performance problem...

hello ng
i've got a problem with my fulltext-index, or with the performance of the
sql-server.
in one database i've installed a fulltext-index. this index based on a often
scheduled job, because it's nessessary to find the entrys directly after the
insert. the schedule has a frequence of 1 minute...
on the same sql-server i've got an other database. in this db i like to
insert many entrys on the same time.
the index works and the other db works too. but the inserts are very slow
when i start the index-job. the sql-server runs on a 4 processor system with
2gb of memory, and the processor has more capacity than i use (max 20%). the
harddisk is also very fast (scsi).
inserts per second: up to 300
inserts per secon with index running: up to 40
what can i do to run both things on same time?
do i have to change some settings for the index-job?
thanx. simon
Simon,
Could you post the full output of the below SQL code as this information is
very helpful in troubleshooting SQL FTS issues?
use <your_database_name>
select @.@.version
select @.@.language
select count(*) from your_FT-enabled_table_name
If you're are using SQL Server 2000, does your FT-enable table have "Change
Tracking" with "Update Index in Background" enabled or are you using a
frequently scheduled Incremental Population? Depending upon the size of your
table and if you're using SQL 2000, it might be best to use CT with UIiB.
Also, could you provide information on where your FT Catalog folder is (what
drive and type of drive, i.e., RAID level) relative to your database files
(*.mdf & *.ldf)?
Thanks,
John
SQL Full Text Search Blog
http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/
"Simon Steiner" <anybody@.anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:egYJaMdFFHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> hello ng
> i've got a problem with my fulltext-index, or with the performance of the
> sql-server.
> in one database i've installed a fulltext-index. this index based on a
often
> scheduled job, because it's nessessary to find the entrys directly after
the
> insert. the schedule has a frequence of 1 minute...
> on the same sql-server i've got an other database. in this db i like to
> insert many entrys on the same time.
> the index works and the other db works too. but the inserts are very slow
> when i start the index-job. the sql-server runs on a 4 processor system
with
> 2gb of memory, and the processor has more capacity than i use (max 20%).
the
> harddisk is also very fast (scsi).
> inserts per second: up to 300
> inserts per secon with index running: up to 40
> what can i do to run both things on same time?
> do i have to change some settings for the index-job?
> thanx. simon
>
|||Here's the Output from SQL:
version: Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Dec 17 2002
14:22:05 Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Standard Edition
on Windows NT 5.2 (Build 3790: )
language: us_english
row_count: 10137
The catalog is placed on "D:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL
Server\MSSQL\FTDATA" on the same disk like the Server is running...
The size of the catalog is 6MB
I'm using a frequently scheduled Incremental Population. Could that be a
reason to switch to "Update Index in Background"?
Simon
"John Kane" <jt-kane@.comcast.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ucYBJXdFFHA.2832@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Simon,
> Could you post the full output of the below SQL code as this information
is
> very helpful in troubleshooting SQL FTS issues?
> use <your_database_name>
> select @.@.version
> select @.@.language
> select count(*) from your_FT-enabled_table_name
> If you're are using SQL Server 2000, does your FT-enable table have
"Change
> Tracking" with "Update Index in Background" enabled or are you using a
> frequently scheduled Incremental Population? Depending upon the size of
your
> table and if you're using SQL 2000, it might be best to use CT with UIiB.
> Also, could you provide information on where your FT Catalog folder is
(what[vbcol=seagreen]
> drive and type of drive, i.e., RAID level) relative to your database files
> (*.mdf & *.ldf)?
> Thanks,
> John
> --
> SQL Full Text Search Blog
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/
>
> "Simon Steiner" <anybody@.anonymous.com> wrote in message
> news:egYJaMdFFHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
the[vbcol=seagreen]
> often
> the
slow
> with
> the
>
|||uups.
The Size of the *.ldf-file ist: 235MB and the *.mdf has 27.9MB
The HD-Type is a seagate scsi drive and there is a RAID0 installed... so
there are 2 disks.
simon
"John Kane" <jt-kane@.comcast.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ucYBJXdFFHA.2832@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Simon,
> Could you post the full output of the below SQL code as this information
is
> very helpful in troubleshooting SQL FTS issues?
> use <your_database_name>
> select @.@.version
> select @.@.language
> select count(*) from your_FT-enabled_table_name
> If you're are using SQL Server 2000, does your FT-enable table have
"Change
> Tracking" with "Update Index in Background" enabled or are you using a
> frequently scheduled Incremental Population? Depending upon the size of
your
> table and if you're using SQL 2000, it might be best to use CT with UIiB.
> Also, could you provide information on where your FT Catalog folder is
(what[vbcol=seagreen]
> drive and type of drive, i.e., RAID level) relative to your database files
> (*.mdf & *.ldf)?
> Thanks,
> John
> --
> SQL Full Text Search Blog
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/
>
> "Simon Steiner" <anybody@.anonymous.com> wrote in message
> news:egYJaMdFFHA.228@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
the[vbcol=seagreen]
> often
> the
slow
> with
> the
>
|||Thanks, Simon,
Q. Could that be a reason to switch to "Update Index in Background"?
A. Yes! As you're using SQL 2000 SP3 on Win2003, you can enable CT with UIiB
and disenable or delete your frequently running Incremental Population job
and I'd highly recommend this.
Additionally, you should drop and re-create the FT Catalog and re-create it
on your server's non-system disk drive (usually c:\) and separate from your
database files. So, if you have another drive, say the E:\ and your
databases are on the D:\ (where SQL Server is installed), I'd put the FT
Catalog on the E:\ drive assuming it is the RAID0 drive. The primary reason
for this is to avoid the read/write I/O contention between the FT Catalog
and the database files during FT Indexing.
Hope that helps,
John
SQL Full Text Search Blog
http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/
"Simon Steiner" <anybody@.anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:OI9NUqdFFHA.3908@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> uups.
> The Size of the *.ldf-file ist: 235MB and the *.mdf has 27.9MB
> The HD-Type is a seagate scsi drive and there is a RAID0 installed... so
> there are 2 disks.
> simon
>
> "John Kane" <jt-kane@.comcast.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:ucYBJXdFFHA.2832@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> is
> "Change
> your
UIiB.[vbcol=seagreen]
> (what
files[vbcol=seagreen]
> the
after[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
> slow
system[vbcol=seagreen]
20%).
>

Performance Problem

I was getting the performance monitor objects for SQL server for my production server and I was monitoring them perfectly. But after I've restarted my SQL Server Service I don't know I'm not getting performance monitor objects for SQL server in my perform
ance monitor.
I need to monitor again. Can someone help me in this regard
Regards,
Sunil
Hi,
Verify that MSSQL Server service is started. If it is not started then start
the service and wait for a 10 minutes and then try opening the performance
monitor counters.
Note:
I just tried before doing this post.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Sunil" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:062BFE35-989F-49CD-9BC3-4FBE9F36A9FC@.microsoft.com...
> I was getting the performance monitor objects for SQL server for my
production server and I was monitoring them perfectly. But after I've
restarted my SQL Server Service I don't know I'm not getting performance
monitor objects for SQL server in my performance monitor.
>
> I need to monitor again. Can someone help me in this regard
>
> Regards,
> Sunil

Performance outside private network

Can SQL run more than one request at the same time from the same IP address? I've noticed that if I open two instances of my site in IE they tend to run sluggish, and it seems like the second instance does not start to respond to a request until the firs
t request is completed on my first instance. I'm trying to run both requests simultaneously. I'm running SQL Server 2000 Developer's Edition, by the way. Any takers?
>
> Can SQL run more than one request at the same time from the
> same IP address? I've noticed that if I open two instances of
> my site in IE they tend to run sluggish, and it seems like the
> second instance does not start to respond to a request until the
> first request is completed on my first instance. I'm trying to run
> both requests simultaneously. I'm running SQL Server 2000 Developer's
> Edition, by the way. Any takers?
>
You address this as a normal application performance issue. This is the
place to start:
HOW TO: Troubleshoot Application Performance Issues
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=298475
Eric Crdenas
Senior support professional
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

performance monitor lifetime

from what i've read so far, the performance monitor's data is not
instantaneous, rather collected historically since the last reboot. is
this correct? i've also read (though i can't remember where), that
there was some win2k/service pack combination that allowed for
instantaneous monitoring. i've got a feeling the monitors values are
getting skewed by past (good) performance and would like to see
instantaneous values (w/out having to reboot). thanks,
arthur
There's no one setting that control all counters. You have to read the counter definition about how
it is measured. The ones that you are probably thinking of is Buffer Cache counters that now
averages from about 2000 to 3000 last samples (changed in sp3).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"arthur" <alangham@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107372326.151669.237260@.f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> from what i've read so far, the performance monitor's data is not
> instantaneous, rather collected historically since the last reboot. is
> this correct? i've also read (though i can't remember where), that
> there was some win2k/service pack combination that allowed for
> instantaneous monitoring. i've got a feeling the monitors values are
> getting skewed by past (good) performance and would like to see
> instantaneous values (w/out having to reboot). thanks,
> arthur
>
|||arthur wrote:
> from what i've read so far, the performance monitor's data is not
> instantaneous, rather collected historically since the last reboot. is
> this correct? i've also read (though i can't remember where), that
> there was some win2k/service pack combination that allowed for
> instantaneous monitoring. i've got a feeling the monitors values are
> getting skewed by past (good) performance and would like to see
> instantaneous values (w/out having to reboot). thanks,
> arthur
Performance monitor values vary by counter type. You can read about them
in MSDN. If you are dealing with a counter that does not display an
instantaneous value, all you need to do is compare it to the previous
value. That's essentially what sp_monitor does (as does perfmon). That
is, it keeps track of previous values and capture date/time in order to
perform the necessary calculations. Rebooting the server won't help
because once you do, you're back to have to calculate each time.
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com