Table Fragmentation Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)How to identify fragmentation level of the table data itself not the table indexes, and then defragInnoDB, Hash Table, Reference Table and FragmentationMeasure fragmentation of a single index?SQL Server Index, difference between Average fragmentation and Total fragmentationWhat is Heap Fragmentation sans Indexes?Index with high fragmentation percentageDeleting data from a table containing LOBs did not reduce the amount of data reported INTERNALLY by the table or databaseFragmentation of indexes with small a databaseTable and Index fragmentationFragmentation Level for Heaps
Strange behavior of Object.defineProperty() in JavaScript
Random body shuffle every night—can we still function?
The Nth Gryphon Number
Getting prompted for verification code but where do I put it in?
Deconstruction is ambiguous
If Windows 7 doesn't support WSL, then what is "Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications"?
Can the Flaming Sphere spell be rammed into multiple Tiny creatures that are in the same 5-foot square?
Why can't I install Tomboy in Ubuntu Mate 19.04?
Is there any word for a place full of confusion?
A term for a woman complaining about things/begging in a cute/childish way
Is there public access to the Meteor Crater in Arizona?
Is CEO the "profession" with the most psychopaths?
What does 丫 mean? 丫是什么意思?
Is there hard evidence that the grant peer review system performs significantly better than random?
What do you call the main part of a joke?
What's the point of the test set?
What is the chair depicted in Cesare Maccari's 1889 painting "Cicerone denuncia Catilina"?
Flash light on something
Tannaka duality for semisimple groups
Why are my pictures showing a dark band on one edge?
Did any compiler fully use 80-bit floating point?
How often does castling occur in grandmaster games?
Do wooden building fires get hotter than 600°C?
How does Belgium enforce obligatory attendance in elections?
Table Fragmentation
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)How to identify fragmentation level of the table data itself not the table indexes, and then defragInnoDB, Hash Table, Reference Table and FragmentationMeasure fragmentation of a single index?SQL Server Index, difference between Average fragmentation and Total fragmentationWhat is Heap Fragmentation sans Indexes?Index with high fragmentation percentageDeleting data from a table containing LOBs did not reduce the amount of data reported INTERNALLY by the table or databaseFragmentation of indexes with small a databaseTable and Index fragmentationFragmentation Level for Heaps
.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
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
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
Apr 11 at 11:37
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
Apr 12 at 6:40
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
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 Apr 11 at 21:34
Paul White♦
54.3k14288461
54.3k14288461
asked Apr 11 at 11:06
RoundRound
203
203
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
Apr 11 at 11:37
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
Apr 12 at 6:40
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
Apr 11 at 11:37
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
Apr 12 at 6:40
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
Apr 11 at 11:37
"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
Apr 11 at 11:37
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
Apr 12 at 6:40
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
Apr 12 at 6:40
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.
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
Apr 11 at 16:11
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.
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
Apr 11 at 16:11
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.
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
Apr 11 at 16:11
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.
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.
edited Apr 11 at 11:51
answered Apr 11 at 11:27
Randi VertongenRandi Vertongen
5,0711924
5,0711924
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
Apr 11 at 16:11
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
Apr 11 at 16:11
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
Apr 11 at 16:11
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
Apr 11 at 16:11
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
Apr 11 at 11:37
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
Apr 12 at 6:40