How Useful Is Column Store In Standard Edition?

Speed Limit


When I’m blogging about performance tuning, most of it is from the perspective of Enterprise Edition. That’s where you need to be if you’re serious about getting SQL Server to go as fast as possible. Between the unrealistic memory limits and other feature restrictions, Standard Edition just doesn’t hold up.

Sure, you can probably get by with it for a while, but once performance becomes a primary concern it’s time to fork over an additional 5k a core for the big boat.

They don’t call it Standard Edition because it’s The Standard, like the hotel. Standard is a funny word like that. It can denote either high or low standing through clever placement of “the”.  Let’s try an experiment:

  • Erik’s blogging is standard for technical writing
  • Erik’s blogging is the standard for technical writing

Now you see where you stand with standard edition. Not with “the”, that’s for sure. “The” has left the building.

Nerd Juice


A lot of the restrictions for column store in Standard Edition are documented, but:

  • DOP limit of two for queries
  • No parallelism for creating or rebuilding indexes
  • No local aggregations
  • No string aggregate pushdown
  • No SIMD support

Here’s a comparison for creating a nonclustered column store index in Standard and Enterprise/Developer Editions:

your fly is down

The top plan is from Standard Edition, and runs for a minute in a full serial plan. There is a non-parallel plan reason in the operator properties: MaxDOPSetToOne.

I do not have DOP set to one anywhere, that’s just the restriction kicking in. You can try it out for yourself if you have Standard Edition sitting around somewhere. I’m doing all my testing on SQL Server 2019 CU9. This is not ancient technology at the time of writing.

The bottom plan is from Enterprise/Developer Edition, where the the plan is able to run partially in parallel, and takes 28 seconds (about half the time as the serial plan).

Query Matters


One of my favorite query tuning tricks is getting batch mode to happen on queries that process a lot of rows. It doesn’t always help, but it’s almost always worth trying.

The problem is that on Standard Edition, if you’re processing a lot of rows, being limited to a DOP of 2 can be a real hobbler. In many practical cases, a batch mode query at DOP 2 will end up around the same as a row mode query at DOP 8. It’s pretty unfortunate.

In some cases, it can end up being much worse.

SELECT 
    MIN(p.Id) AS TinyId,
    COUNT_BIG(*) AS records
FROM dbo.Posts AS p WITH(INDEX = ncp)
JOIN dbo.Votes AS v
    ON p.Id = v.PostId
WHERE p. OwnerUserId = 22656;

SELECT 
    MIN(p.Id) AS TinyId,
    COUNT_BIG(*) AS records
FROM dbo.Posts AS p WITH(INDEX = 1)
JOIN dbo.Votes AS v
    ON p.Id = v.PostId
WHERE p. OwnerUserId = 22656;

Here’s the query plan for the first one, which uses the nonclustered column store index on Posts. There is no hint or setting that’s keeping DOP at 2, this really is just a feature restriction.

drop it like it’s dop

Higher Ground


The second query, which is limited by the MAXDOP setting to 8, turns out much faster. The batch mode query takes 3.8 seconds, and the row mode query takes 1.4 seconds.

it’s a new craze

In Enterprise Edition, there are other considerations for getting batch mode going, like memory grant feedback or adaptive joins, but those aren’t available in Standard Edition.

In a word, that sucks.

Dumb Limit


The restrictions on creating and rebuilding column store indexes to DOP 1 (both clustered and nonclustered), and queries to DOP 2 all seems even more odd when we consider that there is no restriction on inserting data into a table with a column store index on it.

As an example:

SELECT 
    p.*
INTO dbo.PostsTestLoad
FROM dbo.Posts AS p
WHERE 1 = 0;

CREATE CLUSTERED COLUMNSTORE INDEX pc ON dbo.PostsTestLoad;

SET IDENTITY_INSERT dbo.PostsTestLoad ON;

INSERT dbo.PostsTestLoad WITH(TABLOCK)
(
    Id, AcceptedAnswerId, AnswerCount, Body, ClosedDate, 
    CommentCount, CommunityOwnedDate, CreationDate, 
    FavoriteCount, LastActivityDate, LastEditDate, 
    LastEditorDisplayName, LastEditorUserId, OwnerUserId, 
    ParentId, PostTypeId, Score, Tags, Title, ViewCount 
)
SELECT TOP (1024 * 1024)
    p.Id, p.AcceptedAnswerId, p.AnswerCount, p.Body, p.ClosedDate, p.
    CommentCount, p.CommunityOwnedDate, p.CreationDate, p.
    FavoriteCount, p.LastActivityDate, p.LastEditDate, p.
    LastEditorDisplayName, p.LastEditorUserId, p.OwnerUserId, p.
    ParentId, p.PostTypeId, p.Score, p.Tags, p.Title, p.ViewCount 
FROM dbo.Posts AS p;

SET IDENTITY_INSERT dbo.PostsTestLoad OFF;
smells like dop spirit

Unsupportive Parents


These limits are asinine, plain and simple, and I hope at some point they’re reconsidered. While I don’t expect everything from Standard Edition, because it is Basic Cable Edition, I do think that some of the restrictions go way too far.

Perhaps an edition somewhere between Standard and Enterprise would make sense. When you line the two up, the available features and pricing are incredibly stark choices.

There are often mixed needs as well, where some people need Standard Edition with fewer HA restrictions, and some people need it with fewer performance restrictions.

Thanks for reading!

Multiple Distinct Aggregates: Still Harmful (Without Batch Mode)

Growler


Well over 500 years ago, Paul White wrote an article about distinct aggregates. Considering how often I see it while working with clients, and that Microsoft created column store indexes and batch mode rather than allow for hash join hints on CLR UDFs, the topic feels largely ignored.

But speaking of all that stuff, let’s look at how Batch Mode fixes multiple distinct aggregates.

Jumbo Size


A first consideration is around parallelism, since you don’t pay attention or click links, here’s a quote you won’t read from Paul’s article above:

Another limitation is that this spool does not support parallel scan for reading, so the optimizer is very unlikely to restart parallelism after the spool (or any of its replay streams).

In queries that operate on large data sets, the parallelism implications of the spool plan can be the most important cause of poor performance.

What does that mean for us? Let’s go look. For this demo, I’m using SQL Server 2019 with the compatibility level set to 140.

SELECT
   COUNT_BIG(DISTINCT v.PostId) AS PostId,
   COUNT_BIG(DISTINCT v.UserId) AS UserId,
   COUNT_BIG(DISTINCT v.BountyAmount) AS BountyAmount,
   COUNT_BIG(DISTINCT v.VoteTypeId) AS VoteTypeId,
   COUNT_BIG(DISTINCT v.CreationDate) AS CreationDate
FROM dbo.Votes AS v;

In the plan for this query, we scan the clustered index of the Votes table five times, or once per distinct aggregate.

skim scan

In case you’re wondering, this results in one intent shared object lock on the Votes table.

<Object name="Votes" schema_name="dbo">
  <Locks>
    <Lock resource_type="OBJECT" request_mode="IS" request_status="GRANT" request_count="9" />
    <Lock resource_type="PAGE" page_type="*" index_name="PK_Votes__Id" request_mode="S" request_status="GRANT" request_count="14" />
  </Locks>
</Object>

This query runs for 38.5 seconds, as the crow flies.

push the thing

A Join Appears


Let’s join Votes to Posts for no apparent reason.

SELECT
   COUNT_BIG(DISTINCT v.PostId) AS PostId,
   COUNT_BIG(DISTINCT v.UserId) AS UserId,
   COUNT_BIG(DISTINCT v.BountyAmount) AS BountyAmount,
   COUNT_BIG(DISTINCT v.VoteTypeId) AS VoteTypeId,
   COUNT_BIG(DISTINCT v.CreationDate) AS CreationDate
FROM dbo.Votes AS v
JOIN dbo.Posts AS p
    ON p.Id = v.PostId;

The query plan now has two very distinct (ho ho ho) parts.

problemium

This is part 1. Part 1 is a spoiler. Ignoring that Repartition Streams is bizarre and Spools are indefensible blights, as we meander across the execution plan we find ourselves at a stream aggregate whose child operators have executed for 8 minutes, and then a nested loops join whose child operators have run for 20 minutes and 39 seconds. Let’s go look at that part of the plan.

downstream

Each branch here represents reading from the same spool. We can tell this because the Spool operators do not have any child operators. They are starting points for the flow of data. One thing to note here is that there are four spools instead of five, and that’s because one of the five aggregates was processed in the first part of the query plan we looked at.

The highlighted branch is the one that accounts for the majority of the execution time, at 19 minutes, 8 seconds. This branch is responsible for aggregating the PostId column. Apparently a lack of distinct values is hard to process.

But why is this so much slower? The answer is parallelism, or a lack thereof. So, serialism. Remember the 500 year old quote from above?

Another limitation is that this spool does not support parallel scan for reading, so the optimizer is very unlikely to restart parallelism after the spool (or any of its replay streams).

In queries that operate on large data sets, the parallelism implications of the spool plan can be the most important cause of poor performance.

Processing that many rows on a single thread is painful across all of the operators.

Flounder Edition


With SQL Server 2019, we get Batch Mode On Row store when compatibility level gets bumped up to 150.

The result is just swell.

 

yes you can

The second query with the join still runs for nearly a minute, but 42 seconds of the process is scanning that big ol’ Posts table.

Grumpy face.

Thanks for reading!

Residual Predicates

We Will Talk About Things And Have Fun Now


USE StackOverflow;

EXEC dbo.DropIndexes; 

/*
CREATE INDEX east 
    ON dbo.Posts
        (PostTypeId, Score, OwnerUserId) 
WITH ( MAXDOP = 8, 
       SORT_IN_TEMPDB = ON, 
       DATA_COMPRESSION = ROW );
*/

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS #t;
GO 

SELECT   
    u.Id,
    u.Reputation,
    u.DisplayName,
    p.Id AS PostId,
    p.Title
INTO #t
FROM dbo.Users AS u
JOIN dbo.Posts AS p
    ON p.OwnerUserId = u.Id
WHERE u.Reputation >= 1000
AND   p.PostTypeId = 1
AND   p.Score >= 1000 
ORDER BY u.Reputation DESC;



/*
CREATE INDEX east 
    ON dbo.Posts(PostTypeId, Score, OwnerUserId);
*/
SELECT 
    t.Id, 
    t.Reputation, 
    ( 
        SELECT 
            MAX(p.Score) 
        FROM dbo.Posts AS p 
        WHERE p.OwnerUserId = t.Id 
        AND   p.PostTypeId IN (1, 2) 
    ) AS TopPostScore,
    t.PostId, 
    t.Title
FROM #t AS t
ORDER BY t.Reputation DESC;


/*
Usually I love replacing select 
list subqueries with APPLY

Just show the saved plan here
*/
SELECT 
    t.Id, 
    t.Reputation, 
    pq.Score,
    t.PostId, 
    t.Title
FROM #t AS t
OUTER APPLY --We have to use outer apply to not restrict results!
(
    SELECT 
        MAX(p.Score) AS Score
    FROM dbo.Posts AS p 
    WHERE p.OwnerUserId = t.Id 
    AND   p.PostTypeId IN (1, 2)
) AS pq
ORDER BY t.Reputation DESC;


/*
TOP (1) also spools
*/
SELECT 
    t.Id, 
    t.Reputation, 
    ( 
        SELECT TOP (1) 
            p.Score
        FROM dbo.Posts AS p
        WHERE p.PostTypeId IN (1, 2)
        AND   p.OwnerUserId = t.Id
        ORDER BY p.Score DESC 
    ) AS TopPostScore,
    t.PostId, 
    t.Title
FROM #t AS t
ORDER BY t.Reputation DESC;

SELECT 
    t.Id, 
    t.Reputation, 
    pq.Score,
    t.PostId, 
    t.Title
FROM #t AS t
OUTER APPLY
(
    SELECT TOP (1) 
        p.Score
    FROM dbo.Posts AS p
    WHERE p.PostTypeId IN (1, 2)
    AND   p.OwnerUserId = t.Id
    ORDER BY p.Score DESC
) AS pq
ORDER BY t.Reputation DESC;


/*
CREATE INDEX east 
    ON dbo.Posts(PostTypeId, Score, OwnerUserId);
*/
SELECT 
    t.Id, 
    t.Reputation, 
    pq.Score,
    t.PostId, 
    t.Title
FROM #t AS t
OUTER APPLY --This one is fast
(
    SELECT TOP (1) 
        p.Score
    FROM dbo.Posts AS p
    WHERE p.PostTypeId = 1
    AND   p.OwnerUserId = t.Id
    ORDER BY p.Score DESC
) AS pq
ORDER BY t.Reputation DESC;

SELECT 
    t.Id, 
    t.Reputation, 
    pa.Score,
    t.PostId, 
    t.Title
FROM #t AS t
OUTER APPLY --This two is slow...
(
    SELECT TOP (1) 
        p.Score
    FROM dbo.Posts AS p
    WHERE p.PostTypeId = 2
    AND   p.OwnerUserId = t.Id
    ORDER BY p.Score DESC
) AS pa
ORDER BY t.Reputation DESC;


/*
Use the Score!
*/
SELECT 
    t.Id, 
    t.Reputation, 
    ISNULL(pa.Score, pq.Score) AS TopPostScore,
    t.PostId, 
    t.Title
FROM #t AS t
OUTER APPLY --This one is fast
(
    SELECT TOP (1) 
        p.Score --Let's get the top score here
    FROM dbo.Posts AS p
    WHERE p.PostTypeId = 1
    AND   p.OwnerUserId = t.Id
    ORDER BY p.Score DESC
) AS pq
OUTER APPLY --This two is slow...
(
    SELECT TOP (1) 
        p.Score
    FROM dbo.Posts AS p
    WHERE p.PostTypeId = 2
    AND   p.OwnerUserId = t.Id
    AND   pq.Score < p.Score --Then use it as a filter down here
    ORDER BY p.Score DESC
) AS pa
ORDER BY t.Reputation DESC;


SELECT 
    t.Id, 
    t.Reputation, 
    ISNULL(pq.Score, 0) AS Score,
    t.PostId, 
    t.Title
INTO #t2
FROM #t AS t
OUTER APPLY --This one is fast
(
    SELECT TOP (1) 
        p.Score --Let's get the top score here
    FROM dbo.Posts AS p
    WHERE p.PostTypeId = 1
    AND   p.OwnerUserId = t.Id
    ORDER BY p.Score DESC
) AS pq;


SELECT 
    t.Id, 
    t.Reputation, 
    ISNULL(pa.Score, t.Score) AS TopPostScore, 
    t.PostId, 
    t.Title
FROM #t2 AS t
OUTER APPLY 
(
    SELECT TOP (1) 
        p.Score
    FROM dbo.Posts AS p
    WHERE p.PostTypeId = 2
    AND   p.OwnerUserId = t.Id
    AND   t.Score < p.Score --Then use it as a filter down here
    ORDER BY p.Score DESC
) AS pa
ORDER BY t.Reputation DESC;



/*
What happened?
 * Index key column order
   * (PostTypeId, Score, OwnerUserId)

Other things we could try:
 * Shuffling index key order, or creating a new index
   * (PostTypeId, OwnerUserId, Score)
 
 * Rewriting the query to use ROW_NUMBER() instead
  * Have to be really careful here, probably use Batch Mode

*/

/*
CREATE TABLE dbo.t
(
id int NOT NULL,
INDEX c CLUSTERED COLUMNSTORE
);
*/

SELECT 
    t.Id, 
    t.Reputation, 
    pa.Score,
    t.PostId, 
    t.Title
FROM #t AS t
LEFT JOIN dbo.t AS tt ON 1 = 0
OUTER APPLY
(
    SELECT 
        rn.*
    FROM 
    (
        SELECT
            p.*,
            ROW_NUMBER()
                OVER
                (
                    PARTITION BY 
                        p.OwnerUserId
                    ORDER BY
                        p.Score DESC
                ) AS n
        FROM dbo.Posts AS p
        WHERE p.PostTypeId IN (1, 2)
    ) AS rn
    WHERE rn.OwnerUserId = t.Id
    AND   rn.n = 1
) AS pa
ORDER BY t.Reputation DESC;


DROP TABLE #t, #t2;

 

Annoyances When Indexing For Windowing Functions

One Day


I will be able to not care about this sort of thing. But for now, here we are, having to write multiple blogs in a day to cover a potpourri of grievances.

Let’s get right to it!

First, without a where clause, the optimizer doesn’t think that an index could improve one single, solitary metric about this query. We humans know better, though.

WITH Votes AS 
(
    SELECT
        v.Id,
        ROW_NUMBER() 
            OVER(PARTITION BY 
                     v.PostId 
                 ORDER BY 
                     v.CreationDate) AS n
    FROM dbo.Votes AS v
)
SELECT *
FROM Votes AS v
WHERE v.n = 0;

The tough part of this plan will be putting data in order to suit the Partition By, and then the Order By, in the windowing function.

Without any other clauses against columns in the Votes table, there are no additional considerations.

Two Day


What often happens is that someone wants to add an index to help the windowing function along, so they follow some basic guidelines they found on the internet.

What they end up with is an index on the Partition By, Order By, and then Covering any additional columns. In this case there’s no additional Covering Considerations, so we can just do this:

CREATE INDEX v2 ON dbo.Votes(PostId, CreationDate);

If you’ve been following my blog, you’ll know that indexes put data in order, and that with this index you can avoid needing to physically sort data.

limousine

Three Day


The trouble here is that, even though we have Cost Threshold For Parallelism (CTFP) set to 50, and the plan costs around 195 Query Bucks, it doesn’t go parallel.

Creating the index shaves about 10 seconds off the ordeal, but now we’re stuck with this serial calamity, and… forcing it parallel doesn’t help.

Our old nemesis, repartition streams, is back.

wackness

Even at DOP 8, we only end up about 2 seconds faster. That’s not a great use of parallelism, and the whole problem sits in the repartition streams.

This is, just like we talked about yesterday, a row mode problem. And just like we talked about the day before that, windowing functions generally do benefit from batch mode.

Thanks for reading!

A Word From Our Sponsors


First, a huge thank you to everyone who has bought my training so far. You all are incredible, and I owe all of you a drink.

Your support means a lot to me, and allows me to do nice stuff for other people, like give training away for free.

So far, I’ve donated $45k (!!!) worth of training to folks in need, no questions asked.

Next year, I’d like to keep doing the same thing. I’d also like to produce a whole lot more training to add value to the money you spend. In order to do that, I need to take time off from consulting, which isn’t easy to do. I’m not crying poor, but saying no to work for chunks of time isn’t easy for a one-person party.

I’m hoping that I can make enough in training bucks to make that possible.

Because this sale is extra sale-y, I’ve decided to name it after the blackest black known to man.

From today until December 31st, you can get all 25 hours of my recorded training content for just $100.00. If you click the link below to add everything to your cart, and use the discount code AllFor100 to apply a discount to your cart.

Everything

Everything

Everything

Some fine print: It only works if you add EVERYTHING. It’s a fixed amount discount code that you need to spend a certain amount to have kick in.

Thank for reading, and for your support.

An Overlooked Benefit Of Batch Mode In Parallel Plans

Make It Count


When queries go parallel, you want them to be fast. Sometimes they are, and it’s great.

Other times they’re slow, and you end up staring helplessly at a repartition streams operator.

brick wall

Sometimes you can reduce the problem with higher DOP hints, or better indexing, but overall it’s a crappy situation.

Snap To


Let’s admire a couple familiar looking queries, because that’s been working really well for us so far.

WITH Comments AS 
(
    SELECT
        ROW_NUMBER() 
            OVER(PARTITION BY 
                     c.UserId
                 ORDER BY 
                     c.CreationDate) AS n
    FROM dbo.Comments AS c
)
SELECT *
FROM Comments AS c
WHERE c.n = 0
OPTION(USE HINT('QUERY_OPTIMIZER_COMPATIBILITY_LEVEL_140'));

WITH Comments AS 
(
    SELECT
        ROW_NUMBER() 
            OVER(PARTITION BY 
                     c.UserId
                 ORDER BY 
                     c.CreationDate) AS n
    FROM dbo.Comments AS c
)
SELECT *
FROM Comments AS c
WHERE c.n = 0
OPTION(USE HINT('QUERY_OPTIMIZER_COMPATIBILITY_LEVEL_150'));

One is going to run in compatibility level 140, the other in 150, as foretold by ancient alien prophecy.

The two query plans will have a bit in common, but…

just batch

The second query, which runs in batch mode, runs about 15 seconds faster. One big reason why is that we skip that most unfortunate repartition streams operator.

It’s a cold sore. An actual factual cold sore.

The only ways I’ve found to fix it completely are:

  • Induce batch mode
  • Use the parallel apply technique

But the parallel apply technique doesn’t help much here, because of local factors.

In this case, me generating the largest possible result set and then filtering it down to nothing at the end.

Thanks for reading!

A Word From Our Sponsors


First, a huge thank you to everyone who has bought my training so far. You all are incredible, and I owe all of you a drink.

Your support means a lot to me, and allows me to do nice stuff for other people, like give training away for free.

So far, I’ve donated $45k (!!!) worth of training to folks in need, no questions asked.

Next year, I’d like to keep doing the same thing. I’d also like to produce a whole lot more training to add value to the money you spend. In order to do that, I need to take time off from consulting, which isn’t easy to do. I’m not crying poor, but saying no to work for chunks of time isn’t easy for a one-person party.

I’m hoping that I can make enough in training bucks to make that possible.

Because this sale is extra sale-y, I’ve decided to name it after the blackest black known to man.

From today until December 31st, you can get all 25 hours of my recorded training content for just $100.00. If you click the link below to add everything to your cart, and use the discount code AllFor100 to apply a discount to your cart.

Everything

Everything

Everything

Some fine print: It only works if you add EVERYTHING. It’s a fixed amount discount code that you need to spend a certain amount to have kick in.

Thank for reading, and for your support.

An Overlooked Benefit Of Batch Mode With Windowing Functions

Lavender


If you ask people who tune queries why batch mode is often much more efficient with windowing functions, they’ll tell you about the window aggregate operator.

That’s all well and good, but there’s another, often sneaky limitation of fully row mode execution plans with windowing functions.

Let’s go take a look!

Global Aggregates


One thing that causes an early serial zone in execution plans is if you use a windowing function that only has the order by

For example, let’s look at the plans for these two queries:

WITH Comments AS 
(
    SELECT
        ROW_NUMBER() 
            OVER(ORDER BY 
                     c.CreationDate) AS n
    FROM dbo.Comments AS c
)
SELECT *
FROM Comments AS c
WHERE c.n = 0;

WITH Comments AS 
(
    SELECT
        ROW_NUMBER() 
            OVER(PARTITION BY 
                     c.UserId
                 ORDER BY 
                     c.CreationDate) AS n
    FROM dbo.Comments AS c
)
SELECT *
FROM Comments AS c
WHERE c.n = 0;

The resulting estimated plans look like this, using the 140 compatibility level:

oops

In the top plan, where the windowing function only has an order by, the serial zone happens immediately before the Segment operator. In the second plan, the parallel zone carries on until right before the select operator.

If you’re wondering why we’re only looking at estimated plans here, it’s because repartition streams ruins everything.

In The Year 2000


In compatibility level 150, things change a bit (yes, a window aggregate appears):

merry christmas

And the window aggregate appears within the parallel zone. The parallel zone does end before the filter operator, which may or may not be a disaster depending on how restrictive your filter is, and how many rows end up at it.

Also note the distinct lack of a repartition streams operator ruining everything. We’ll talk about that tomorrow.

Thanks for reading!

A Word From Our Sponsors


First, a huge thank you to everyone who has bought my training so far. You all are incredible, and I owe all of you a drink.

Your support means a lot to me, and allows me to do nice stuff for other people, like give training away for free.

So far, I’ve donated $45k (!!!) worth of training to folks in need, no questions asked.

Next year, I’d like to keep doing the same thing. I’d also like to produce a whole lot more training to add value to the money you spend. In order to do that, I need to take time off from consulting, which isn’t easy to do. I’m not crying poor, but saying no to work for chunks of time isn’t easy for a one-person party.

I’m hoping that I can make enough in training bucks to make that possible.

Because this sale is extra sale-y, I’ve decided to name it after the blackest black known to man.

From today until December 31st, you can get all 25 hours of my recorded training content for just $100.00. If you click the link below to add everything to your cart, and use the discount code AllFor100 to apply a discount to your cart.

Everything

Everything

Everything

Some fine print: It only works if you add EVERYTHING. It’s a fixed amount discount code that you need to spend a certain amount to have kick in.

Thank for reading, and for your support.

Batch Mode On Row Store vs Batch Mode Tricks

Quiet Time


I think Batch Mode is quite spiffy for the right kind of query, but up until SQL Server 2019, we had to play some tricks to get it:

  • Do a funny join to an empty table with a column store index
  • Create a filtered column store index with no data in it

If you’re on SQL server 2019 Enterprise Edition, and you’ve got your database in compatibility level 150, you may heuristically receive Batch Mode without those tricks.

One important difference between Batch Mode Tricks™ and Batch Mode On Rowstore (BMOR) is that the latter allows you to read from row mode tables using Batch Mode, while the former doesn’t.

Tricks have limits, apparently.

Squish Squish


To cut down on typing, I’ll often create a helper object like this:

CREATE TABLE dbo.t
(
    id int NULL,
    INDEX c CLUSTERED COLUMNSTORE
);

If you read this post, you’ll understand more why.

Now, let’s compare these two queries:

SELECT 
    p.OwnerUserId,
    COUNT_BIG(*) AS records
FROM dbo.Posts AS p
LEFT JOIN dbo.t
    ON 1 = 0
WHERE p.Score < 50
GROUP BY p.OwnerUserId
HAVING COUNT_BIG(*) > 2147483647
OPTION(USE HINT('QUERY_OPTIMIZER_COMPATIBILITY_LEVEL_140'), MAXDOP 8);

SELECT 
    p.OwnerUserId,
    COUNT_BIG(*) AS records
FROM dbo.Posts AS p
WHERE p.Score < 50
GROUP BY p.OwnerUserId
HAVING COUNT_BIG(*) > 2147483647
OPTION(USE HINT('QUERY_OPTIMIZER_COMPATIBILITY_LEVEL_150'), MAXDOP 8);

 

One executes in compatibility level 140, the other in 150.

Splish Splash


There are a couple interesting things, here.

the porter

Even though both queries have operators that execute in Batch Mode (Filter, Hash Match), only the second query can read from the row store clustered index in Batch Mode. In this case, that shaves a couple hundred milliseconds off the seek.

There is likely some additional invisible benefit to not having to convert the row mode seek to a batch mode hash join at the next operator, since one executes for 501ms, and the other executes for 278ms. There’s nothing in the query plan to signal that happening, so you’ll just have to use your imagination.

Thanks for reading!

A Word From Our Sponsors


First, a huge thank you to everyone who has bought my training so far. You all are incredible, and I owe all of you a drink.

Your support means a lot to me, and allows me to do nice stuff for other people, like give training away for free.

So far, I’ve donated $45k (!!!) worth of training to folks in need, no questions asked.

Next year, I’d like to keep doing the same thing. I’d also like to produce a whole lot more training to add value to the money you spend. In order to do that, I need to take time off from consulting, which isn’t easy to do. I’m not crying poor, but saying no to work for chunks of time isn’t easy for a one-person party.

I’m hoping that I can make enough in training bucks to make that possible.

Because this sale is extra sale-y, I’ve decided to name it after the blackest black known to man.

From today until December 31st, you can get all 25 hours of my recorded training content for just $100.00. If you click the link below to add everything to your cart, and use the discount code AllFor100 to apply a discount to your cart.

Everything

Everything

Everything

Some fine print: It only works if you add EVERYTHING. It’s a fixed amount discount code that you need to spend a certain amount to have kick in.

Thank for reading, and for your support.

Query Tuning SQL Server 2019 Part 5: I’m Not Going Back

Butt Out Bag


There was one thing that I didn’t talk about earlier in the week.

You see, there’s a mystery plan.

It only shows up once in a while, like Planet X. And when it does, we get bombarded by asteroids.

Just like when Planet X shows up.

I wouldn’t call it a good all-around plan, but it does something that we would want to happen when we run this proc for VoteTypeId 5.

Let’s go look!

The Optimizer Discovers Aggregates, Sort Of


This isn’t a good “general” plan. In fact, for any of the previously fast values, it sucks.

It sucks because just like the “optimize for unknown” plan, it has a bunch of startup costs, does a lot of scanning, and is generally a bad choice for VoteTypeIds that produce a small number of values.

Ghost Town

Johnny Four


If you look carefully, you can see what the problem is.

For VoteTypeIds that filter out a lot of rows (which is most of them), that predicate doesn’t get applied until after Posts and Badges have been joined.

In other words, you fully join those tables, and then the result of that join is joined to the predicate-filtered result of Votes.

For this execution, the plan was compiled initially for VoteTypeId 2. It has 130 million entries in Votes. It’s the only VoteTypeId that produces this plan naturally.

The plan you’re looking at above was re-executed with VoteTypeId 4, which has… 8,190 rows in Votes.

I can’t stress enough how difficult it would be to figure out why this is bad just looking at estimated plans.

Though one clue would be the clustered index scan + predicate, if we knew that we had a suitable index.

2legit

This kind of detail with row discrepancies only surfaces with actual plans.

But there is one thing here that wasn’t showing up in other plans, when we wanted it to: The optimizer decides to aggregate OwnerUserId coming from the Posts table prior to joining to Votes.

Johnny Five


If you recall the previously used plan, one complaint was that the result of joining Posts and Badges then joined to Votes had to probe 932 million rows.

You can sort of see that here, where the Adaptive Join prior to the highlighted Hash Match Aggregate produces >100 million rows. It’s more here because we don’t have Bitmaps against both Posts and Badges, but… We’re going off track a bit with that.

That could have been avoided if the optimizer had decided to aggregate OwnerUserId, like it does in this plan.

To compare:

gag order

The top plan has a handy green square to show you a helpful pre-join aggregation.

The bottom plan has no handy green squares because there is no helpful pre-join aggregation.

The product of the aggregation is 3.2 million rows, which is exactly what we got as a distinct count when we began experimenting with temp tables:

SELECT COUNT_BIG(DISTINCT p.OwnerUserId) AS records --3,236,013 
FROM dbo.Posts AS p 
JOIN dbo.Badges AS b 
    ON b.UserId = p.OwnerUserId 
WHERE p.PostTypeId = 1;

Outhouse


If the optimizer had chosen to aggregate OwnerUserId prior to the join to Votes, we all could have gone home early on Friday and enjoyed the weekend

Funny, that.

Speaking of which, it’s Friday. Go enjoy the weekend.

Thanks for reading!

This week I’m having a sale on my SQL Server 2019 course, normally $99.95.

If you want to see the entire thing, it’s available this week for just $19.99.

All you have to do is add it to your cart, and the discount will be applied at checkout.

If you like what you see here, sign up for my email list to get 50% off your next purchase.