Index Efficency

  • Hi,

    I've a partitioned table by UID, with a clustered index on UID. A third party tool shows that the following update takes the longest time to complete and potentially blocks other processes. I've 2 questions:

    1.Since the table is partitioned and we use snapshot isolation, should there be any blocking if multiple calls are made to update table1 on different partitions?

    2.I’ve created a composite index on file_id and UID but did not specify any include columns. The columns participating in the update, are fairly large, first_name, last_name, address1, etc. are varchar(4000). Would I get any peroformance improvmens by adding include to the index for is_numeric, is_even, is_general? Since not all the columns are going to be in the INCLUDE, then the table would still need to be accessed.

    UPDATE li

    SET first_name =

    CASE

    WHEN ls.has_first_name = 1 THEN ls.first_name

    ELSE li.first_name

    END,

    last_name =

    CASE

    WHEN ls.has_last_name = 1 THEN ls.last_name

    ELSE li.last_name

    END,

    address_1 =

    CASE

    WHEN ls.has_address_1 = 1 THEN ls.address_1

    ELSE li.address_1

    END,

    address_2 =

    CASE

    WHEN ls.address_2 is not null THEN ls.address_2

    ELSE li.address_2

    END,

    city =

    CASE

    WHEN ls.has_city = 1 THEN ls.city

    ELSE li.city

    END,

    state =

    CASE

    WHEN ls.has_state = 1 THEN ls.state

    ELSE li.state

    END,

    zip_code =

    CASE

    WHEN ls.has_zip_code = 1 THEN ls.zip_code

    ELSE li.zip_code

    END,

    country =

    CASE

    WHEN ls.has_country = 1 THEN ls.country

    ELSE li.country

    END,

    is_numeric = ls.is_numeric,

    is_even = ls.is_even,

    is_general = ls.is_general

    FROM @temp_tbl ls

    INNER JOIN table1 li

    ON ls.file_id = li.file_id

    WHERE li.uid = @uid

    Thanks

  • Assuming updates to different partitions, no you shouldn't see blocking while those updates are occurring. You can still block within a partition though.

    As to your second question, no, 1/2 a covering index is a non-covering index. It's like being pregnant. It's either a covering index or it's not.

    "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
    - Theodore Roosevelt

    Author of:
    SQL Server Execution Plans
    SQL Server Query Performance Tuning

  • Grant Fritchey (9/28/2011)


    Assuming updates to different partitions, no you shouldn't see blocking while those updates are occurring. You can still block within a partition though.

    Though if both cause lock escalation, they'll block each other. By default, lock escalation is to table.

    Gail Shaw
    Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
    SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

    We walk in the dark places no others will enter
    We stand on the bridge and no one may pass
  • GilaMonster, what generally causes lock escalation?

  • aibogomolov (9/30/2011)


    GilaMonster, what generally causes lock escalation?

    5000+ rows.

    See this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms184286.aspx


    - Craig Farrell

    Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.

    For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
    For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]

    Twitter: @AnyWayDBA

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply