SQL Server Forum / General / Other SQL Server Topics / August 2005
Why the performace differs?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
MAG - 30 Aug 2005 07:40 GMT All, I have a problem regarding SQL Server 2000 SP3, I have SP that calls other SP and it inserts about 30,000 records as a time, in the development environment (MS Windows 2003 Enterprise, 256 RAM, 3.0 GHz Intel Processor) takes about 6 seconds to run this SP.
But, with the same Software but, 2.6 GHz Intel and 1 GB Ram, it runs very slow it takes more than 135 Seconds to run,
I have read a lot of articles about expanding the SQL Memory and give it a higher process privilege but, with no use,
I don't know where the problem is, do you have any idea about what is the problem?
Thank you in advance,
MAG
Chandra - 30 Aug 2005 10:30 GMT Please check the other processess that are running on the system. Just execute the task manager and see what is utilizing that memory.
best Regards, Chandra http://www.SQLResource.com/ http://chanduas.blogspot.com/ ---------------------------------------
Mohamed Gad - 30 Aug 2005 10:40 GMT Yes, SQL Server is having the highest piority and consumes about 800MB from the memory (I made this by configure the SQL Server from the Enterprise Manager)
but still very slow.
Greg D. Moore (Strider) - 30 Aug 2005 13:46 GMT > Yes, SQL Server is having the highest piority and consumes about 800MB > from the memory (I made this by configure the SQL Server from the > Enterprise Manager) Does one have logging enabled and the other doesn't?
What about the disk subsystem?
That's most likely the chokepoint.
> but still very slow. > > *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com *** Mohamed Gad - 30 Aug 2005 14:06 GMT >Does one have logging enabled and the other doesn't? How would i know weather the Logging is enabled or not?
>What about the disk subsystem? I don't get it.. do you mean the FAT Type if so? Both are NTFS Partitions
Thank you soo much for your reply, but, I hope i would find a solution.
AK - 30 Aug 2005 14:27 GMT many possibilities. For instance, there could be lock contention with another connection in production
Mohamed Gad - 30 Aug 2005 14:38 GMT No, this database is accessed by only me no one is using it. really, this slow performance is really weared,
I have tested it and when i run the Stored Procedure the sql server process is eating up to 98% from the processor,
and the Stored Procedure inserts something like that INSERT INTO CardStatus (SrlNo, StatusID,StatusDate, PresentStatus,[TimeStamp]) Values (@SRL, 0,GetDate(),0,GetDate())
set @CurrstatID = (select IDENT_CURRENT('CardStatus'))
/*Card Loc*/ Insert into CardLoc (SrlNo, LocID, TransferDate, TransID, [TimeStamp]) Values (@SRL, 0, GetDate(), @TransID,GetDate())
set @CurrlocID = (select IDENT_CURRENT('CardLoc'))
/*Card Main*/ INSERT INTO dbo.CardMain ( SrlNo, CTypeID, [TimeStamp], CardStatusID, CartonNo, BoxNo, PacketNo,LocID ) Values ( @SRL,Cast(Substring(@SRL,1,1) AS bigint), GETDATE(),@CurrstatID, Cast(substring(@Carton,2,3) as varchar), Cast(Substring(@Box,5,2) as varchar), Cast(Substring(@Packet,5,2) as varchar),@CurrlocID )
which in a loop of 10,000 time, if you need more details, I can send them to you,
Thanks
Greg D. Moore (Strider) - 31 Aug 2005 13:04 GMT > >Does one have logging enabled and the other doesn't? > > How would i know weather the Logging is enabled or not? Go into Enterprise manager and check the properties of the DB.
It should be FULL, Bulk Logged or Simple.
> >What about the disk subsystem? > I don't get it.. do you mean the > FAT Type if so? Both are NTFS Partitions No, I mean the layout and type of disks.
RAID vs non-RAID (and type of RAID).
ATA vs SATA vs SCSI etc.
Log files on same physical drive(s) as data files. Location of temp db?
> Thank you soo much for your reply, but, I hope i would find a solution. Well, we're trying to help.
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com *** Mohamed Gad - 31 Aug 2005 14:01 GMT the Recovery Option is set to FULL and the Hard disk subsystem is ATA NTFS (ONE PARTITION) system and non-RAID
and the Log files are on the same Partition.
Erland Sommarskog - 30 Aug 2005 22:45 GMT > I have a problem regarding SQL Server 2000 SP3, > I have SP that calls other SP and it inserts about 30,000 records as a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But, with the same Software but, 2.6 GHz Intel and 1 GB Ram, it runs > very slow it takes more than 135 Seconds to run, Are the tables the same size on both machines?
What does DBCC SHOWCONTIG say for the tables on the two machines? That is, one could have severe fragmentation.
Are indexes the same?
And - most of all - are there any triggers on the tables in either server?
Also, I noted from your other post that you are using IDENT_CURRENT. Note that this function is not safe for concurrent use. (Yeah, I noticed that did not have concurrent access to your database, but nevertheless.)
 Signature Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.asp
Mohamed Gad - 31 Aug 2005 06:19 GMT Dear Erland, the database are the same, I made a backup from the developement one and restored it to the Test one,
so, it should be all the same, I don't know what's going wrong, but, I'll do some Monitoring for some counters and I'll share the results with you, maybe we could reach somewhere.
Hopefully,
Thanks,
|
|
|