Page Free Space

This post covers a little-known locking optimization that provides a surprising answer to the question:

If I hold an exclusive lock on a row, can another transaction running at the default read committed isolation level read it?

Most people would answer ‘no’, on the basis that the read would block when it tried to acquire a shared lock. Others might respond that it depends on whether the READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT database option was in effect, but let’s assume that is not the case, and we are dealing simply with the default (locking) read committed isolation level.

If you look up Table Hints in the official documentation, you’ll find the following statements:

If a clustered index exists, INDEX(0) forces a clustered index scan and INDEX(1) forces a clustered index scan or seek.

If no clustered index exists, INDEX(0) forces a table scan and INDEX(1) is interpreted as an error.

The interesting thing there is that both hints can result in a scan. If that is the case, you might wonder if there is any effective difference between the two.

This blog entry explores that question, and highlights an optimizer quirk that can result in a much less efficient query plan when using INDEX(0). I’ll also cover some stuff about ordering guarantees.

When you write a query to return the first few rows from a potential result set, you’ll often use the TOP clause.

To give a precise meaning to the TOP operation, it will normally be accompanied by an ORDER BY clause. Together, the TOP…ORDER BY construction can be used to precisely identify which top ‘n’ rows should be returned.

You might recall from Inside the Optimizer: Row Goals In Depth that query plans containing a row goal tend to favour nested loops or sort-free merge join over hashing.

This is because a hash join has to fully process its build input (to populate its hash table) before it can start probing for matches on its other input. Hash join therefore has a high start-up cost, balanced by a lower per-row cost once probing begins.

In this post, we will take a look at how row goals affect grouping operations.

Background

One of the core assumptions made by the SQL Server query optimizer cost model is that clients will eventually consume all the rows produced by a query.

This results in plans that favour the overall execution cost, though it may take longer to begin producing rows.

From time to time, I encounter a system design that always issues an UPDATE against the database after a user has finished working with a record — without checking to see if any of the data was in fact altered.

The prevailing wisdom seems to be “the database will sort it out”. This raises an interesting question: How smart is SQL Server in these circumstances?

In this post, I’ll look at a generalisation of this problem: What is the impact of updating a column to the value it already contains?

The specific questions I want to answer are:

• Does this kind of UPDATE generate any log activity?
• Do data pages get marked as dirty (and so eventually get written out to disk)?
• Does SQL Server bother doing the update at all?

Iterators

SQL Server uses an extensible architecture for query optimization and execution, using iterators as the basic building blocks.

Iterators are probably most familiar in their graphical showplan representation, where each icon represents a single iterator. They also show up in XML query plan output as RelOp nodes:

Each iterator performs a single simple function, such as applying a filtering condition, or performing an aggregation. It can represent a logical operation, a physical operation, or (most often) both.

More undocumented ways to explore how the query optimizer works.

Presenting an undocumented Dynamic Management View we can use to identify the optimization rules involved in producing an executable plan.

Continuing the series of posts looking at how the optimizer matches and applies internal rules to refine a query plan.

The last post ended with this query plan:

The optimizer has pushed the predicate ProductNumber LIKE 'T%' down from a Filter to the Index Scan on the Product table, but it remains as a residual predicate.

For today’s entry, I thought we might take a look at how the optimizer builds an executable plan using rules. To illustrate the process performed by the optimizer, we will configure it to produce incrementally better plans by progressively applying the necessary rules.

SQL Server 2005 introduced the OVER clause to enable partitioning of rowsets before applying a window function. This post looks at how this feature may require a query plan containing a ‘common subexpression spool’. This query plan construction is required whenever an aggregate window function or the NTILE ranking window function is used.