Tuesday, April 16, 2013

[MS SQL Server] [Bulk Insert] Performance issues

[MS SQL Server] [Bulk Insert] Performance issues

[Bulk Insert] Performance issues

Posted: 16 Apr 2013 04:39 AM PDT

Hello all,I'm facing a serious performance issue on my SQL Server 2008 database.Let me give you my scenario.I have a database with almost 4 TB of data. Only one table has 1,5 TB of space. This table is partitioned and have, including the clustered index, 5 indexes. This table is partitioned by a DATETIME column, with 3 hours of data in each partition.This table is constantly populated via BULK INSERT and that's where the problem is. The number of files to be inserted through BULK INSERT keeps increasing and the database doesn't keep the same pace, it's always delayed.I tried to do several tests: changed the recovery model, increased the BATCHSIZE, adjusted the ORDER clause. No success.My question: is it possible to disable a particular index partition, do the BULK INSERT and, then, REBUILD the specific "broken" partition? I don't want to disable the whole index, because there are data that are constantly accessed and all of those indexes are used. We studied all those indexes and removed some unused ones and optimized the remains.Can anyone shed a light over this?Thanks

Linked server questions

Posted: 16 Apr 2013 04:52 AM PDT

Hello, all - I am trying to understand linked servers and trying to find a couple of answers.We have a server named like server1\server. I'm trying to create a link to this server from another one called (for the example) server2. The link appears to have worked, but when I look at the catalog, there's nothing there but "default" and "system." How do I get all the db catalogs to appear? And is there anything wonky because of the "server1\server" name? I'm pretty sure it needs to have both parts, because I could not get this to work/connect using just "server1."I'm not getting any error messages, I'm just not seeing the db's/catalogs I expect to see. I've tried looking at other linked servers, but of course, they're all on server1/server, so I don't have any good examples of a linked server coming in.Any information would be greatly appreciate - thank you!

Small doubt

Posted: 15 Apr 2013 03:11 PM PDT

Here i have some doubts 1) what is the difference between current execution plan and actual execution plan2) on which parameter based we can find it

Error while I connecting oracle database in SSIS connections issues

Posted: 16 Apr 2013 12:06 AM PDT

TITLE: Connection Manager------------------------------Test connection failed because of an error in initializing provider. ORA-12154: TNS:could not resolve the connect identifier specified------------------------------BUTTONS:OK------------------------------

Commvault Simpana 9 SQL Backups

Posted: 24 Oct 2011 10:01 PM PDT

Hi,We have an ongoing battle with our Infrastructure Architect, where they would like to incorporate all SQL Backups in the same solution as the server and filesystem backups which uses Commvault Simpana 9.Our current SQL backups are backed up by the native SQL backups, and then bak file backups taken by Commvault.In the past we attempted to use Commvault 7 with both SQL and Oracle, however this was a nightmare experience where servers ground to a halt, and restores would fail. I am being reassured that the newest versions is a lot better and we would not experience the same issues.I along with the Oracle DBA's are very skeptical by this statement due to past issues, and in our experience have found no 3rd party app that better backsup SQL/Oracle than the inbuilt tools.Has anyone had expereince of using Commvault Simpana 9, and can offer any feedback on experiences?Thanks

Transactional Replication

Posted: 15 Apr 2013 06:47 PM PDT

What are the permission required to configure Transactional Replication? :-P

BackupExec SQL Agent or SQL Server Native backups????

Posted: 06 Jan 2013 11:27 PM PST

I'm looking after a whole bunch of SQL Servers, both 2005 and 2008, some full and some simple recovery databases with the largest database at 126Gb and some others over 30Gb. Current backup strategy which I've set up is nightly full backups (using sql agent and native SQL Server backups) to disk with transaction log backups at intervals during the day (frequency depends on the application). After each full or log backup the backup file is copied to a fileshare on another physical server and both the SQL server and the backup fileshare are copied to tape nightly using BackupExec but only copying the backup files not letting it do its own agent backup. There is a proposal afoot to have BackupExec do all the backups with its agent (which they've already bought) straight to tape and not do any SQL Server native backups. This is to reduce the disk space used. I'm not at all keen on this but am trying to find up-to-date arguments to justify my position. I've read the previous discussion on this forum but that was nearly four years ago and things change so what does the forum think?One downer I've read is that BackupExec would not support restoring to drive letters that were different from the original backup location - as I regularly restore live to test or to copy databases elsewhere this is important to us. Is it still true with current versions?Also if a database is added to the SQL Server does BackupExec automatically pick it up and back it up or does it have to be added to the job by someone? Since I use Ola Hallengren's backup routine in many cases, the native backup routine picks up most new databases:-)I'm very happy with the status quo but need to argue to keep it. Please could you help me collect the justification?

Shrinking Database or File not Reclaiming unused space

Posted: 15 Apr 2013 12:54 PM PDT

Hello,First time poster, long time lurker. I thought this was an interesting enough question to ask.Pretty often we bring our clients databases (we sell software which backs onto an SQL server database) back in house to cut into test environments. Something we do to these databases is drop all the BLOB data so we're not dealing with several hundred GB of essentially useless data. We just don't need it for testing and dev work. I've carried out the following steps and have tried to shrink the data file and database without getting any space reclaimed. I'm wondering why this is happening and would like to figure out a way to reclaim the space without having to backup and restore the database. Any advice or thoughts would be welcome, this strikes me as a bit of an oddity and I'm sure there's a good reason for the behavior buried under the hood somewhere.-Switched to simple recovery mode (to avoid log bloat, maybe pointless when dropping the column?)-Dropped stats on blob columns-Dropped Blob Columns-Rebuilt indexes on the tables containing the blobs-Recreated the blob columns-Switched back to full recovery mode-Attempted file shrink on data file (no change in size)-Attempted database shrink (no change in size)

New features in sql server

Posted: 15 Apr 2013 03:34 PM PDT

What are the new features available in sql server 2008 and 2012

How to check performance issue

Posted: 15 Apr 2013 03:17 PM PDT

query execution is taking long time here how to solve thisfor this type of performance issueswhat is the necessary steps to solve this issue Please provide the step by step process
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Search This Blog