 




<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition SP3 Performance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/sql-server-performance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/sql-server-performance/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 03:14:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: hlx</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/sql-server-performance/#comment-87306</link>
		<dc:creator>hlx</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:48:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-87306</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes - the activity monitor will work against 2005 serversDBs.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes &#8211; the activity monitor will work against 2005 serversDBs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rickmartinez</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/sql-server-performance/#comment-87237</link>
		<dc:creator>rickmartinez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 21:01:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-87237</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is a SQL SERVER 2005 database would the activity monitor work on that database?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a SQL SERVER 2005 database would the activity monitor work on that database?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ssnewbie</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/sql-server-performance/#comment-87184</link>
		<dc:creator>ssnewbie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:54:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-87184</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you haven&#039;t already done so, install the SQL Server 2008 R2 Management Studio (free in the Express edition) and use the new-in-SS2008 Activity Monitor to detect the most intensive queries.  It&#039;s easier than Profiler and if you don&#039;t have any other tools to help this will get you considerable help in seeing what&#039;s going on real-time and it&#039;s filterable and columns can be sorted.  I use it frequently - hope you find it a help.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you haven&#8217;t already done so, install the SQL Server 2008 R2 Management Studio (free in the Express edition) and use the new-in-SS2008 Activity Monitor to detect the most intensive queries.  It&#8217;s easier than Profiler and if you don&#8217;t have any other tools to help this will get you considerable help in seeing what&#8217;s going on real-time and it&#8217;s filterable and columns can be sorted.  I use it frequently &#8211; hope you find it a help.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rickmartinez</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/sql-server-performance/#comment-82989</link>
		<dc:creator>rickmartinez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:30:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-82989</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you for the information Kccrosser. Thank you all for your help I think I know where to start now.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for the information Kccrosser. Thank you all for your help I think I know where to start now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kccrosser</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/sql-server-performance/#comment-82981</link>
		<dc:creator>kccrosser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:16:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-82981</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What Mr Denny is saying is that your database probably needs some indexes added.

Imagine a 1 Million row table with no indexes.  Now do a simple &quot;select ... from table where columnx=&#039;value&#039;&quot;.
With no indexes on the where clause column(s), that query will require the database engine to physically read EVERY row of the table every time the query is executed.  That will result in huge disk, memory, and paging overhead.
Now create an index on the column.  Thereafter, each query will have to look at the index (generally a logN function, so maybe 10 reads of index pages) and then only physically access a couple of records from the main table.  Result = disk reads drop by about 10000:1, paging vanishes, and memory is free for other queries.

As Sibir1us notes, you can use common Profiler reports (or other tools) to look at your queries that are being run and see which ones are the most resource-intensive.  Start with the ones with the most disk reads and work down from there.  If you can take a query that is averaging say 100,000 disk reads and cut that down to 1-10 reads, you will find a lot of system performance numbers will get better fast.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What Mr Denny is saying is that your database probably needs some indexes added.</p>
<p>Imagine a 1 Million row table with no indexes.  Now do a simple &#8220;select &#8230; from table where columnx=&#8217;value&#8217;&#8221;.<br />
With no indexes on the where clause column(s), that query will require the database engine to physically read EVERY row of the table every time the query is executed.  That will result in huge disk, memory, and paging overhead.<br />
Now create an index on the column.  Thereafter, each query will have to look at the index (generally a logN function, so maybe 10 reads of index pages) and then only physically access a couple of records from the main table.  Result = disk reads drop by about 10000:1, paging vanishes, and memory is free for other queries.</p>
<p>As Sibir1us notes, you can use common Profiler reports (or other tools) to look at your queries that are being run and see which ones are the most resource-intensive.  Start with the ones with the most disk reads and work down from there.  If you can take a query that is averaging say 100,000 disk reads and cut that down to 1-10 reads, you will find a lot of system performance numbers will get better fast.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rickmartinez</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/sql-server-performance/#comment-82972</link>
		<dc:creator>rickmartinez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:01:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-82972</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We have our database in a SAN that has 16 drives and is a RAID 10 so only 8 drives are used to store data files. All databases are spread out into diferrent drives in the array even log files. Are we doing something wrong here?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We have our database in a SAN that has 16 drives and is a RAID 10 so only 8 drives are used to store data files. All databases are spread out into diferrent drives in the array even log files. Are we doing something wrong here?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sibir1us</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/sql-server-performance/#comment-82959</link>
		<dc:creator>sibir1us</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:20:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-82959</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, Denny is right: the best approach is to start looking into which queries are the most resource intensive and tune them. You can start by looking at Profiler and by sorting the queries by Reads, Writes and so on. Then look into missing indexes, look into your disk configuration as well.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, Denny is right: the best approach is to start looking into which queries are the most resource intensive and tune them. You can start by looking at Profiler and by sorting the queries by Reads, Writes and so on. Then look into missing indexes, look into your disk configuration as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using memcached
Database Caching 3/10 queries in 0.030 seconds using memcached
Object Caching 351/357 objects using memcached

Served from: itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com @ 2013-05-19 13:51:04 -->