store plans are equivalent to cached plans, which are equivalent to estimated plans. You get what SQL Server thought was gonna happen.

Sometimes, that can have very little in common with reality.

Other times, it can be misleading because of parameter sniffing.

Right now, SQL Server has a plan cache view in SQL Server 2019+ that holds the last actual plan. It would be really cool if Query Store tracked a configurable number of recent actual plans.

That’d really help folks out where the performance problem isn’t easy to deduce or reproduce from what they’ve got available.

Actual plans are incredibly valuable these days, with operator times included, and a whole bunch of other stuff that isn’t surfaced in estimated plans, like spills.

In real life, I see all sorts of weird things popping up as the bottleneck in query plans:

  • TOP above a SCAN
  • Repartition Streams
  • Compute Scalar

You only see the pain when operator times are involved, and Query Store needs to start collecting those to make query tuning easier.

Thanks for reading!

Going Further


If this is the kind of SQL Server stuff you love learning about, you’ll love my training. I’m offering a 75% discount to my blog readers if you click from here. I’m also available for consulting if you just don’t have time for that and need to solve performance problems quickly.

Things SQL Server vNext Should Address: Add Lock Pages In Memory To Setup Options

Consideration


This setting doesn’t get enough credit for all the good it does. Part of me thinks it should be the default for new SQL Server installs, if the amount of memory in the server is over a certain number, and max server memory is set to match.

You may not want it turned on only based on physical memory, because there are lunatics out there who stack SQL Server installs, and who install all sorts of other dimwitted things on there, too.

But since max server memory is a suggestion during setup, and perform volume maintenance tasks is included, this should be as well.

Again, it’s one less post-install step for automation-minded folks out there.

Burden


SQL Servers with large amounts of memory can especially benefit from this setting, because it allows them to access memory via a different API. The easy way to think of it is that SQL Server will get direct access to physical memory, instead of virtual memory.

Allocates physical memory pages to be mapped and unmapped within any Address Windowing Extensions (AWE) region of a specified process.

The AllocateUserPhysicalPages function is used to allocate physical memory that can later be mapped within the virtual address space of the process. The SeLockMemoryPrivilege privilege must be enabled in the caller’s token or the function will fail with ERROR_PRIVILEGE_NOT_HELD.

I generally advise people with good chunks of memory to enable this setting. There are very few good reasons not to on big boxes, and that’s why it should be called out in the installation process. Enabling it later means rebooting, and that sucks.

Thanks for reading!

Going Further


If this is the kind of SQL Server stuff you love learning about, you’ll love my training. I’m offering a 75% discount to my blog readers if you click from here. I’m also available for consulting if you just don’t have time for that and need to solve performance problems quickly.

Happy Thanksgiving From Darling Data

Why Are You Here?


In the fine tradition of a turkey being pardoned from becoming the centerpiece of a meal, I’m pardoning you from having to read a blog post about SQL Server.

Wherever you are, whoever you are, have a grand day!

Thanks for reading!

Things SQL Server vNext Should Address: Add Cost Threshold For Parallelism To Setup Options

Cracky


Unless you’re running a data warehouse, I can’t think of a good reason to leave this at the default (5) for most any workload.

Look at any SQL Server setup checklist not written by SharePoint admins, and you’ll see people tell you to change this setting to something higher than 5.

What you change it to is not what I’m here to talk about. I’m Team Start With 50, but you can be whatever team you want and we can still be friends.

I mean, unless you’re going to tell me I should look at the plan cache to figure that out, then we are mortal enemies because you are full of shabby ideas. The plan cache is full of lies and bad estimates, and totally unreliable in the long term.

You could probably make better guesses based on Query Store, but Cost Threshold For Parallelism is, unfortunately, not a database-level setting, and they’d still just be guesses. About estimates. So, you know… Cool your jets, hotshot.

But since MAXDOP is not only available, but also offers guidance for a correct setting to the installer, why not this one? It is, after all, an important counterpart.

If anything, it’d be nice to give folks who care about automation one less post-setup step to handle. To me, that’s a glaring omission.

Costy Things


Of course, maybe it’s time to get Cost Threshold For Parallelism some help. Cost is, after all, just a reference metric.

It can be good, it can be bad. High cost plans can run fast, low cost plans can run slow.

With all the intelligent stuff being built into the product, perhaps it’s time for it to consider things in addition to plan cost for whether a query is eligible for parallelism or not.

Imagine this scenario: You set Cost Threshold For Parallelism to 50, and a really important query that costs 20 query bucks comes along and runs slowly and single threaded every single time it executes. It never stands a chance at going parallel, unless you drop Cost Threshold For Parallelism way low for the whole server.

Your only option other than lowering Cost Threshold For Parallelism is using an unsupported trace flag (8649), or an unsupported USE hint (ENABLE_PARALLEL_PLAN_PREFERENCE).

It sure would be nice if there were a supported override that you could set, say a maximum CPU threshold for a serial plan. I don’t think you could change this in flight, but you could potentially have it act like memory grant feedback, and adjust between executions.

Thanks for reading!

Going Further


If this is the kind of SQL Server stuff you love learning about, you’ll love my training. I’m offering a 75% discount to my blog readers if you click from here. I’m also available for consulting if you just don’t have time for that and need to solve performance problems quickly.

Creating SQL Server Indexes: Stored Options vs. Creation Options

No Lies


When you create an index, there are a lot of options. Recently while working with nice people who pay me, I’ve gotten the same question a few times.

I like to hand off index change scripts to people to help them drop unused indexes, merge duplicative indexes, and add in helpful missing indexes. When I do, I always specify some options along with them to help the create process along, like MAXDOP, ONLINE, and SORT_IN_TEMPDB.

The thing is, those settings aren’t ones that kick in automatically next time you rebuild the index or something; you have to specify them each time.

Here are index creation options:

  • SORT_IN_TEMPDB
  • DROP_EXISTING
  • ONLINE
  • RESUMABLE
  • MAX_DURATION
  • MAXDOP

Here are stored index options:

  • PAD_INDEX
  • FILLFACTOR
  • IGNORE_DUP_KEY
  • STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE
  • STATISTICS_INCREMENTAL
  • ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS
  • ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS
  • OPTIMIZE_FOR_SEQUENTIAL_KEY
  • DATA_COMPRESSION

Roll Out


Where you use these options is situational.

For example, only Enterprise Edition can create indexes online, or using a parallel plan. You can sort in tempdb for any of them, though. I might use different DOPs depending on the size of the server, and of course if I’m creating a column store index (for those, DOP 1 is sometimes a good idea).

For the stored options, I leave most of them alone. I always start Fill Factor off at 100, and with page compression turned on. Those are both things you can adjust or remove later if they turn out to not be ideal, but I love testing them out.

Data compression is especially useful on Standard Edition servers with a limited buffer pool (128GB) and large data sets, but can be just as useful on Enterprise Edition when that antichrist VM admin refuses to part with a single more GB of memory.

And hey, maybe in the future as more workloads move to 2019+, I’ll get to spend more time optimizing for sequential keys.

Maybe.

Thanks for reading!

Going Further


If this is the kind of SQL Server stuff you love learning about, you’ll love my training. I’m offering a 75% discount to my blog readers if you click from here. I’m also available for consulting if you just don’t have time for that and need to solve performance problems quickly.

How #Temporary Tables Can Cause Plan Cache Pollution In SQL Server

I Love #Temp Tables


I solve a lot of problems with #temp tables, indeed I do. And I hate people who are reflexively anti-#temp table.

If you’re into jokes (I’m definitely not into jokes; SQL is serious business), you could even call them #foolish.

Get it?

Ahem 🎤👈

However (!) I learned a lesson recently about how using them in certain ways can cause weird plan cache pollution. When you’re hitting the issue, the optional_spid column in dm_exec_plan_attributes  will be populated with a non-zero value. You can use this query to quickly check for that happening on your system:

SELECT 
    pa.attribute, 
    pa.value, 
    decp.refcounts,
    decp.usecounts,
    decp.size_in_bytes,
    decp.memory_object_address,
    decp.cacheobjtype,
    decp.objtype,
    decp.plan_handle
FROM sys.dm_exec_cached_plans AS decp
CROSS APPLY sys.dm_exec_plan_attributes (decp.plan_handle)  AS pa
WHERE pa.attribute = N'optional_spid'
AND   pa.value > 0;

Let’s talk about those!

Creating Across Stored Procedure Executions


Check out this piece of code:

CREATE OR ALTER PROCEDURE
    dbo.no_spid
AS
BEGIN
    SET NOCOUNT ON;

    CREATE TABLE #t (id int);
    INSERT #t (id) VALUES (1);

    EXEC dbo.a_spid; --Hi

END;
GO 


CREATE OR ALTER PROCEDURE
    dbo.a_spid
AS
BEGIN
    SET NOCOUNT ON;

    CREATE TABLE #t (id int);
    INSERT #t (id) VALUES (2);

END;
GO

In the first proc, we create a #temp table, and insert a row, then execute another proc, where we create a #temp table with the same name and definition and insert a row.

Using the above query, we’ll see this:

polluted

And if we run sp_BlitzCache, we’ll indeed see multiple plans for a_spid, though no_spid seems to get plans associated with it because the plans are hashed to the same value. Heh. That plan cache… 🙄

diamonds are forever

Referencing Across Stored Procedure Executions


Check out this code:

CREATE OR ALTER PROCEDURE
    dbo.internal
(
    @c bigint
)
AS
BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON;

    CREATE TABLE #t(id int);
    INSERT #t (id) VALUES (1);

    SELECT 
        @c = COUNT_BIG(*)
    FROM #t AS t
    WHERE 1 = (SELECT 1);

    EXEC dbo.not_internal 0; --Hi

END;
GO 

CREATE OR ALTER PROCEDURE
    dbo.not_internal
(
    @c bigint
)
AS
BEGIN

    INSERT #t (id) VALUES (2);

    SELECT 
        @c = COUNT_BIG(*)
    FROM #t AS t
    WHERE 1 = (SELECT 1);

END;
GO

We’re creating a #temp table in one stored procedure, and then executing another stored procedure that references the same #temp table this time.

Just like above, if we execute the procs across a couple different SSMS tabs, we’ll see this:

scope

And from the plan cache:

heearghh

Same thing as last time. Multiple plans for not_internal. In both cases, the outer stored procedure has an optional_spid of 0, but the inner procedure has the spid that executed it attached.

Dynamic SQL


My fellow blogger Joe Obbish came up with this one, which is really interesting. It’s necessary to point out that this is Joe’s code, so no one asks me why the formatting is so ugly 😃

CREATE OR ALTER PROCEDURE no_optional_spid AS
BEGIN
    CREATE TABLE #obj_count (
    [DB_NAME] SYSNAME NOT NULL,
    OBJECT_COUNT BIGINT NOT NULL
    );

    DECLARE @db_name SYSNAME = 'Crap';

    DECLARE @sql NVARCHAR(4000) = N'SELECT @db_name, COUNT_BIG(*)
    FROM ' + QUOTENAME(@db_name) + '.sys.objects';

    INSERT INTO #obj_count
    EXEC sp_executesql @sql, N'@db_name SYSNAME', @db_name = @db_name;
END;
GO 

CREATE OR ALTER PROCEDURE has_optional_spid AS
BEGIN
    CREATE TABLE #obj_count (
    [DB_NAME] SYSNAME NOT NULL,
    OBJECT_COUNT BIGINT NOT NULL
    );

    DECLARE @db_name SYSNAME = 'Crap';

    DECLARE @sql NVARCHAR(4000) = N'INSERT INTO #obj_count
    SELECT @db_name, COUNT_BIG(*)
    FROM ' + QUOTENAME(@db_name) + '.sys.objects';

    EXEC sp_executesql @sql, N'@db_name SYSNAME', @db_name = @db_name;

END;
GO 

In this case, we have two procs that create a #temp table with the same definition, and insert into them with dynamic SQL. I have a feeling that this would also occur under other circumstances where you use the INSERT…EXEC paradigm, e.g. a stored procedure.

Same deal here, if we look at the same things, except that it’s more helpful to look at the execution_count column in sp_BlitzCache.

BOBBY

And…

SUZIE

Everything has 200 executions, except the internal parameter table scan that does the #temp table insert:

fodder

5k Finisher


This post explores a few scenarios where the *optional_spid* cache pollution does happen. There are likely more, and I’m happy to add scenarios if any readers out there have them.

There are plenty of scenarios where this scenario doesn’t happen, too. I don’t want you to think it’s universal. Using #temp tables with the same name but different definitions, or without the cross-referencing, etc. won’t cause this issue to happen.

I tried a bunch of stuff that I thought would cause the problem, but didn’t.

So yeah. Love your #temp tables, too.

Thanks for reading!

Going Further


If this is the kind of SQL Server stuff you love learning about, you’ll love my training. I’m offering a 75% discount to my blog readers if you click from here. I’m also available for consulting if you just don’t have time for that and need to solve performance problems quickly.

EAV Can Be Great In SQL Server, But It Depends On How You Query It

Valued


EAV styled tables can be excellent for certain data design patterns, particularly ones with a variable number of entries.

Some examples of when I recommend it are when users are allowed to specify multiple things, like:

  • Phone numbers
  • Physical or email addresses
  • Contact names

This is a lot better than adding N number of columns to a table, especially when either most people won’t use them, or it adds artificial restrictions.

For example, if you have a large table that was designed 10 years ago, you’re not gonna rush to add a 3rd phone number field to it for a single customer. Changing tables like that can be painful, depending on version and edition of SQL Server.

Careful


Where you need to be careful is how you design them. One particularly rough spot to end up in is with a table like this:

CREATE TABLE 
    dbo.eav
(
    entity int,
    attribute int,
    int_value int,
    date_value date,
    short_string_value nvarchar(100),
    long_string_value nvarchar(max)
);

While it does make data type consistency easier, I have to wonder about the wisdom of making the values “good” for searching. Certainly, indexing this table would be aggravating if you were going to go that route.

A design that I generally like better looks like this:

CREATE TABLE 
    dbo.eav
(
    entity int,
    attribute int,
    value sql_variant
);

While the sql_variant type is certainly not good for much, this is a proper time for it, particularly because this data should only be written to once, and only read from after. That means no searching the sql_variant column, and only allowing lookups via the entity and attribute.

Thanks for reading!

Going Further


If this is the kind of SQL Server stuff you love learning about, you’ll love my training. I’m offering a 75% discount to my blog readers if you click from here. I’m also available for consulting if you just don’t have time for that and need to solve performance problems quickly.

Signs You Need More Memory In Your SQL Server

Guessotron


Most of these signs have to do with wait stats. One could venture out and say that if you have way less memory than data, you need more memory, but… If the server is sitting around bored, who cares?

If we’re going to spend money on memory, let’s make sure it’ll get used. When I’m talking to people with performance problems that memory would solve, here are some of the top reasons.

You’re In The Cloud Where Storage Sucks

Okay, okay, storage can totally suck other places, too. I’ve seen some JBOD setups that would make you cry, and some of them weren’t in the cloud. Where you need to differentiate a little bit here is that memory isn’t going to help slow writes directly. If you add a bunch more memory and free up some network bandwidth for writes by focusing the reads more from the buffer pool, it might.

Look, just avoid disk as much as possible and you’ll be happy.

You’re Using Column Store And/Or Batch Mode

Good column store compression can often rely on adequate memory, but you also need to account for the much larger memory grants that batch mode queries ask for. As more and more workloads move towards SQL Server 2019 and beyond, query memory needs are going to go up because Batch Mode On Row Store will become more common.

You’re Waiting On RESOURCE_SEMAPHORE A Lot

This wait shows up when a bunch of queries are contending for memory grants, but SQL Server has given out all it can. If you run into these a lot, it’s a pretty good sign you need more memory. Especially if you’ve already tuned queries and indexes a bunch, or you’re dealing with a vendor app where they refuse to fix anything.

Other things that might help? The MAX_GRANT_PERCENT hint or Resource Governor

You’re Waiting On RESOURCE_SEMAPHORE_QUERY_COMPILE A Lot

This is another “queue” wait, but it’s for query compilation rather than query execution. Having more memory can certainly help this quite a bit, but so can simplifying queries so that the amount of memory SQL Server has to throw at compiling them chills out a little. You can start by reconsidering those views nested 10 levels deep and the schema design that leads you to needing a 23 table join to construct one row.

You’re Waiting On PAGEIOLATCH_SH Or PAGEIOLATCH_EX A Lot

These waits show up when data pages your query needs aren’t already there. The more you see these, the more latency you’re adding to your workload by constantly shuffling out to disk to get them. Of course, there’s other stuff you can do, like clean up unused and overlapping indexes, compress your indexes, etc. But not everyone is comfortable with or able to do that.

Thanks for reading!

Going Further


If this is the kind of SQL Server stuff you love learning about, you’ll love my training. I’m offering a 75% discount to my blog readers if you click from here. I’m also available for consulting if you just don’t have time for that and need to solve performance problems quickly.

Signs You Need SQL Server Enterprise Edition

But Postgres Is So Much Cheaper


There’s a lot of cool stuff in Enterprise Edition of SQL Server, which is probably why it costs $7000 a core.

When’s the last the price went up, though? Hm?

Real Availability Groups

HA isn’t my thing, but a lot of people seem to be into it. I still prefer Failover Clusters most of the time, but for folks with a deeper interest in self-flagellation, Availability Groups are there for you. In Standard Edition, you don’t get the full fledged technology though. There are a lot of limitations, and most of the time those limitations are so stifling that people bail on them pretty early.

Full Batch Mode

SQL Server Standard Edition hobbles batch mode pretty badly. DOP is limited to two, and there’s no SIMD support. It’s totally possible to have batch mode queries running slower than row mode queries, because the row mode queries can use much higher DOPs and spread the row workload out.

I’d almost rather use indexed views in Standard Edition for large aggregations, because there are no Edition-locked enhancements. You’ll probably wanna use the NOEXPAND hint either way.

All The RAM

Memory is just about the most important consideration for SQL Server hardware. It can truly make or break a workload. Sure, CPU can too, but without sufficient memory it’s unlikely that you’ll be able to push CPUs hard enough to find out.

With Enterprise Edition, you can pack a server with as much memory as you can download. I spend a lot of time trying to explain this to people, and when they finally listen, they’re amazed at the difference.

Resource Governor

I don’t like this for much, but I absolutely adore it for capping memory grants lower. Kind of building on the same points as above, memory is shared between the buffer pool and query memory grants. By default, any query can come along and ask for 25% of max server memory, and SQL Server is willing to let up to three queries doing that run concurrently.

That means ~75% of your buffer pool or so can get eaten alive by query memory grants. And lemme tell you, the optimizer can be really bad at guessing memory grant needs. Really bad.

Online Indexing

If you’re at the point where you need to think hard about some of the stuff I’ve already talked about, you’re probably at the point where your data is reasonably big. Creating new indexes can be tough if you need to do it on Standard Edition because a lot of stuff can end up blocked while it’s happening. That means index changes have to wait for maintenance windows, which makes it harder to solve big problems on the spot.

Thanks for reading!

Going Further


If this is the kind of SQL Server stuff you love learning about, you’ll love my training. I’m offering a 75% discount to my blog readers if you click from here. I’m also available for consulting if you just don’t have time for that and need to solve performance problems quickly.

Signs You Need Batch Mode To Make Your SQL Server Queries Faster

My Name Is


I speak with a lot of DBAs and developers who have either heard nothing about column store and batch mode, or they’ve only heard the bare minimum and aren’t sure where it can help them.

Here’s a short list of reasons I usually talk through with people.

Your Reporting Queries Hit Big Tables

The bigger your tables get, the more likely you are to benefit, especially if the queries are unpredictable in nature. If you let people write their own, or design their own reports, nonclustered column store can be a good replacement for nonclustered row store indexes that were created specifically for reporting queries.

In row store indexes, index key column order matters quite a bit. That’s not so much the case with column store. That makes them an ideal data source for queries, since they can scan and select from column independently.

Your Predicates Aren’t Always Very Selective

Picture the opposite of OLTP. Picture queries that collect large quantities of data and (usually) aggregate it down. Those are the ones that get along well with column store indexes and batch mode.

If most of your queries grab and pass around a couple thousand rows, you’re not likely to see a lot of benefit, here. You wanna target the ones with the big arrows in query plans.

Your Main Waits Are I/O And CPU

If you have a bunch of waits on blocking or something, this isn’t going to be your solve.

When your main waits are CPU, it could indicate that queries are overall CPU-bound. Batch mode is useful here, because for those “big” queries, you’re passing millions of rows around and making SQL Server send each one to CPU registers. Under batch mode, you can send up to 900 at a time. Just not in Standard Edition.

When your main waits are on I/O — reading pages from disk specifically — column store can be useful because of the compression they offer. It’s easy to visualize reading more compact structures being faster, especially when you throw in segment and column elimination.

Your Query Plans Have Some Bad Choices In Them

SQL Server 2019 (Enterprise Edition) introduced Batch Mode On Row Store, which let the optimizer heuristically select queries for Batch Mode execution. With that, you get some cool unlocks that you used to have to trick the optimizer into before 2019, like adaptive joins, memory grant feedback, etc.

While those things don’t solve every single performance issue, they can certainly help by letting SQL Server be a little more flexible with plan choices and attributes.

The Optimizer Keeps Choosing Cockamamie Parallel Sort Merge Plans That Make No Sense And Force You To Use Hash Join Hints All The Time

🤦‍♂️

Thanks for reading!

Going Further


If this is the kind of SQL Server stuff you love learning about, you’ll love my training. I’m offering a 75% discount to my blog readers if you click from here. I’m also available for consulting if you just don’t have time for that and need to solve performance problems quickly.