Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase

Memory Optimized tables - large data sets Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:09 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:06 PM
Points: 163, Visits: 603
Hi -

I'm testing SQL 2014 - in particular, memory optimized tables. We loaded the memOptimized tables (2 Billion rows) from replica conventional tables. For clarity sake - we have conventional tables and memory optimized tables with the exact data set.

The specific table(s) we're testing has 5 columns (int, int, bigint, bigint and timestamp). We've created non-clustered and non-clustered hash indexes on the in-memory tables, performed dropCleanBuffers on the conventional table to purge tables from memory, etc. We're seeing index seeks in the execution plan on the InMem tables - but the performance is still lacking. Performance for simply count queries is terrible. For Count queries, we're getting results in 26 seconds on convetional tables, and 5+ minutes on the memory optimized tables.

Now the really interesting part - memory optimized tables to not support parallel plans.

The lack of parallel execution is what is causing such degradation.

Any advice? Anyone leveraging this functionality yet?


Post #1554534
Posted Tuesday, March 25, 2014 1:57 PM
SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:13 PM
Points: 1,795, Visits: 4,679
Very interesting, wouldn't jump to any conclusions yet, what are the server specs? Disk and mem I/O?
Post #1554664
Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 9:17 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:06 PM
Points: 163, Visits: 603
Great question - server is huge.

80 cores, 1 TB RAM, FusionIO cards (Flash) for all storage.

Unfortunately, hardware isn't the issue.
Post #1555038
Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 11:18 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 6:13 AM
Points: 1,240, Visits: 9,815
I think this misses the point of in-memory optimisation. A read query, like a count, especially on a 1TB RAM server is going to be entirely fulfilled from buffer cache regardless of table type and has the full weight of years of optimisation effort in the core engine (including parallelisation) when using regular tables.

In memory optimised tables were predominantly created for extremely high-concurrency OLTP, not for fast OLAP. A typical example cited is for database session management, with potentially millions of transactions per second reading and writing a single row each. This bogs down with traditional tables due to the complex stack of memory and disk layers, even with a very fast IO sub-system. This is a much more simple (and crude) method of storing data for these types of access patterns.

It's also a new feature, so things that are outside of the core use-case may be sub-optimal at this stage.
Post #1555101
Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2014 4:47 PM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 7, 2014 3:31 PM
Points: 30, Visits: 452
not sure what you're trying to do, but have you tried the clustered columnstore feature instead?
Post #1555214
Posted Thursday, April 3, 2014 6:51 AM


SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 8:33 AM
Points: 153, Visits: 977
irabufan (3/26/2014)
not sure what you're trying to do, but have you tried the clustered columnstore feature instead?


+1


Andreas

---------------------------------------------------
MVP SQL Server
Microsoft Certified Master SQL Server 2008
Microsoft Certified Solutions Master Data Platform, SQL Server 2012
www.insidesql.org/blogs/andreaswolter
www.andreas-wolter.com
Post #1557951
Posted Thursday, April 3, 2014 8:16 AM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:28 PM
Points: 36,995, Visits: 31,521
HowardW (3/26/2014)
I think this misses the point of in-memory optimisation. A read query, like a count, especially on a 1TB RAM server is going to be entirely fulfilled from buffer cache regardless of table type and has the full weight of years of optimisation effort in the core engine (including parallelisation) when using regular tables.

In memory optimised tables were predominantly created for extremely high-concurrency OLTP, not for fast OLAP. A typical example cited is for database session management, with potentially millions of transactions per second reading and writing a single row each. This bogs down with traditional tables due to the complex stack of memory and disk layers, even with a very fast IO sub-system. This is a much more simple (and crude) method of storing data for these types of access patterns.

It's also a new feature, so things that are outside of the core use-case may be sub-optimal at this stage.


Heh... That's a "Hek" of a note (pun intended)


--Jeff Moden
"RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for "Row-By-Agonizing-Row".

First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column."

(play on words) "Just because you CAN do something in T-SQL, doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T." --22 Aug 2013

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Post #1557999
Posted Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:26 PM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:30 AM
Points: 31, Visits: 497
See my reply here on a similar issue:

http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1557258-3411-2.aspx
Post #1558163
Posted Thursday, April 3, 2014 12:45 PM
SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:13 PM
Points: 1,795, Visits: 4,679
wBob (4/3/2014)
See my reply here on a similar issue:

http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1557258-3411-2.aspx


Thanks!
Post #1558176
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase

Permissions Expand / Collapse