Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 


Memory Settings Help Please


Memory Settings Help Please

Author
Message
Vertigo44
Vertigo44
SSC Veteran
SSC Veteran (238 reputation)SSC Veteran (238 reputation)SSC Veteran (238 reputation)SSC Veteran (238 reputation)SSC Veteran (238 reputation)SSC Veteran (238 reputation)SSC Veteran (238 reputation)SSC Veteran (238 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 238 Visits: 825
I have a server running 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition SP2 Build 3790 OS and SQL Server 2005 (9.00.5254.00) Enterprise Edition 64bit with 64GB of ram installed. I have the min memory set to 15360 and max set to 51200. I am not using AWE. I am seeing SQL Server memory counter total = target almost 12 hours after start up.

96% Cached Buffer Pages Distribution on the Report with 84% of the db_buffer_percent coming from one particular database. I see where an entire 8.5GB user table has been loaded into buffer with index type heap. In fact the top 9 objects in that particular database are HEAPED user tables, all with buffer_mb greater than 1,000 mb. Is this normal? About every week we are receiving complaints of slowness from the app users. Someone has recommended locking pages in memory. I am going to look into this. Thank you!
Steve Jones
Steve Jones
SSC-Dedicated
SSC-Dedicated (36K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (36K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (36K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (36K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (36K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (36K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (36K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (36K reputation)

Group: Administrators
Points: 36260 Visits: 18752
If you are at the target memory, then you are fairly close to what is needed.

Having heaps can be a problem for performance, but not necessarily. Is there a reason you don't have clustered indexes on these tables? Clustered indexes do allow for potentially quicker access to data that is looked up with a non-clustered index.

Slowness might be because of poor design, poor queries, or something else. It isn't necessarily memory. You could have the table loaded into memory, but if you need to access it 100x to satisfy a poorly written query, it will still take time to process the query.

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
Orlando Colamatteo
Orlando Colamatteo
SSCrazy Eights
SSCrazy Eights (8.3K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.3K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.3K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.3K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.3K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.3K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.3K reputation)SSCrazy Eights (8.3K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 8259 Visits: 14368
Locking pages in memory is definitely something to consider enabling if you are seeing Windows trim the working set from SQL Server. If this were happening you would see sudden drops in Page Life Expectancy (PLE) as well as entries in the SQL Error Log saying as much. There is a great debate on the topic of whether to enable it by default on x64 systems. Personally I only enable it if I am seeing the specific behaviors I mentioned but someone I respect a lot has written a great article on ths topic and cautiously recommends (if you monitor your server memory use very closely) enabling it by default:

Great SQL Server Debates: Lock Pages in Memory by Jonathan Kehayias, 12 December 2011

That said on the general debate, on Server 2003 running SQL 2005 memory trims imposed by Windows were much much much more prevalent than they are on SQL 2008+ on Server 2008 R2+.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community. --Plato
Sean Pearce
Sean Pearce
Ten Centuries
Ten Centuries (1.2K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.2K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.2K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.2K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.2K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.2K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.2K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.2K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1170 Visits: 3432
I would definitely build clustered indexes on 1GB+ heap tables and would seriously consider applying compression to those indexes.



The SQL Guy @ blogspot

@SeanPearceSQL

About Me
Go


Permissions

You can't post new topics.
You can't post topic replies.
You can't post new polls.
You can't post replies to polls.
You can't edit your own topics.
You can't delete your own topics.
You can't edit other topics.
You can't delete other topics.
You can't edit your own posts.
You can't edit other posts.
You can't delete your own posts.
You can't delete other posts.
You can't post events.
You can't edit your own events.
You can't edit other events.
You can't delete your own events.
You can't delete other events.
You can't send private messages.
You can't send emails.
You can read topics.
You can't vote in polls.
You can't upload attachments.
You can download attachments.
You can't post HTML code.
You can't edit HTML code.
You can't post IFCode.
You can't post JavaScript.
You can post emoticons.
You can't post or upload images.

Select a forum

































































































































































SQLServerCentral


Search