http://www.sqlservercentral.com/blogs/scarydba/2010/04/05/nhibernate_2C00_-first-look-at-tsql/

Printed 2014/11/21 05:18PM

nHibernate, First Look at TSQL

By Grant Fritchey, 2010/04/05

I’ve blogged in the past about the nHibernate project that has been going on at my company for the last eighteen months. Prior to today, I have only seen the database generated by nHibernate. But today I finally started seeing some TSQL code. My first impressions… oy!

There are two levels of concern coming out of the gate. First, it appears that some of the programming decisions, completely independent of nHibernate, are going to cause problems.¬†Second, it appears we’re going to be hitting issues with nHibernate.

First, the programming decision. I’ve been using Confio to monitor this server for a few days now (look for upcoming posts on my eval of Confio). Only one day has captured any real activity from the nHibernate team (and yes, I’m basically spying on these guys because they are absolutely insistent that my team stay out of their way). The longest running query was two calls to this (names have been changed to protect my job, there are no innocents):

SELECT BookID
FROM Books WITH (updlock,rowlock)
WHERE BookID = 42

¬†What they’re doing is locking the row so that no other user can get at it while it’s being edited. Total lock time for the first day was 38 seconds for two calls. I’ve posted about this previously, so I won’t go into it again, but this is potentially a disaster.

On to nHibernate. The next query was pretty benign:

SELECT OrgID
,OfficeID
,StartDate
,EndDate
,OtherID
FROM SpecialList
WHERE OfficeID = 42

Unfortunately this table, as created out of nHibernate, has no primary key, no clustered index or any other type of index, so this is just a table scan. But it’s only on 109 rows… in dev, not production, oh, and most of the 109 rows have a null value for OfficeID, but it’s all good I suppose… until I notice that this query also had 38 seconds of wait time, but it was called 394,652 times… oy (and no, I’m not even one of the chosen, but that’s a wonderful expression for this situation). Looking at the data in cache, this query has been called, since it was created in cache on the 2nd, 598351 times with a total elapsed time on the server of 5429689ms. The average then is 9ms, but the max was 29296 or 29 seconds.

The next query up looked like this:

SELECT col1
,col2
,col3
FROM Table1
INNER JOIN Table2
ON Table1.ChildID = Table2.OtherID
WHERE tabl2.ParentID IN (@p1,@p1,@p2…@p99)

Yep. 99 parameters passed and used against an IN statement. I can’t post the execution plans on this stuff without talking it over with the boss, but suffice to say, it’s two table scans and a merge join to get the data back. Oh, and this was called 1,138 times with a minimum elapsed time of 976ms. Yeah, minimum time to call this proc is 1 second and it’s been called over a thousand times.

It went down hill from there. I’m looking at other queries, one that hits seven tables, but instead of using JOINs uses a bunch of sub-selects in the WHERE clause. It has a minimum run time of 9 seconds. Luckily it’s only been called 64 times.

This is a horror show.

A lot of benefit can be reaped if we’re able to go in and create some indexes on these tables, but that’s going to be an issue anyway because I’m seeing lots of implicit data conversions on the parameters being passed in, as I noted a couple of years ago. At this point in time, I would say, at best, I’m very underwhelmed by what nHibernate is producing. To be perfectly honest, I’m concerned for the health of the project.



Copyright © 2002-2014 Simple Talk Publishing. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use. Report Abuse.