Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
DB Engine
SQL ServerMSDESQL Server CE
Services
Analysis (Data Mining)Analysis (OLAP)DTSIntegration ServicesNotification ServicesReporting Services
Programming
CLRConnectivitySQLXML
Other Technologies
ClusteringEnglish QueryFull-Text SearchReplicationService Broker
General
Data WarehousingPerformanceSecuritySetupSQL Server ToolsOther SQL Server Topics
DirectoryUser Groups
Related Topics
MS AccessOther DB ProductsMS Server Products.NET DevelopmentVB DevelopmentJava DevelopmentMore Topics ...

SQL Server Forum / General / Other SQL Server Topics / August 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Why the performace differs?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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,
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.