Table Fragmentation
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
If I execute the following:
SELECT dbschemas.[name] as 'Schema',
dbtables.[name] as 'Table',
dbindexes.[name] as 'Index',
indexstats.alloc_unit_type_desc,
indexstats.avg_fragmentation_in_percent as avg,
indexstats.page_count
FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats (DB_ID('dbname'), NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL) AS indexstats
INNER JOIN sys.tables dbtables on dbtables.[object_id] = indexstats.[object_id]
INNER JOIN sys.schemas dbschemas on dbtables.[schema_id] = dbschemas.[schema_id]
INNER JOIN sys.indexes AS dbindexes ON dbindexes.[object_id] = indexstats.[object_id]
AND indexstats.index_id = dbindexes.index_id
WHERE indexstats.database_id = DB_ID('dbname')
ORDER BY indexstats.avg_fragmentation_in_percent desc
It shows fragmentation level. I then ran Ola Hallengren's index optimise script which obviously reduces indexes.
If I run the query again it now shows high fragmentation in tables without an index e.g:
Schema Table Index alloc_unit_type_desc avg page_cont
dbo tablename NULL IN_ROW_DATA 99.4362934362934 8176
Should I be concerned by these?
Anything I can do?
Anything I should be doing?
We are experiencing performance issues. I am aware that 2008 is not ideal and that is being addressed.
The datafile is also showing as 220gb but the actual space used is 140gb.
sql-server sql-server-2008 ola-hallengren fragmentation
edited 2 days ago
Paul White♦
54.2k14288461
asked 2 days ago
RoundRound
183
add a comment |
If I execute the following:
SELECT dbschemas.[name] as 'Schema',
dbtables.[name] as 'Table',
dbindexes.[name] as 'Index',
indexstats.alloc_unit_type_desc,
indexstats.avg_fragmentation_in_percent as avg,
indexstats.page_count
FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats (DB_ID('dbname'), NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL) AS indexstats
INNER JOIN sys.tables dbtables on dbtables.[object_id] = indexstats.[object_id]
INNER JOIN sys.schemas dbschemas on dbtables.[schema_id] = dbschemas.[schema_id]
INNER JOIN sys.indexes AS dbindexes ON dbindexes.[object_id] = indexstats.[object_id]
AND indexstats.index_id = dbindexes.index_id
WHERE indexstats.database_id = DB_ID('dbname')
ORDER BY indexstats.avg_fragmentation_in_percent desc
It shows fragmentation level. I then ran Ola Hallengren's index optimise script which obviously reduces indexes.
If I run the query again it now shows high fragmentation in tables without an index e.g:
Schema Table Index alloc_unit_type_desc avg page_cont
dbo tablename NULL IN_ROW_DATA 99.4362934362934 8176
Should I be concerned by these?
Anything I can do?
Anything I should be doing?
We are experiencing performance issues. I am aware that 2008 is not ideal and that is being addressed.
The datafile is also showing as 220gb but the actual space used is 140gb.
sql-server sql-server-2008 ola-hallengren fragmentation
edited 2 days ago
Paul White♦
54.2k14288461
asked 2 days ago
RoundRound
183
3
"Performance issues" is a huge area. Maybe you can pinpoint a specific query or table that's the problem and troubleshoot it. If it's the heap, then consider adding a clustered index in accordance to the queries and operations in which it's involved.
– EzLo
2 days ago
I recently had a case with a heap with lots and lots of empty space. Only some 6000 rows and a simple SELECT * without WHERE took several minutes. The problem was humongous amount of empty space. This is one of the downsides you can encounter with heaps. I just created a clustered index (on a suitable column) and all was normal.
– Tibor Karaszi
yesterday
add a comment |
If I execute the following:
SELECT dbschemas.[name] as 'Schema',
dbtables.[name] as 'Table',
dbindexes.[name] as 'Index',
indexstats.alloc_unit_type_desc,
indexstats.avg_fragmentation_in_percent as avg,
indexstats.page_count
FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats (DB_ID('dbname'), NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL) AS indexstats
INNER JOIN sys.tables dbtables on dbtables.[object_id] = indexstats.[object_id]
INNER JOIN sys.schemas dbschemas on dbtables.[schema_id] = dbschemas.[schema_id]
INNER JOIN sys.indexes AS dbindexes ON dbindexes.[object_id] = indexstats.[object_id]
AND indexstats.index_id = dbindexes.index_id
WHERE indexstats.database_id = DB_ID('dbname')
ORDER BY indexstats.avg_fragmentation_in_percent desc
It shows fragmentation level. I then ran Ola Hallengren's index optimise script which obviously reduces indexes.
If I run the query again it now shows high fragmentation in tables without an index e.g:
Schema Table Index alloc_unit_type_desc avg page_cont
dbo tablename NULL IN_ROW_DATA 99.4362934362934 8176
Should I be concerned by these?
Anything I can do?
Anything I should be doing?
We are experiencing performance issues. I am aware that 2008 is not ideal and that is being addressed.
The datafile is also showing as 220gb but the actual space used is 140gb.
sql-server sql-server-2008 ola-hallengren fragmentation
edited 2 days ago
Paul White♦
54.2k14288461
asked 2 days ago
RoundRound
183
If I execute the following:
SELECT dbschemas.[name] as 'Schema',
dbtables.[name] as 'Table',
dbindexes.[name] as 'Index',
indexstats.alloc_unit_type_desc,
indexstats.avg_fragmentation_in_percent as avg,
indexstats.page_count
FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats (DB_ID('dbname'), NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL) AS indexstats
INNER JOIN sys.tables dbtables on dbtables.[object_id] = indexstats.[object_id]
INNER JOIN sys.schemas dbschemas on dbtables.[schema_id] = dbschemas.[schema_id]
INNER JOIN sys.indexes AS dbindexes ON dbindexes.[object_id] = indexstats.[object_id]
AND indexstats.index_id = dbindexes.index_id
WHERE indexstats.database_id = DB_ID('dbname')
ORDER BY indexstats.avg_fragmentation_in_percent desc
It shows fragmentation level. I then ran Ola Hallengren's index optimise script which obviously reduces indexes.
If I run the query again it now shows high fragmentation in tables without an index e.g:
Schema Table Index alloc_unit_type_desc avg page_cont
dbo tablename NULL IN_ROW_DATA 99.4362934362934 8176
Should I be concerned by these?
Anything I can do?
Anything I should be doing?
We are experiencing performance issues. I am aware that 2008 is not ideal and that is being addressed.
The datafile is also showing as 220gb but the actual space used is 140gb.
sql-server sql-server-2008 ola-hallengren fragmentation
sql-server sql-server-2008 ola-hallengren fragmentation
edited 2 days ago
Paul White♦
54.2k14288461
asked 2 days ago
RoundRound
183
edited 2 days ago
Paul White♦
54.2k14288461
asked 2 days ago
RoundRound
183
edited 2 days ago
Paul White♦
54.2k14288461
edited 2 days ago
Paul White♦
54.2k14288461
edited 2 days ago
Paul White♦
54.2k14288461
54.2k14288461
asked 2 days ago
RoundRound
183
asked 2 days ago
RoundRound
183
asked 2 days ago
RoundRound
183
183
3
"Performance issues" is a huge area. Maybe you can pinpoint a specific query or table that's the problem and troubleshoot it. If it's the heap, then consider adding a clustered index in accordance to the queries and operations in which it's involved.
– EzLo
2 days ago
I recently had a case with a heap with lots and lots of empty space. Only some 6000 rows and a simple SELECT * without WHERE took several minutes. The problem was humongous amount of empty space. This is one of the downsides you can encounter with heaps. I just created a clustered index (on a suitable column) and all was normal.
– Tibor Karaszi
yesterday
add a comment |
3
"Performance issues" is a huge area. Maybe you can pinpoint a specific query or table that's the problem and troubleshoot it. If it's the heap, then consider adding a clustered index in accordance to the queries and operations in which it's involved.
– EzLo
2 days ago
I recently had a case with a heap with lots and lots of empty space. Only some 6000 rows and a simple SELECT * without WHERE took several minutes. The problem was humongous amount of empty space. This is one of the downsides you can encounter with heaps. I just created a clustered index (on a suitable column) and all was normal.
– Tibor Karaszi
yesterday
3
3
"Performance issues" is a huge area. Maybe you can pinpoint a specific query or table that's the problem and troubleshoot it. If it's the heap, then consider adding a clustered index in accordance to the queries and operations in which it's involved.
– EzLo
2 days ago
"Performance issues" is a huge area. Maybe you can pinpoint a specific query or table that's the problem and troubleshoot it. If it's the heap, then consider adding a clustered index in accordance to the queries and operations in which it's involved.
– EzLo
2 days ago
I recently had a case with a heap with lots and lots of empty space. Only some 6000 rows and a simple SELECT * without WHERE took several minutes. The problem was humongous amount of empty space. This is one of the downsides you can encounter with heaps. I just created a clustered index (on a suitable column) and all was normal.
– Tibor Karaszi
yesterday
I recently had a case with a heap with lots and lots of empty space. Only some 6000 rows and a simple SELECT * without WHERE took several minutes. The problem was humongous amount of empty space. This is one of the downsides you can encounter with heaps. I just created a clustered index (on a suitable column) and all was normal.
– Tibor Karaszi
yesterday
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Ola Hallengren's index optimize script does not perform Heap defragmentation.
In other words table rebuilds are not happening when running the procedure and that is expected.
You could run ALTER TABLE dbo.tablename REBUILD;
to remove the fragmentation.
This also rebuilds the nonclustered indexes on the heap.
Better option than rebuilding your heap tables
You do have to ask yourself or the application team why you can't add a clustered index to the table.
as rebuilding the heap uses a lot of resources and is a temporary solution.
If you add a clustered index, that index is included in the Index Optimize script, and fragmentation will be removed when the script runs.
Another option is to add the clustered index and stop worrying about index fragmentation.
We are experiencing performance issues. I am aware that 2008 is not
ideal and that is being addressed.
It could be that it is because of the forwarded records in the heap tables, but at 8167 pages I would say that that is not likely. A starting point could be looking at the queries being executed on your server.
SP_BlitzCache can help with finding your worst performing queries.
The datafile is also showing as 220gb but the actual space used is
140gb.
This should not be a problem. Apart from disk space you should not be too worried. You are not relying on autogrowth, which is a good thing.
answered 2 days ago
Randi VertongenRandi Vertongen
4,8211924
1
Alter table <table> REBUILD is supported in SQL Server 2008 onwards so you can do that to rebuild the heap. Tibor Karaszi has a script here: karaszi.com/rebuild-all-fragmented-heaps that is of great help
– Spörri
2 days ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "182"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f234551%2ftable-fragmentation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Ola Hallengren's index optimize script does not perform Heap defragmentation.
In other words table rebuilds are not happening when running the procedure and that is expected.
You could run ALTER TABLE dbo.tablename REBUILD;
to remove the fragmentation.
This also rebuilds the nonclustered indexes on the heap.
Better option than rebuilding your heap tables
You do have to ask yourself or the application team why you can't add a clustered index to the table.
as rebuilding the heap uses a lot of resources and is a temporary solution.
If you add a clustered index, that index is included in the Index Optimize script, and fragmentation will be removed when the script runs.
Another option is to add the clustered index and stop worrying about index fragmentation.
We are experiencing performance issues. I am aware that 2008 is not
ideal and that is being addressed.
It could be that it is because of the forwarded records in the heap tables, but at 8167 pages I would say that that is not likely. A starting point could be looking at the queries being executed on your server.
SP_BlitzCache can help with finding your worst performing queries.
The datafile is also showing as 220gb but the actual space used is
140gb.
This should not be a problem. Apart from disk space you should not be too worried. You are not relying on autogrowth, which is a good thing.
answered 2 days ago
Randi VertongenRandi Vertongen
4,8211924
1
Alter table <table> REBUILD is supported in SQL Server 2008 onwards so you can do that to rebuild the heap. Tibor Karaszi has a script here: karaszi.com/rebuild-all-fragmented-heaps that is of great help
– Spörri
2 days ago
add a comment |
Ola Hallengren's index optimize script does not perform Heap defragmentation.
In other words table rebuilds are not happening when running the procedure and that is expected.
You could run ALTER TABLE dbo.tablename REBUILD;
to remove the fragmentation.
This also rebuilds the nonclustered indexes on the heap.
Better option than rebuilding your heap tables
You do have to ask yourself or the application team why you can't add a clustered index to the table.
as rebuilding the heap uses a lot of resources and is a temporary solution.
If you add a clustered index, that index is included in the Index Optimize script, and fragmentation will be removed when the script runs.
Another option is to add the clustered index and stop worrying about index fragmentation.
We are experiencing performance issues. I am aware that 2008 is not
ideal and that is being addressed.
It could be that it is because of the forwarded records in the heap tables, but at 8167 pages I would say that that is not likely. A starting point could be looking at the queries being executed on your server.
SP_BlitzCache can help with finding your worst performing queries.
The datafile is also showing as 220gb but the actual space used is
140gb.
This should not be a problem. Apart from disk space you should not be too worried. You are not relying on autogrowth, which is a good thing.
answered 2 days ago
Randi VertongenRandi Vertongen
4,8211924
1
Alter table <table> REBUILD is supported in SQL Server 2008 onwards so you can do that to rebuild the heap. Tibor Karaszi has a script here: karaszi.com/rebuild-all-fragmented-heaps that is of great help
– Spörri
2 days ago
add a comment |
Ola Hallengren's index optimize script does not perform Heap defragmentation.
In other words table rebuilds are not happening when running the procedure and that is expected.
You could run ALTER TABLE dbo.tablename REBUILD;
to remove the fragmentation.
This also rebuilds the nonclustered indexes on the heap.
Better option than rebuilding your heap tables
You do have to ask yourself or the application team why you can't add a clustered index to the table.
as rebuilding the heap uses a lot of resources and is a temporary solution.
If you add a clustered index, that index is included in the Index Optimize script, and fragmentation will be removed when the script runs.
Another option is to add the clustered index and stop worrying about index fragmentation.
We are experiencing performance issues. I am aware that 2008 is not
ideal and that is being addressed.
It could be that it is because of the forwarded records in the heap tables, but at 8167 pages I would say that that is not likely. A starting point could be looking at the queries being executed on your server.
SP_BlitzCache can help with finding your worst performing queries.
The datafile is also showing as 220gb but the actual space used is
140gb.
This should not be a problem. Apart from disk space you should not be too worried. You are not relying on autogrowth, which is a good thing.
answered 2 days ago
Randi VertongenRandi Vertongen
4,8211924
Ola Hallengren's index optimize script does not perform Heap defragmentation.
In other words table rebuilds are not happening when running the procedure and that is expected.
You could run ALTER TABLE dbo.tablename REBUILD;
to remove the fragmentation.
This also rebuilds the nonclustered indexes on the heap.
Better option than rebuilding your heap tables
You do have to ask yourself or the application team why you can't add a clustered index to the table.
as rebuilding the heap uses a lot of resources and is a temporary solution.
If you add a clustered index, that index is included in the Index Optimize script, and fragmentation will be removed when the script runs.
Another option is to add the clustered index and stop worrying about index fragmentation.
We are experiencing performance issues. I am aware that 2008 is not
ideal and that is being addressed.
It could be that it is because of the forwarded records in the heap tables, but at 8167 pages I would say that that is not likely. A starting point could be looking at the queries being executed on your server.
SP_BlitzCache can help with finding your worst performing queries.
The datafile is also showing as 220gb but the actual space used is
140gb.
This should not be a problem. Apart from disk space you should not be too worried. You are not relying on autogrowth, which is a good thing.
answered 2 days ago
Randi VertongenRandi Vertongen
4,8211924
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Randi VertongenRandi Vertongen
4,8211924
answered 2 days ago
Randi VertongenRandi Vertongen
4,8211924
answered 2 days ago
Randi VertongenRandi Vertongen
4,8211924
4,8211924
1
Alter table <table> REBUILD is supported in SQL Server 2008 onwards so you can do that to rebuild the heap. Tibor Karaszi has a script here: karaszi.com/rebuild-all-fragmented-heaps that is of great help
– Spörri
2 days ago
add a comment |
1
Alter table <table> REBUILD is supported in SQL Server 2008 onwards so you can do that to rebuild the heap. Tibor Karaszi has a script here: karaszi.com/rebuild-all-fragmented-heaps that is of great help
– Spörri
2 days ago
1
1
Alter table <table> REBUILD is supported in SQL Server 2008 onwards so you can do that to rebuild the heap. Tibor Karaszi has a script here: karaszi.com/rebuild-all-fragmented-heaps that is of great help
– Spörri
2 days ago
Alter table <table> REBUILD is supported in SQL Server 2008 onwards so you can do that to rebuild the heap. Tibor Karaszi has a script here: karaszi.com/rebuild-all-fragmented-heaps that is of great help
– Spörri
2 days ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f234551%2ftable-fragmentation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
"Performance issues" is a huge area. Maybe you can pinpoint a specific query or table that's the problem and troubleshoot it. If it's the heap, then consider adding a clustered index in accordance to the queries and operations in which it's involved.
– EzLo
2 days ago
I recently had a case with a heap with lots and lots of empty space. Only some 6000 rows and a simple SELECT * without WHERE took several minutes. The problem was humongous amount of empty space. This is one of the downsides you can encounter with heaps. I just created a clustered index (on a suitable column) and all was normal.
– Tibor Karaszi
yesterday