Category: Query Tuning

Hop On Your Good Foot

Several weeks back, I blogged about a missed opportunity with the new parameter sensitive plan feature. At the time, I thought that there was indeed sufficient skewness available to trigger the additional plan variants, and apparently some nice folks at Microsoft agreed.

If we step back through the old demo, we’ll get different results.

EXEC dbo.VoteSniffing 
    @VoteTypeId = 4;

EXEC dbo.VoteSniffing 
    @VoteTypeId = 2;

I’m not gonna go into a lot of depth here, because I’m writing this while traveling, but we get the (mostly) desired outcome of two different plans being generated. Each plan is more suitable to the amount of data that the query has to process.

I’d consider this a success, even if it adds more queries to the unidentifiable corpse-pile.

Thanks for reading!

Going Further

If this is the kind of SQL Server stuff you love learning about, you’ll love my training. I’m offering a 75% discount on to my blog readers if you click from here. I’m also available for consulting if you just don’t have time for that, and need to solve database performance problems quickly.

–To Fix Parameter Sniffing

There are some code comments you see that really set the stage for how tuning a query is going to go.

Usually one misgiving about how SQL Server works gives way to a whole levee-breaking bevy of other ones and three days later you can’t feel your legs but dammit it’s done.

Okay, maybe it was three hours, but it felt like three days. Something about the gravitation pull of these black hole queries.

One fix I’ve been wishing for, or wish I’ve been fixing for, is a cure for local variables. I’d even be cool if Forced Parameterization was that cure, but you know…

Time will tell.

Husk

Let’s say we’ve got this stored procedure, which does something similar to the “I’m gonna fix parameter sniffing with a local variable hey why is everything around me turning to brimstone before my very eyes?” idea, but with… less of an end-of-times vibe.

CREATE OR ALTER PROCEDURE 
    dbo.IndexTuningMaster
( 
    @OwnerUserId int,
    @ParentId int, 
    @PostTypeId int 
)
AS
BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT, XACT_ABORT ON;

    /*Someone passed in bad data and we got a bad query plan,
      and we have to make sure that doesn't happen again*/
    
    DECLARE 
        @ParentIdFix int = 
            CASE 
                WHEN @ParentId < 0 
                THEN 0 
                ELSE @ParentId 
            END;
    
    SELECT TOP (1) 
        p.*
    FROM dbo.Posts AS p
    WHERE p.ParentId = @ParentIdFix
    AND   p.PostTypeId = @PostTypeId
    AND   p.OwnerUserId = @OwnerUserId
    ORDER BY 
        p.Score DESC, 
        p.Id DESC;

END;

How bad could a top 1 query be, anyway?

Fortune Teller

When we run this query like so and so:

EXEC dbo.IndexTuningMaster 
    @OwnerUserId = 22656, 
    @ParentId = 0, 
    @PostTypeId = 1;

EXEC dbo.IndexTuningMaster 
    @OwnerUserId = 22656, 
    @ParentId = 184618, 
    @PostTypeId = 2;

We come up with zip zero zilch none nada:

We get a super low guess for both. obviously that guess hurts a large set of matched data far worse than a small one, but the important thing here is that both queries receive the same bad guess.

This is a direct side effect of the local variable’s poor estimate, which PSP isn’t quite yet ready to go up against.

Thanks for reading!

Going Further

If this is the kind of SQL Server stuff you love learning about, you’ll love my training. I’m offering a 75% discount on to my blog readers if you click from here. I’m also available for consulting if you just don’t have time for that and need to solve performance problems quickly.

Best Intentions

After seeing places where the Parameter Sensitive Plan (PSP) optimization quite stubbornly refuses to kick in, it’s somewhat amusing to see it kick in where it can’t possibly have any positive impact.

Even though some parameters are responsible for filtering on columns with highly skewed data, certain other factors may be present that don’t allow for the type of plan quality issues you might run into under normal parameter sensitivity scenarios:

• Adequate indexing
• Row goals
• Other filtering elements

This isn’t to say that they can always prevent problems, but they certainly tend to reduce risks much of the time.

If only everything were always ever perfect, you know?

Setup

Let’s start by examining some data in the Posts table.

First, PostTypeIds:

Questions and answers are the main types of Posts. The data is clearly skewed, here, and in my testing this does qualify for PSP on its own.

The thing is, there are several attributes that Questions can have that Answers can’t. One of those is a ParentId. Looking through how the top 15 or so of those counts breaks down:

Okay, so! Wikis don’t have ParentIds, neither do Moderator Nominations. More importantly, Questions don’t.

The Question with the Most answers is Id 184618, with 518. A far cry from the next-nearest Post Types, and light years from the number of Questions with a ParentId of zero.

More important than loving your data is knowing your data.

To Query A Butterfly

Let’s say we have this query:

SELECT TOP (5000)
    p.Id,
    p.OwnerUserId,
    p.Score
FROM dbo.Posts AS p
WHERE p.PostTypeId = @po
AND   p.ParentId = @pa
ORDER BY 
    p.Score DESC;

The three things we care about getting done are:

• Filtering to PostTypeId
• Filtering to ParentId
• Ordering by Score

Either of these indexes would be suitable for that:

CREATE INDEX 
    popa
ON dbo.Posts
(
    PostTypeId,
    ParentId,
    Score DESC
)
WITH
(
    SORT_IN_TEMPDB = ON,
    DATA_COMPRESSION = PAGE
);

CREATE INDEX 
    papo
ON dbo.Posts
(
    ParentId,
    PostTypeId,
    Score DESC
)
WITH
(
    SORT_IN_TEMPDB = ON,
    DATA_COMPRESSION = PAGE
);

With No PSP At All

Under compatibility level 150, we can run the query in a variety of ways and get nearly identical performance results:

There’s a 27 millisecond difference between the two to find the first 5000 rows that match both predicates. You would have to run these in a very long loop to accumulate a meaningful overall difference.

In this case, both queries use and reuse the same execution plan. You can see that in the estimates.

With All The PSP

Switching to compat level 160, the queries are injected with the PLAN PER VALUE hint.

SELECT TOP (5000)
    p.Id,
    p.OwnerUserId,
    p.Score
FROM dbo.Posts AS p
WHERE p.PostTypeId = @po
AND   p.ParentId = @pa
ORDER BY 
    p.Score DESC 
OPTION 
(
    PLAN PER VALUE
    (
        QueryVariantID = 2, 
        predicate_range
        (
            [StackOverflow2013].[dbo].[Posts].[PostTypeId] = @po, 
            100.0, 
            10000000.0
        )
    )
)

SELECT TOP (5000)
    p.Id,
    p.OwnerUserId,
    p.Score
FROM dbo.Posts AS p
WHERE p.PostTypeId = @po
AND   p.ParentId = @pa
ORDER BY 
    p.Score DESC 
OPTION 
(
    PLAN PER VALUE
    (
        QueryVariantID = 3, 
        predicate_range
        (
            [StackOverflow2013].[dbo].[Posts].[PostTypeId] = @po, 
            100.0, 
            10000000.0
        )
    )
)

The thing is, both queries end up with identical execution times to when there was no PSP involved at all.

In other words, there is no parameter sensitivity in this scenario, despite there being skew in the column data.

Even searching for the “big” result — Questions with a ParentId of zero, finishes in <30 milliseconds.

Ah well. Gotta train the models somehow.

Thanks for reading!

Going Further

If this is the kind of SQL Server stuff you love learning about, you’ll love my training. I’m offering a 75% discount on to my blog readers if you click from here. I’m also available for consulting if you just don’t have time for that and need to solve performance problems quickly.