Is logiment log explorer is a good tool for SQL server DBA?
Thanks"mecn" <mecn2002@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23n6yHgXZHHA.5044@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Is logiment log explorer is a good tool for SQL server DBA?
> Thanks
>
It's one of those tools that if you need it, it's absolutely essential and a
great tool.
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com|||thanks
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:ut$VwjXZHHA.4772@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "mecn" <mecn2002@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%23n6yHgXZHHA.5044@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Is logiment log explorer is a good tool for SQL server DBA?
>> Thanks
> It's one of those tools that if you need it, it's absolutely essential and
> a great tool.
>
>
> --
> Greg Moore
> SQL Server DBA Consulting
> Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com
>
Showing posts with label dba. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dba. Show all posts
Friday, March 9, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Logical reads to tune sql
I was wondering if somebody could critique my query tuning technique.
I am primarily a developer and only a part time dba. I was trained by
a great dba, but it was back in the sql 6.5 and 7.0 days. I
concentrate pretty heavily on logical reads, and I am wondering if my
technique is still valid or if I should be concentrating elsewhere?
We use sql profiler and find queries that are taking longer than 15
seconds to run. I get the sql and run it in query analyzer and turn
statistics io on and look at logical reads. I keep tuning the sql and
try to get logical reads down. My goal is to get them to less than
10,000 logical reads. But if I get a query from 4,000,000 read to
200,000, I believe I have made a good improvement.
Some of our code calls multiple sql statements in sequence, so I
analyze the code and have a pretty good idea what tables will probably
be cached. If I see that the tables will be cached because of previous
sql statements, then I can live with a query that has higher logical
reads.
I pretty much don't understand the graphical Execution Plan. Am I
crazy ignoring this? Or is my above technique pretty good?The goal is always to get the logical reads to a minimum. But there is no
way to tell if a particular # is as low as it can be without looking at the
query plan to some degree. I don't know what kind of queries you are doing
but if your only looking for queries over 15 seconds and think 10K reads is
great you guy's must have a lot of time on your hands to wait for
results<g>. Usually anything over 150ms is too long for me. Hopefully
these are some type of reporting queries and the amount of reads are
justified..
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Bill Ray" <rinfo@.mail.com> wrote in message
news:63b44ea.0407020726.156a0c50@.posting.google.com...
> I was wondering if somebody could critique my query tuning technique.
> I am primarily a developer and only a part time dba. I was trained by
> a great dba, but it was back in the sql 6.5 and 7.0 days. I
> concentrate pretty heavily on logical reads, and I am wondering if my
> technique is still valid or if I should be concentrating elsewhere?
> We use sql profiler and find queries that are taking longer than 15
> seconds to run. I get the sql and run it in query analyzer and turn
> statistics io on and look at logical reads. I keep tuning the sql and
> try to get logical reads down. My goal is to get them to less than
> 10,000 logical reads. But if I get a query from 4,000,000 read to
> 200,000, I believe I have made a good improvement.
> Some of our code calls multiple sql statements in sequence, so I
> analyze the code and have a pretty good idea what tables will probably
> be cached. If I see that the tables will be cached because of previous
> sql statements, then I can live with a query that has higher logical
> reads.
> I pretty much don't understand the graphical Execution Plan. Am I
> crazy ignoring this? Or is my above technique pretty good?
I am primarily a developer and only a part time dba. I was trained by
a great dba, but it was back in the sql 6.5 and 7.0 days. I
concentrate pretty heavily on logical reads, and I am wondering if my
technique is still valid or if I should be concentrating elsewhere?
We use sql profiler and find queries that are taking longer than 15
seconds to run. I get the sql and run it in query analyzer and turn
statistics io on and look at logical reads. I keep tuning the sql and
try to get logical reads down. My goal is to get them to less than
10,000 logical reads. But if I get a query from 4,000,000 read to
200,000, I believe I have made a good improvement.
Some of our code calls multiple sql statements in sequence, so I
analyze the code and have a pretty good idea what tables will probably
be cached. If I see that the tables will be cached because of previous
sql statements, then I can live with a query that has higher logical
reads.
I pretty much don't understand the graphical Execution Plan. Am I
crazy ignoring this? Or is my above technique pretty good?The goal is always to get the logical reads to a minimum. But there is no
way to tell if a particular # is as low as it can be without looking at the
query plan to some degree. I don't know what kind of queries you are doing
but if your only looking for queries over 15 seconds and think 10K reads is
great you guy's must have a lot of time on your hands to wait for
results<g>. Usually anything over 150ms is too long for me. Hopefully
these are some type of reporting queries and the amount of reads are
justified..
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Bill Ray" <rinfo@.mail.com> wrote in message
news:63b44ea.0407020726.156a0c50@.posting.google.com...
> I was wondering if somebody could critique my query tuning technique.
> I am primarily a developer and only a part time dba. I was trained by
> a great dba, but it was back in the sql 6.5 and 7.0 days. I
> concentrate pretty heavily on logical reads, and I am wondering if my
> technique is still valid or if I should be concentrating elsewhere?
> We use sql profiler and find queries that are taking longer than 15
> seconds to run. I get the sql and run it in query analyzer and turn
> statistics io on and look at logical reads. I keep tuning the sql and
> try to get logical reads down. My goal is to get them to less than
> 10,000 logical reads. But if I get a query from 4,000,000 read to
> 200,000, I believe I have made a good improvement.
> Some of our code calls multiple sql statements in sequence, so I
> analyze the code and have a pretty good idea what tables will probably
> be cached. If I see that the tables will be cached because of previous
> sql statements, then I can live with a query that has higher logical
> reads.
> I pretty much don't understand the graphical Execution Plan. Am I
> crazy ignoring this? Or is my above technique pretty good?
Logical reads to tune sql
I was wondering if somebody could critique my query tuning technique.
I am primarily a developer and only a part time dba. I was trained by
a great dba, but it was back in the sql 6.5 and 7.0 days. I
concentrate pretty heavily on logical reads, and I am wondering if my
technique is still valid or if I should be concentrating elsewhere?
We use sql profiler and find queries that are taking longer than 15
seconds to run. I get the sql and run it in query analyzer and turn
statistics io on and look at logical reads. I keep tuning the sql and
try to get logical reads down. My goal is to get them to less than
10,000 logical reads. But if I get a query from 4,000,000 read to
200,000, I believe I have made a good improvement.
Some of our code calls multiple sql statements in sequence, so I
analyze the code and have a pretty good idea what tables will probably
be cached. If I see that the tables will be cached because of previous
sql statements, then I can live with a query that has higher logical
reads.
I pretty much don't understand the graphical Execution Plan. Am I
crazy ignoring this? Or is my above technique pretty good?
The goal is always to get the logical reads to a minimum. But there is no
way to tell if a particular # is as low as it can be without looking at the
query plan to some degree. I don't know what kind of queries you are doing
but if your only looking for queries over 15 seconds and think 10K reads is
great you guy's must have a lot of time on your hands to wait for
results<g>. Usually anything over 150ms is too long for me. Hopefully
these are some type of reporting queries and the amount of reads are
justified..
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Bill Ray" <rinfo@.mail.com> wrote in message
news:63b44ea.0407020726.156a0c50@.posting.google.co m...
> I was wondering if somebody could critique my query tuning technique.
> I am primarily a developer and only a part time dba. I was trained by
> a great dba, but it was back in the sql 6.5 and 7.0 days. I
> concentrate pretty heavily on logical reads, and I am wondering if my
> technique is still valid or if I should be concentrating elsewhere?
> We use sql profiler and find queries that are taking longer than 15
> seconds to run. I get the sql and run it in query analyzer and turn
> statistics io on and look at logical reads. I keep tuning the sql and
> try to get logical reads down. My goal is to get them to less than
> 10,000 logical reads. But if I get a query from 4,000,000 read to
> 200,000, I believe I have made a good improvement.
> Some of our code calls multiple sql statements in sequence, so I
> analyze the code and have a pretty good idea what tables will probably
> be cached. If I see that the tables will be cached because of previous
> sql statements, then I can live with a query that has higher logical
> reads.
> I pretty much don't understand the graphical Execution Plan. Am I
> crazy ignoring this? Or is my above technique pretty good?
I am primarily a developer and only a part time dba. I was trained by
a great dba, but it was back in the sql 6.5 and 7.0 days. I
concentrate pretty heavily on logical reads, and I am wondering if my
technique is still valid or if I should be concentrating elsewhere?
We use sql profiler and find queries that are taking longer than 15
seconds to run. I get the sql and run it in query analyzer and turn
statistics io on and look at logical reads. I keep tuning the sql and
try to get logical reads down. My goal is to get them to less than
10,000 logical reads. But if I get a query from 4,000,000 read to
200,000, I believe I have made a good improvement.
Some of our code calls multiple sql statements in sequence, so I
analyze the code and have a pretty good idea what tables will probably
be cached. If I see that the tables will be cached because of previous
sql statements, then I can live with a query that has higher logical
reads.
I pretty much don't understand the graphical Execution Plan. Am I
crazy ignoring this? Or is my above technique pretty good?
The goal is always to get the logical reads to a minimum. But there is no
way to tell if a particular # is as low as it can be without looking at the
query plan to some degree. I don't know what kind of queries you are doing
but if your only looking for queries over 15 seconds and think 10K reads is
great you guy's must have a lot of time on your hands to wait for
results<g>. Usually anything over 150ms is too long for me. Hopefully
these are some type of reporting queries and the amount of reads are
justified..
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Bill Ray" <rinfo@.mail.com> wrote in message
news:63b44ea.0407020726.156a0c50@.posting.google.co m...
> I was wondering if somebody could critique my query tuning technique.
> I am primarily a developer and only a part time dba. I was trained by
> a great dba, but it was back in the sql 6.5 and 7.0 days. I
> concentrate pretty heavily on logical reads, and I am wondering if my
> technique is still valid or if I should be concentrating elsewhere?
> We use sql profiler and find queries that are taking longer than 15
> seconds to run. I get the sql and run it in query analyzer and turn
> statistics io on and look at logical reads. I keep tuning the sql and
> try to get logical reads down. My goal is to get them to less than
> 10,000 logical reads. But if I get a query from 4,000,000 read to
> 200,000, I believe I have made a good improvement.
> Some of our code calls multiple sql statements in sequence, so I
> analyze the code and have a pretty good idea what tables will probably
> be cached. If I see that the tables will be cached because of previous
> sql statements, then I can live with a query that has higher logical
> reads.
> I pretty much don't understand the graphical Execution Plan. Am I
> crazy ignoring this? Or is my above technique pretty good?
Logical reads to tune sql
I was wondering if somebody could critique my query tuning technique.
I am primarily a developer and only a part time dba. I was trained by
a great dba, but it was back in the sql 6.5 and 7.0 days. I
concentrate pretty heavily on logical reads, and I am wondering if my
technique is still valid or if I should be concentrating elsewhere?
We use sql profiler and find queries that are taking longer than 15
seconds to run. I get the sql and run it in query analyzer and turn
statistics io on and look at logical reads. I keep tuning the sql and
try to get logical reads down. My goal is to get them to less than
10,000 logical reads. But if I get a query from 4,000,000 read to
200,000, I believe I have made a good improvement.
Some of our code calls multiple sql statements in sequence, so I
analyze the code and have a pretty good idea what tables will probably
be cached. If I see that the tables will be cached because of previous
sql statements, then I can live with a query that has higher logical
reads.
I pretty much don't understand the graphical Execution Plan. Am I
crazy ignoring this? Or is my above technique pretty good?The goal is always to get the logical reads to a minimum. But there is no
way to tell if a particular # is as low as it can be without looking at the
query plan to some degree. I don't know what kind of queries you are doing
but if your only looking for queries over 15 seconds and think 10K reads is
great you guy's must have a lot of time on your hands to wait for
results<g>. Usually anything over 150ms is too long for me. Hopefully
these are some type of reporting queries and the amount of reads are
justified..
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Bill Ray" <rinfo@.mail.com> wrote in message
news:63b44ea.0407020726.156a0c50@.posting.google.com...
> I was wondering if somebody could critique my query tuning technique.
> I am primarily a developer and only a part time dba. I was trained by
> a great dba, but it was back in the sql 6.5 and 7.0 days. I
> concentrate pretty heavily on logical reads, and I am wondering if my
> technique is still valid or if I should be concentrating elsewhere?
> We use sql profiler and find queries that are taking longer than 15
> seconds to run. I get the sql and run it in query analyzer and turn
> statistics io on and look at logical reads. I keep tuning the sql and
> try to get logical reads down. My goal is to get them to less than
> 10,000 logical reads. But if I get a query from 4,000,000 read to
> 200,000, I believe I have made a good improvement.
> Some of our code calls multiple sql statements in sequence, so I
> analyze the code and have a pretty good idea what tables will probably
> be cached. If I see that the tables will be cached because of previous
> sql statements, then I can live with a query that has higher logical
> reads.
> I pretty much don't understand the graphical Execution Plan. Am I
> crazy ignoring this? Or is my above technique pretty good?
I am primarily a developer and only a part time dba. I was trained by
a great dba, but it was back in the sql 6.5 and 7.0 days. I
concentrate pretty heavily on logical reads, and I am wondering if my
technique is still valid or if I should be concentrating elsewhere?
We use sql profiler and find queries that are taking longer than 15
seconds to run. I get the sql and run it in query analyzer and turn
statistics io on and look at logical reads. I keep tuning the sql and
try to get logical reads down. My goal is to get them to less than
10,000 logical reads. But if I get a query from 4,000,000 read to
200,000, I believe I have made a good improvement.
Some of our code calls multiple sql statements in sequence, so I
analyze the code and have a pretty good idea what tables will probably
be cached. If I see that the tables will be cached because of previous
sql statements, then I can live with a query that has higher logical
reads.
I pretty much don't understand the graphical Execution Plan. Am I
crazy ignoring this? Or is my above technique pretty good?The goal is always to get the logical reads to a minimum. But there is no
way to tell if a particular # is as low as it can be without looking at the
query plan to some degree. I don't know what kind of queries you are doing
but if your only looking for queries over 15 seconds and think 10K reads is
great you guy's must have a lot of time on your hands to wait for
results<g>. Usually anything over 150ms is too long for me. Hopefully
these are some type of reporting queries and the amount of reads are
justified..
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Bill Ray" <rinfo@.mail.com> wrote in message
news:63b44ea.0407020726.156a0c50@.posting.google.com...
> I was wondering if somebody could critique my query tuning technique.
> I am primarily a developer and only a part time dba. I was trained by
> a great dba, but it was back in the sql 6.5 and 7.0 days. I
> concentrate pretty heavily on logical reads, and I am wondering if my
> technique is still valid or if I should be concentrating elsewhere?
> We use sql profiler and find queries that are taking longer than 15
> seconds to run. I get the sql and run it in query analyzer and turn
> statistics io on and look at logical reads. I keep tuning the sql and
> try to get logical reads down. My goal is to get them to less than
> 10,000 logical reads. But if I get a query from 4,000,000 read to
> 200,000, I believe I have made a good improvement.
> Some of our code calls multiple sql statements in sequence, so I
> analyze the code and have a pretty good idea what tables will probably
> be cached. If I see that the tables will be cached because of previous
> sql statements, then I can live with a query that has higher logical
> reads.
> I pretty much don't understand the graphical Execution Plan. Am I
> crazy ignoring this? Or is my above technique pretty good?
Monday, February 20, 2012
logging server configuration changes
Hi,
Does anyone know if SQL Server 2000 sp3a log server configuration
changes. I am acting as a dba for a client and the old DBA added Named
Pipes as a protocol to a production database without following
protocol.
My supervisor wants me to track down when this was done. I am not sure
if it even possible unless the change is logged somehow. I checked the
SQL server logs but there seems to be no entry.
Can someone point me in the right direction or at least verify that
this change was never logged.
Thanks
Mike.Hi
There is no specific logging of these events, you may want to check the SQL
Server log and the Windows Event Log for Names pipes starting, although if
this was done some time ago the original change may not be there. SQL 2005
logs Event ids 26028 and 26048 in the Windows Application Event log when
named pipes are started.
John
"MD" <miked1119@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145301860.104228.88070@.e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> Does anyone know if SQL Server 2000 sp3a log server configuration
> changes. I am acting as a dba for a client and the old DBA added Named
> Pipes as a protocol to a production database without following
> protocol.
> My supervisor wants me to track down when this was done. I am not sure
> if it even possible unless the change is logged somehow. I checked the
> SQL server logs but there seems to be no entry.
> Can someone point me in the right direction or at least verify that
> this change was never logged.
> Thanks
> Mike.
>|||If you have the backp of old SQL Server log files may be you can find the
following entry:
SQL server listening on TCP, Shared Memory, Named Pipes.
This part in the error log indicates what all protocols have enabled for the
SQL Server.
jAj
"MD" <miked1119@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145301860.104228.88070@.e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> Does anyone know if SQL Server 2000 sp3a log server configuration
> changes. I am acting as a dba for a client and the old DBA added Named
> Pipes as a protocol to a production database without following
> protocol.
> My supervisor wants me to track down when this was done. I am not sure
> if it even possible unless the change is logged somehow. I checked the
> SQL server logs but there seems to be no entry.
> Can someone point me in the right direction or at least verify that
> this change was never logged.
> Thanks
> Mike.
>
Does anyone know if SQL Server 2000 sp3a log server configuration
changes. I am acting as a dba for a client and the old DBA added Named
Pipes as a protocol to a production database without following
protocol.
My supervisor wants me to track down when this was done. I am not sure
if it even possible unless the change is logged somehow. I checked the
SQL server logs but there seems to be no entry.
Can someone point me in the right direction or at least verify that
this change was never logged.
Thanks
Mike.Hi
There is no specific logging of these events, you may want to check the SQL
Server log and the Windows Event Log for Names pipes starting, although if
this was done some time ago the original change may not be there. SQL 2005
logs Event ids 26028 and 26048 in the Windows Application Event log when
named pipes are started.
John
"MD" <miked1119@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145301860.104228.88070@.e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> Does anyone know if SQL Server 2000 sp3a log server configuration
> changes. I am acting as a dba for a client and the old DBA added Named
> Pipes as a protocol to a production database without following
> protocol.
> My supervisor wants me to track down when this was done. I am not sure
> if it even possible unless the change is logged somehow. I checked the
> SQL server logs but there seems to be no entry.
> Can someone point me in the right direction or at least verify that
> this change was never logged.
> Thanks
> Mike.
>|||If you have the backp of old SQL Server log files may be you can find the
following entry:
SQL server listening on TCP, Shared Memory, Named Pipes.
This part in the error log indicates what all protocols have enabled for the
SQL Server.
jAj
"MD" <miked1119@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145301860.104228.88070@.e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> Does anyone know if SQL Server 2000 sp3a log server configuration
> changes. I am acting as a dba for a client and the old DBA added Named
> Pipes as a protocol to a production database without following
> protocol.
> My supervisor wants me to track down when this was done. I am not sure
> if it even possible unless the change is logged somehow. I checked the
> SQL server logs but there seems to be no entry.
> Can someone point me in the right direction or at least verify that
> this change was never logged.
> Thanks
> Mike.
>
logging server configuration changes
Hi,
Does anyone know if SQL Server 2000 sp3a log server configuration
changes. I am acting as a dba for a client and the old DBA added Named
Pipes as a protocol to a production database without following
protocol.
My supervisor wants me to track down when this was done. I am not sure
if it even possible unless the change is logged somehow. I checked the
SQL server logs but there seems to be no entry.
Can someone point me in the right direction or at least verify that
this change was never logged.
Thanks
Mike.Hi
There is no specific logging of these events, you may want to check the SQL
Server log and the Windows Event Log for Names pipes starting, although if
this was done some time ago the original change may not be there. SQL 2005
logs Event ids 26028 and 26048 in the Windows Application Event log when
named pipes are started.
John
"MD" <miked1119@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145301860.104228.88070@.e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> Does anyone know if SQL Server 2000 sp3a log server configuration
> changes. I am acting as a dba for a client and the old DBA added Named
> Pipes as a protocol to a production database without following
> protocol.
> My supervisor wants me to track down when this was done. I am not sure
> if it even possible unless the change is logged somehow. I checked the
> SQL server logs but there seems to be no entry.
> Can someone point me in the right direction or at least verify that
> this change was never logged.
> Thanks
> Mike.
>|||If you have the backp of old SQL Server log files may be you can find the
following entry:
SQL server listening on TCP, Shared Memory, Named Pipes.
This part in the error log indicates what all protocols have enabled for the
SQL Server.
jAj
"MD" <miked1119@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145301860.104228.88070@.e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> Does anyone know if SQL Server 2000 sp3a log server configuration
> changes. I am acting as a dba for a client and the old DBA added Named
> Pipes as a protocol to a production database without following
> protocol.
> My supervisor wants me to track down when this was done. I am not sure
> if it even possible unless the change is logged somehow. I checked the
> SQL server logs but there seems to be no entry.
> Can someone point me in the right direction or at least verify that
> this change was never logged.
> Thanks
> Mike.
>
Does anyone know if SQL Server 2000 sp3a log server configuration
changes. I am acting as a dba for a client and the old DBA added Named
Pipes as a protocol to a production database without following
protocol.
My supervisor wants me to track down when this was done. I am not sure
if it even possible unless the change is logged somehow. I checked the
SQL server logs but there seems to be no entry.
Can someone point me in the right direction or at least verify that
this change was never logged.
Thanks
Mike.Hi
There is no specific logging of these events, you may want to check the SQL
Server log and the Windows Event Log for Names pipes starting, although if
this was done some time ago the original change may not be there. SQL 2005
logs Event ids 26028 and 26048 in the Windows Application Event log when
named pipes are started.
John
"MD" <miked1119@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145301860.104228.88070@.e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> Does anyone know if SQL Server 2000 sp3a log server configuration
> changes. I am acting as a dba for a client and the old DBA added Named
> Pipes as a protocol to a production database without following
> protocol.
> My supervisor wants me to track down when this was done. I am not sure
> if it even possible unless the change is logged somehow. I checked the
> SQL server logs but there seems to be no entry.
> Can someone point me in the right direction or at least verify that
> this change was never logged.
> Thanks
> Mike.
>|||If you have the backp of old SQL Server log files may be you can find the
following entry:
SQL server listening on TCP, Shared Memory, Named Pipes.
This part in the error log indicates what all protocols have enabled for the
SQL Server.
jAj
"MD" <miked1119@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145301860.104228.88070@.e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> Does anyone know if SQL Server 2000 sp3a log server configuration
> changes. I am acting as a dba for a client and the old DBA added Named
> Pipes as a protocol to a production database without following
> protocol.
> My supervisor wants me to track down when this was done. I am not sure
> if it even possible unless the change is logged somehow. I checked the
> SQL server logs but there seems to be no entry.
> Can someone point me in the right direction or at least verify that
> this change was never logged.
> Thanks
> Mike.
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)