|
Comments
|
Marcelo Marim on
4/30/2010
I would like to see his runing the latest query without the index and see how much you will save in reads.
Sometimes just making changes to the query will improve the reads without the need of a new index.
|
|
Kasey Wheeler on
4/30/2010
Great lesson...nice vid.
|
|
|
This is the first time I have seen all of the performance tuning items used together, execution plan, profiler and SQL/index.
A thing of beauty!!! Thank you.
|
|
|
AWESOME!!!! More please!!! I am very interested in Performance Tuning.
|
|
|
I would defintely find more videos like this useful. Thanks!
|
|
|
great tuturial
|
|
Douglas Kemp on
4/30/2010
I liked the concept and approach in this video
|
|
|
Good examples
|
|
|
Excellent process. Thanks.
|
|
|
Nice. Keep up with the challenges!
|
|
|
very good. It´s complete! Perfect study case.
|
|
|
I wish there was more science than art in this.
|
|
|
It was great! Please have more quizes, Putting things into practice is much different than just theroy. Seeing the thought process behind the solution was very helpful.
|
|
|
One great explanation from millions of query tuning techiniques.
|
|
|
Excellent!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Very good.
|
|
|
More tuning, please. Excellent insights.
|
|
|
Excellent!!!
|
|
|
Great example. Although I was surprised there was no mention of the different type of JOIN between the two examples (NESTED LOOP/HASH) - which is making all the difference.
|
|
|
Very good. Performance tuning is the key to successful dba. Thank you!
|
|
|
great will help me lots
|
|
|
Great informative video. Obviously there is 'more than 1 way to skin a cat', but this gets people thinking about the possibilities!! Great!
|
|
|
Thanks for the puzzle-demo Andy.
I was surprised (shocked in fact) to see that SQL Server apparently did not "see" that the SELECT embedded in the original WHERE clause was not correlated with the outer SELECT. Shouldn't that be one of the easiest and most obvious things for a query optimizer to pick up? Especially since the stats would show that the inner query could never return more than a handfull of records?
|
|
|
By Adding the index I do not see much change in teh execution time. But yes need toi write the proper querry and definitly ts impact will be huge as shown in te example. Writing effective querry is more important. Thanks for sample. its really useful
|
|
|
It would be nice to have a version for SQL 2005, but I'll just move it to my 2008 QA environment.
I do think that optimization (like a simple best practice of an index) is much more efficient than playing with queries. Play with 14 million records instead of 14,000 and look at the plan.
|
|
|
Excellent post, Andy.
|
|
|
Really Good One... Definitelt this will help us...
|
|
|
Fantastic Tuning Example.
|
|
|
Good example while it's still simple enough to see! Thanks
|
|
|
I was able to get down to 25 reads. I would be interested in how to get it down to less reads. Another video would be great.
|
|
David Hunter on
5/12/2010
Excellent video !
|
|
|
Great session
|
|
|
It was interesting to see how removing the IN Clause with SQL Select dropped the read counts.
|
|
Mark Holahan on
5/27/2010
Very good presentation, pace, and content. Thanks!
|
|
|
Excellent! Read metrics in particular.
|
|
|
Great Demononstration
|
|
|
great info - thanks
|
|
|
just great! thank you.
|
|
|
Without changing the query, I added a non-clustered index on the CountAsAttending field of the RegistrationStatus table and it dropped the reads to 10. The query plan has two index seeks.
|