Snorting The Future
SQL Server 2019 introduced batch mode over row store, which allows for batch mode processing to kick in on queries when the optimizer deems it cost effective to do so, and also to open up row store queries to the possibility of Adaptive Joins , and Memory Grant Feedback .
These optimizer tricks have the potential to help with parameter sniffing, since the optimizer can change its mind about join strategies at run time, and adjust memory grant issues between query executions.
But of course, the plan that compiles initially has to qualify to begin with. In a way, that just makes parameter sniffing even more frustrating.
I Hate Graphic Tees
But I like this demo. It’s got some neat stuff going on in the plan, and that neat stuff changes depending on what you look for.
I also like it because it returns a small number of rows overall. I’ve gotten complaints in the past that queries that return lots of rows are unrealistic.
Moving on.
Here’s The Procedure
CREATE OR ALTER PROCEDURE dbo.DisplayNameSearch
(
@DisplayName NVARCHAR(40)
)
AS
BEGIN
SELECT TOP 1000
u.Id,
u.DisplayName,
SUM(u.Reputation) AS Reputation,
SUM(CASE WHEN p.PostTypeId = 1 THEN p.Score END ) AS QuestionsScore,
SUM(CASE WHEN p.PostTypeId = 2 THEN p.Score END ) AS AnswersScore
FROM dbo.Users AS u
JOIN dbo.Posts AS p
ON p.OwnerUserId = u.Id
WHERE u.DisplayName LIKE @DisplayName
AND EXISTS (SELECT 1/0 FROM dbo.Badges AS b WHERE b.UserId = p.OwnerUserId)
GROUP BY u.Id, u.DisplayName
ORDER BY Reputation DESC
END;
GO
Here’s The Indexes
CREATE INDEX ix_posts_helper ON dbo.Posts (OwnerUserId, Score) WITH (SORT_IN_TEMPDB = ON);
CREATE INDEX ix_users_helper ON dbo.Users (DisplayName, Reputation) INCLUDE (PostTypeId) WITH (SORT_IN_TEMPDB = ON);
CREATE INDEX ix_badges_helper ON dbo.Badges (UserId) WITH (SORT_IN_TEMPDB = ON);
Parameter Sniffing Problem
My favorite user in the Users table isEggs McLaren. If I wanted to find Eggs, and users like Eggs, I could run my proc like this:
EXEC dbo.DisplayNameSearch @DisplayName = N'Eggs%'
It finishes pretty quickly.
Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Posts'. Scan count 11, logical reads 48, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Badges'. Scan count 17, logical reads 72, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Users'. Scan count 1, logical reads 5, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
SQL Server Execution Times:
CPU time = 0 ms,elapsed time = 2 ms.
The plan for it is what you’d expect for a small number of rows. Nested Loops. Kinda boring. Though it has a Batch Mode operator way at the end, for some reason.
![Batch Mode For Row Store: Does It Fix Parameter Sniffing?]()
Flight of the Navigator
I say “for some reason” because I’m not sure why batch mode is a good option for one batch of 9 rows. It might just be in there as a safeguard for memory adjustments.
But hey, I’m just a bouncer.
If the next thing we look at is for users who didn’t register a proper handle on the site, we can run this query:
EXEC dbo.DisplayNameSearch @DisplayName = N'user[1-2]%'
We might even find this guy :
![Batch Mode For Row Store: Does It Fix Parameter Sniffing?]()
Hello, new friend!
The plan doesn’t change a whole lot, except that now we have a couple spills, and they’re not even that bad. If we run the users query a couple more times, the memory grant stuff will iron out. Kind of. We’ll look at that in a minute.
![Batch Mode For Row Store: Does It Fix Parameter Sniffing?]()
Tripped, fell
The metrics for this one are way different, though. We do a ton more reads, because we get stuck in Nested Loops hell processing way more rows with them.
Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 6249, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Posts'. Scan count 200450, logical reads 641628, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 2, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Badges'. Scan count 507356, logical reads 1619439, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 1, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Users'. Scan count 1, logical reads 2526, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
SQL Server Execution Times:
CPU time = 3593 ms,elapsed time = 5051 ms.
Five Seconds Doesn’t Seem Bad
To most people, it wouldn’t be, but it depends on your expectations, SLAs, and of course, which set of parameters more closely resembles typical user results.
Especially because, if we recompile and run it for users first, we do much better. Far fewer reads, and we trade 30ms of CPU time for about 3.5 seconds of elapsed time.
Table 'Users'. Scan count 1, logical reads 2526, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Badges'. Scan count 5, logical reads 43941, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Posts'. Scan count 5, logical reads 105873, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
SQL Server Execution Times:
CPU time = 3626 ms,elapsed time = 1601 ms.
Even Eggs is in okay shape using the ‘big’ plan. Yes, metrics are up a bit compared to the small plan, but I still consider a quarter of a second pretty fast, especially since we do so much better with the users plan.
Table 'Users'. Scan count 1, logical reads 5, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Badges'. Scan count 5, logical reads 43941, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Posts'. Scan count 17, logical reads 94, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.
SQL Server Execution Times:
CPU time = 985 ms,elapsed time = 261 ms.
Most of the reason for
![[Video] Office Hours 2018/10/24 (With Transcriptions)](http://img0.tuicool.com/VFrUF33.png!web)
