Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 

Actual Emails: More Grief for GUIDs

Wrote this email exchange with some developer colleagues about to embark on performance tuning.
Subject: bag o' tricks from DMV talk
From: A. Developer
Hey William,
We are about to spend around 4 weeks performance tuning an application we built. Much of the performance tuning is going to be the database. Could you send over those dmv queries that you used in your DMV talk? Or do you still have them available for download? I think they will be able to help us out quite a bit.
I know one of the big things you talked about is not using GUIDs, however, we are using them because of replication. Do you have any thoughts on helping ease the fragmentation because of this?

From: William Assaf

Yep, I have all that info here. This is the last time I gave that talk: http://www.sqltact.com/2013/09/houston-tech-fest-2013-sql-admin-best.html
Of course, if you have any questions, let me know.

So, as you know, I hate GUIDs because they are 4x as large as an integer yet serve the same purpose, or 2x as large as two integer columns to allow for multiple device synchronization.

But the biggest problem with GUIDs can happen when the first key of the clustered index of a table is a GUID column. With the creation of the new GUIDs, are you doing random GUIDs or sequential GUIDS?

If you’re creating them with a SQL default value (which you’re probably not, but as an example), this would be the difference between the newid() function (bad) and the newsequentialid() function (not as bad).

Using sequential GUIDs can allow you to create a clustered index that actually make some sense when it is ordered, and can have index maintenance performed on it to REBUILD or REORGANIZE, reducing fragmentation. Problem is, when you restart the SQL Service, the sequence also resets. So you won't have one contiguous string of sequentially-inserted GUIDs in a table over its lifetime. 

On random GUIDs, you can REBUILD or REORGANIZE all you want, but the data order still won’t make any sense. Changing from random to sequential GUIDs may be really easy to change in your database or application code. If you’re already using sequential GUIDs, there’s not really much more you can to do mitigate the performance and storage letdowns of GUIDs that you would not also do on tables that use integer IDENTITY columns.

As for basic indexing, run this script first to find any tables that are still heaps. Those should be the first things you target in your performance tuning phase. http://www.sqltact.com/2013/05/hunt-down-tables-without-clustered.html

If I can help or get in on that performance tuning stuff, let me know! Good luck, keep in touch.

From: A. Developer
Thanks for the info.
One question though. Will sequential GUIDs work with replication? Wouldn't there be collisions if they are sequential?


From: William

So, in theory, is it mathematically "unlikely" that GUIDs will have collisions. That math always troubles me when multiple machines are generating GUIDs, though the network card is used to generate a unique seed for the GUID on each machine. It is even more troublesome when GUIDs are generated sequentially, but we are supposed to trust the math. :/ 
I’m not super knowledgeable about that math but from what I know, your concern is understandable but “unlikely” to be an issue. I know, not comforting. Here is some comforting reference material though. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sqlserverfaq/archive/2010/05/27/guid-vs-int-debate.aspx 
Uses words like “practically guaranteed” and “virtually impossible” for sequential GUID collisions.



I welcome comments and additions to this somewhat religious topic. The "oil rig" scenario that is commonly faced in the Gulf South provides a recurring fresh argument for/against GUIDs. In many scenarios, a pair of integer fields can provide the benefits of sequential, unique keys. Assuming one of the pairs is also the rig/device/source of the data, you also have a built-in foreign key constraint in the unique key, something you would have to store anyway in a table keyed on a GUID.

Comments

Leave a comment on the original post [www.sqltact.com, opens in a new window]

Loading comments...