Sort spills to tempdb due to varchar(max)












9















On a server with 32GB we are running SQL Server 2014 SP2 with a max memory of 25GB we have two tables, here you find a simplified structure of both tables:



CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Settings](
[id] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[resourceId] [int] NULL,
[typeID] [int] NULL,
[remark] [varchar](max) NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_Settings] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([id] ASC)
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO

CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Resources](
[id] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[resourceUID] [int] NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_Resources] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([id] ASC)
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO


with following non-clustered indexes:



CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_UID] ON [dbo].[Resources]
(
[resourceUID] ASC
)

CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_Test] ON [dbo].[Settings]
(
[resourceId] ASC,
[typeID] ASC
)


The database is configured with compatibility level 120.



When I run this query there are spills to tempdb.
This is how I execute the query:



exec sp_executesql N'
select r.id,remark
FROM Resources r
inner join Settings on resourceid=r.id
where resourceUID=@UID
ORDER BY typeID',
N'@UID int',
@UID=38


If don't select the [remark] field no spills occurs. My first reaction was that the spills occurred due to the low number of estimated rows on the nested-loop operator.



So I add 5 datetime and 5 integer columns to the settings table and add them to my select statement. When I execute the query no spills are happening.



Why are the spills only happening when [remark] is selected? It has probably something to do with the fact that this is a varchar(max).
What can I do to avoid spilling to tempdb?



Adding OPTION (RECOMPILE) to the query makes no difference.










share|improve this question

























  • May be you can try select r.id, LEFT(remark, 512) (or whatever sensible substring length might be).

    – mustaccio
    2 days ago











  • @Forrest: I'm trying to reproduce the data needed to simulate the problem. At first sight it has to do with the low estimate of the nested loop. In my dummy data the estimated number of rows is much higher and no spilling is happening

    – Frederik Vanderhaegen
    2 days ago
















9















On a server with 32GB we are running SQL Server 2014 SP2 with a max memory of 25GB we have two tables, here you find a simplified structure of both tables:



CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Settings](
[id] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[resourceId] [int] NULL,
[typeID] [int] NULL,
[remark] [varchar](max) NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_Settings] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([id] ASC)
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO

CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Resources](
[id] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[resourceUID] [int] NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_Resources] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([id] ASC)
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO


with following non-clustered indexes:



CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_UID] ON [dbo].[Resources]
(
[resourceUID] ASC
)

CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_Test] ON [dbo].[Settings]
(
[resourceId] ASC,
[typeID] ASC
)


The database is configured with compatibility level 120.



When I run this query there are spills to tempdb.
This is how I execute the query:



exec sp_executesql N'
select r.id,remark
FROM Resources r
inner join Settings on resourceid=r.id
where resourceUID=@UID
ORDER BY typeID',
N'@UID int',
@UID=38


If don't select the [remark] field no spills occurs. My first reaction was that the spills occurred due to the low number of estimated rows on the nested-loop operator.



So I add 5 datetime and 5 integer columns to the settings table and add them to my select statement. When I execute the query no spills are happening.



Why are the spills only happening when [remark] is selected? It has probably something to do with the fact that this is a varchar(max).
What can I do to avoid spilling to tempdb?



Adding OPTION (RECOMPILE) to the query makes no difference.










share|improve this question

























  • May be you can try select r.id, LEFT(remark, 512) (or whatever sensible substring length might be).

    – mustaccio
    2 days ago











  • @Forrest: I'm trying to reproduce the data needed to simulate the problem. At first sight it has to do with the low estimate of the nested loop. In my dummy data the estimated number of rows is much higher and no spilling is happening

    – Frederik Vanderhaegen
    2 days ago














9












9








9


2






On a server with 32GB we are running SQL Server 2014 SP2 with a max memory of 25GB we have two tables, here you find a simplified structure of both tables:



CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Settings](
[id] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[resourceId] [int] NULL,
[typeID] [int] NULL,
[remark] [varchar](max) NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_Settings] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([id] ASC)
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO

CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Resources](
[id] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[resourceUID] [int] NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_Resources] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([id] ASC)
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO


with following non-clustered indexes:



CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_UID] ON [dbo].[Resources]
(
[resourceUID] ASC
)

CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_Test] ON [dbo].[Settings]
(
[resourceId] ASC,
[typeID] ASC
)


The database is configured with compatibility level 120.



When I run this query there are spills to tempdb.
This is how I execute the query:



exec sp_executesql N'
select r.id,remark
FROM Resources r
inner join Settings on resourceid=r.id
where resourceUID=@UID
ORDER BY typeID',
N'@UID int',
@UID=38


If don't select the [remark] field no spills occurs. My first reaction was that the spills occurred due to the low number of estimated rows on the nested-loop operator.



So I add 5 datetime and 5 integer columns to the settings table and add them to my select statement. When I execute the query no spills are happening.



Why are the spills only happening when [remark] is selected? It has probably something to do with the fact that this is a varchar(max).
What can I do to avoid spilling to tempdb?



Adding OPTION (RECOMPILE) to the query makes no difference.










share|improve this question
















On a server with 32GB we are running SQL Server 2014 SP2 with a max memory of 25GB we have two tables, here you find a simplified structure of both tables:



CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Settings](
[id] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[resourceId] [int] NULL,
[typeID] [int] NULL,
[remark] [varchar](max) NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_Settings] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([id] ASC)
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO

CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Resources](
[id] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[resourceUID] [int] NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_Resources] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([id] ASC)
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO


with following non-clustered indexes:



CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_UID] ON [dbo].[Resources]
(
[resourceUID] ASC
)

CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_Test] ON [dbo].[Settings]
(
[resourceId] ASC,
[typeID] ASC
)


The database is configured with compatibility level 120.



When I run this query there are spills to tempdb.
This is how I execute the query:



exec sp_executesql N'
select r.id,remark
FROM Resources r
inner join Settings on resourceid=r.id
where resourceUID=@UID
ORDER BY typeID',
N'@UID int',
@UID=38


If don't select the [remark] field no spills occurs. My first reaction was that the spills occurred due to the low number of estimated rows on the nested-loop operator.



So I add 5 datetime and 5 integer columns to the settings table and add them to my select statement. When I execute the query no spills are happening.



Why are the spills only happening when [remark] is selected? It has probably something to do with the fact that this is a varchar(max).
What can I do to avoid spilling to tempdb?



Adding OPTION (RECOMPILE) to the query makes no difference.







sql-server query-performance tempdb cardinality-estimates






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









Paul White

49.4k14260414




49.4k14260414










asked 2 days ago









Frederik VanderhaegenFrederik Vanderhaegen

6641316




6641316













  • May be you can try select r.id, LEFT(remark, 512) (or whatever sensible substring length might be).

    – mustaccio
    2 days ago











  • @Forrest: I'm trying to reproduce the data needed to simulate the problem. At first sight it has to do with the low estimate of the nested loop. In my dummy data the estimated number of rows is much higher and no spilling is happening

    – Frederik Vanderhaegen
    2 days ago



















  • May be you can try select r.id, LEFT(remark, 512) (or whatever sensible substring length might be).

    – mustaccio
    2 days ago











  • @Forrest: I'm trying to reproduce the data needed to simulate the problem. At first sight it has to do with the low estimate of the nested loop. In my dummy data the estimated number of rows is much higher and no spilling is happening

    – Frederik Vanderhaegen
    2 days ago

















May be you can try select r.id, LEFT(remark, 512) (or whatever sensible substring length might be).

– mustaccio
2 days ago





May be you can try select r.id, LEFT(remark, 512) (or whatever sensible substring length might be).

– mustaccio
2 days ago













@Forrest: I'm trying to reproduce the data needed to simulate the problem. At first sight it has to do with the low estimate of the nested loop. In my dummy data the estimated number of rows is much higher and no spilling is happening

– Frederik Vanderhaegen
2 days ago





@Forrest: I'm trying to reproduce the data needed to simulate the problem. At first sight it has to do with the low estimate of the nested loop. In my dummy data the estimated number of rows is much higher and no spilling is happening

– Frederik Vanderhaegen
2 days ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















9














There are going to be several possible workarounds here.



You can manually adjust the memory grant, though I probably wouldn't go that route.



You can also use a CTE and TOP to push the sort lower, before grabbing the max length column. It will look something like below.



WITH CTE AS (
SELECT TOP 1000000000 r.ID, s.ID AS ID2, s.typeID
FROM Resources r
inner join Settings s on resourceid=r.id
where resourceUID=@UID
ORDER BY s.typeID
)
SELECT c.ID, ca.remark
FROM CTE c
CROSS APPLY (SELECT remark FROM dbo.Settings s WHERE s.id = c.ID2) ca(remark)
ORDER BY c.typeID


Proof-of-concept dbfiddle here.
Sample data would still be appreciated!



If you want to read an excellent analysis by Paul White, read here.






share|improve this answer

































    6















    Why are the spills only happening when [remark] is selected?




    The spill is happening when you include that column because you don't get a big enough memory grant for the large string data being sorted.



    You don't get a big enough memory grant because the actual number of rows is 10x more than the estimated number of rows (1,302 actual vs 126 estimated).



    Why is the estimate off? Why does SQL Server think there's only one row in dbo.Settings with a resourceid of 38?



    It could be a statistics issue, which you can check by running DBCC SHOW_STATISTICS('dbo.Settings', 'IX_Test') and see the counts for that histogram step. But the execution plan seems to indicate that the stats are as complete and up-to-date as they could be.



    Since stats aren't helping, your best bet is probably a query rewrite - which Forrest has covered in his answer.






    share|improve this answer































      2














      To me it appears that the where clause in the query is giving the issue, and is the cause of the low estimates, even if OPTION(RECOMPILE) is used.



      I created some test data, and in the end came up with two solutions, storing the ID field from resources in either a variable (if it is always unique) or a temp table, if we can have more than one ID's.



      Base test records



      SET NOCOUNT ON
      DECLARE @i int= 1;
      WHILE @i <= 10000
      BEGIN
      INSERT INTO [dbo].[Settings]([resourceId],[typeID],remark)
      VALUES(@i,@i,'KEPT THESE VALUES OUT BECAUSE IT WOULD CLUTTER THE EXAMPLES, VALUES OVER 8000 Chars entered here'); -- 23254 character length on each value
      INSERT INTO [dbo].[Resources](resourceUID)
      VALUES(@i);
      SET @i += 1;
      END


      Insert the 'Seek' values, as to get to the same approximate resultset as OP (1300 records)



      INSERT INTO  [dbo].[Settings]([resourceId],[typeID],remark)
      VALUES(38,38,'KEPT THESE VALUES OUT BECAUSE IT WOULD CLUTTER THE EXAMPLES, VALUES OVER 8000 Chars entered here')
      GO 1300


      Change compat & Update statistics to match OP



      ALTER DATABASE StackOverflow SET COMPATIBILITY_LEVEL = 120;
      UPDATE STATISTICS settings WITH FULLSCAN;
      UPDATE STATISTICS resources WITH FULLSCAN;


      Original query



      exec sp_executesql N'
      select r.id
      FROM Resources r
      inner join Settings on resourceid=r.id
      where resourceUID=@UID
      ORDER BY typeID',
      N'@UID int',
      @UID=38


      My estimates are even worse, with one estimated row, while 1300 are returned.
      And like OP stated, it does not matter if I add OPTION(RECOMPILE)



      An important thing to note, is that when we get rid of the where clause the estimates are 100% correct, which is expected since we are using all data in both tables.



      I forced the indexes just to make sure we use the same ones as in the previous query, to prove the point



      exec sp_executesql N'
      select r.id,remark
      FROM Resources r with(index([IX_UID]))
      inner join Settings WITH(INDEX([IX_Test]))
      on resourceid=r.id
      ORDER BY typeID',
      N'@UID int',
      @UID=38


      As expected, good estimates.



      So, what could we change to get better estimates but still seek on our values?



      IF @UID is unique, as in the example OP gave, we could put the single id that was returned from resources in a variable, then seek on that variable with an OPTION(RECOMPILE)



      DECLARE @UID int =38 , @RID int;
      SELECT @RID=r.id from
      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID;

      SELECT @uid, remark
      from Settings
      where resourceId = @uid
      Order by typeID
      OPTION(RECOMPILE);


      Which gives 100% accurate estimates



      But what if there are multiple resourceUID's in resources?



      add some test data



      INSERT INTO Resources(ResourceUID)
      VALUES (38);
      go 50


      This could be resolved with a temp table



      CREATE TABLE #RID (id int)
      DECLARE @UID int =38
      INSERT INTO #RID
      SELECT r.id
      from
      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID

      SELECT @uid, remark
      from Settings s
      INNER JOIN #RID r
      ON r.id =s.resourceId
      Order by typeID
      OPTION(RECOMPILE)

      DROP TABLE #RID


      Again with accurate estimates.



      This was done with my own dataset,YMMV.





      Written with sp_executesql



      With a variable



      exec sp_executesql N'
      DECLARE @RID int;
      SELECT @RID=r.id from
      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID;

      SELECT @uid, remark
      from Settings
      where resourceId = @uid
      Order by typeID
      OPTION(RECOMPILE);',
      N'@UID int',
      @UID=38


      With a temp table



      exec sp_executesql N'

      CREATE TABLE #RID (id int)

      INSERT INTO #RID
      SELECT r.id
      from
      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID

      SELECT @uid, remark
      from Settings s
      INNER JOIN #RID r
      ON r.id =s.resourceId
      Order by typeID
      OPTION(RECOMPILE)

      DROP TABLE #RID',
      N'@UID int',
      @UID=38


      Still 100% correct estimates on my test






      share|improve this answer





















      • 1





        You could also create filtered statistics for atypically distributed ResourceUID values to help the cardinality estimator, together with OPTION (RECOMPILE) or embedded literals e.g. CREATE STATISTICS [id (resourceUID = 38)] ON dbo.Resources (id) WHERE resourceUID = 38 WITH FULLSCAN;. But the main problem is sorting large values unnecessarily, as addressed by Forrest's answer.

        – Paul White
        yesterday













      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
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f227288%2fsort-spills-to-tempdb-due-to-varcharmax%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      9














      There are going to be several possible workarounds here.



      You can manually adjust the memory grant, though I probably wouldn't go that route.



      You can also use a CTE and TOP to push the sort lower, before grabbing the max length column. It will look something like below.



      WITH CTE AS (
      SELECT TOP 1000000000 r.ID, s.ID AS ID2, s.typeID
      FROM Resources r
      inner join Settings s on resourceid=r.id
      where resourceUID=@UID
      ORDER BY s.typeID
      )
      SELECT c.ID, ca.remark
      FROM CTE c
      CROSS APPLY (SELECT remark FROM dbo.Settings s WHERE s.id = c.ID2) ca(remark)
      ORDER BY c.typeID


      Proof-of-concept dbfiddle here.
      Sample data would still be appreciated!



      If you want to read an excellent analysis by Paul White, read here.






      share|improve this answer






























        9














        There are going to be several possible workarounds here.



        You can manually adjust the memory grant, though I probably wouldn't go that route.



        You can also use a CTE and TOP to push the sort lower, before grabbing the max length column. It will look something like below.



        WITH CTE AS (
        SELECT TOP 1000000000 r.ID, s.ID AS ID2, s.typeID
        FROM Resources r
        inner join Settings s on resourceid=r.id
        where resourceUID=@UID
        ORDER BY s.typeID
        )
        SELECT c.ID, ca.remark
        FROM CTE c
        CROSS APPLY (SELECT remark FROM dbo.Settings s WHERE s.id = c.ID2) ca(remark)
        ORDER BY c.typeID


        Proof-of-concept dbfiddle here.
        Sample data would still be appreciated!



        If you want to read an excellent analysis by Paul White, read here.






        share|improve this answer




























          9












          9








          9







          There are going to be several possible workarounds here.



          You can manually adjust the memory grant, though I probably wouldn't go that route.



          You can also use a CTE and TOP to push the sort lower, before grabbing the max length column. It will look something like below.



          WITH CTE AS (
          SELECT TOP 1000000000 r.ID, s.ID AS ID2, s.typeID
          FROM Resources r
          inner join Settings s on resourceid=r.id
          where resourceUID=@UID
          ORDER BY s.typeID
          )
          SELECT c.ID, ca.remark
          FROM CTE c
          CROSS APPLY (SELECT remark FROM dbo.Settings s WHERE s.id = c.ID2) ca(remark)
          ORDER BY c.typeID


          Proof-of-concept dbfiddle here.
          Sample data would still be appreciated!



          If you want to read an excellent analysis by Paul White, read here.






          share|improve this answer















          There are going to be several possible workarounds here.



          You can manually adjust the memory grant, though I probably wouldn't go that route.



          You can also use a CTE and TOP to push the sort lower, before grabbing the max length column. It will look something like below.



          WITH CTE AS (
          SELECT TOP 1000000000 r.ID, s.ID AS ID2, s.typeID
          FROM Resources r
          inner join Settings s on resourceid=r.id
          where resourceUID=@UID
          ORDER BY s.typeID
          )
          SELECT c.ID, ca.remark
          FROM CTE c
          CROSS APPLY (SELECT remark FROM dbo.Settings s WHERE s.id = c.ID2) ca(remark)
          ORDER BY c.typeID


          Proof-of-concept dbfiddle here.
          Sample data would still be appreciated!



          If you want to read an excellent analysis by Paul White, read here.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 2 days ago

























          answered 2 days ago









          ForrestForrest

          1,977517




          1,977517

























              6















              Why are the spills only happening when [remark] is selected?




              The spill is happening when you include that column because you don't get a big enough memory grant for the large string data being sorted.



              You don't get a big enough memory grant because the actual number of rows is 10x more than the estimated number of rows (1,302 actual vs 126 estimated).



              Why is the estimate off? Why does SQL Server think there's only one row in dbo.Settings with a resourceid of 38?



              It could be a statistics issue, which you can check by running DBCC SHOW_STATISTICS('dbo.Settings', 'IX_Test') and see the counts for that histogram step. But the execution plan seems to indicate that the stats are as complete and up-to-date as they could be.



              Since stats aren't helping, your best bet is probably a query rewrite - which Forrest has covered in his answer.






              share|improve this answer




























                6















                Why are the spills only happening when [remark] is selected?




                The spill is happening when you include that column because you don't get a big enough memory grant for the large string data being sorted.



                You don't get a big enough memory grant because the actual number of rows is 10x more than the estimated number of rows (1,302 actual vs 126 estimated).



                Why is the estimate off? Why does SQL Server think there's only one row in dbo.Settings with a resourceid of 38?



                It could be a statistics issue, which you can check by running DBCC SHOW_STATISTICS('dbo.Settings', 'IX_Test') and see the counts for that histogram step. But the execution plan seems to indicate that the stats are as complete and up-to-date as they could be.



                Since stats aren't helping, your best bet is probably a query rewrite - which Forrest has covered in his answer.






                share|improve this answer


























                  6












                  6








                  6








                  Why are the spills only happening when [remark] is selected?




                  The spill is happening when you include that column because you don't get a big enough memory grant for the large string data being sorted.



                  You don't get a big enough memory grant because the actual number of rows is 10x more than the estimated number of rows (1,302 actual vs 126 estimated).



                  Why is the estimate off? Why does SQL Server think there's only one row in dbo.Settings with a resourceid of 38?



                  It could be a statistics issue, which you can check by running DBCC SHOW_STATISTICS('dbo.Settings', 'IX_Test') and see the counts for that histogram step. But the execution plan seems to indicate that the stats are as complete and up-to-date as they could be.



                  Since stats aren't helping, your best bet is probably a query rewrite - which Forrest has covered in his answer.






                  share|improve this answer














                  Why are the spills only happening when [remark] is selected?




                  The spill is happening when you include that column because you don't get a big enough memory grant for the large string data being sorted.



                  You don't get a big enough memory grant because the actual number of rows is 10x more than the estimated number of rows (1,302 actual vs 126 estimated).



                  Why is the estimate off? Why does SQL Server think there's only one row in dbo.Settings with a resourceid of 38?



                  It could be a statistics issue, which you can check by running DBCC SHOW_STATISTICS('dbo.Settings', 'IX_Test') and see the counts for that histogram step. But the execution plan seems to indicate that the stats are as complete and up-to-date as they could be.



                  Since stats aren't helping, your best bet is probably a query rewrite - which Forrest has covered in his answer.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 2 days ago









                  jadarnel27jadarnel27

                  4,2671331




                  4,2671331























                      2














                      To me it appears that the where clause in the query is giving the issue, and is the cause of the low estimates, even if OPTION(RECOMPILE) is used.



                      I created some test data, and in the end came up with two solutions, storing the ID field from resources in either a variable (if it is always unique) or a temp table, if we can have more than one ID's.



                      Base test records



                      SET NOCOUNT ON
                      DECLARE @i int= 1;
                      WHILE @i <= 10000
                      BEGIN
                      INSERT INTO [dbo].[Settings]([resourceId],[typeID],remark)
                      VALUES(@i,@i,'KEPT THESE VALUES OUT BECAUSE IT WOULD CLUTTER THE EXAMPLES, VALUES OVER 8000 Chars entered here'); -- 23254 character length on each value
                      INSERT INTO [dbo].[Resources](resourceUID)
                      VALUES(@i);
                      SET @i += 1;
                      END


                      Insert the 'Seek' values, as to get to the same approximate resultset as OP (1300 records)



                      INSERT INTO  [dbo].[Settings]([resourceId],[typeID],remark)
                      VALUES(38,38,'KEPT THESE VALUES OUT BECAUSE IT WOULD CLUTTER THE EXAMPLES, VALUES OVER 8000 Chars entered here')
                      GO 1300


                      Change compat & Update statistics to match OP



                      ALTER DATABASE StackOverflow SET COMPATIBILITY_LEVEL = 120;
                      UPDATE STATISTICS settings WITH FULLSCAN;
                      UPDATE STATISTICS resources WITH FULLSCAN;


                      Original query



                      exec sp_executesql N'
                      select r.id
                      FROM Resources r
                      inner join Settings on resourceid=r.id
                      where resourceUID=@UID
                      ORDER BY typeID',
                      N'@UID int',
                      @UID=38


                      My estimates are even worse, with one estimated row, while 1300 are returned.
                      And like OP stated, it does not matter if I add OPTION(RECOMPILE)



                      An important thing to note, is that when we get rid of the where clause the estimates are 100% correct, which is expected since we are using all data in both tables.



                      I forced the indexes just to make sure we use the same ones as in the previous query, to prove the point



                      exec sp_executesql N'
                      select r.id,remark
                      FROM Resources r with(index([IX_UID]))
                      inner join Settings WITH(INDEX([IX_Test]))
                      on resourceid=r.id
                      ORDER BY typeID',
                      N'@UID int',
                      @UID=38


                      As expected, good estimates.



                      So, what could we change to get better estimates but still seek on our values?



                      IF @UID is unique, as in the example OP gave, we could put the single id that was returned from resources in a variable, then seek on that variable with an OPTION(RECOMPILE)



                      DECLARE @UID int =38 , @RID int;
                      SELECT @RID=r.id from
                      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID;

                      SELECT @uid, remark
                      from Settings
                      where resourceId = @uid
                      Order by typeID
                      OPTION(RECOMPILE);


                      Which gives 100% accurate estimates



                      But what if there are multiple resourceUID's in resources?



                      add some test data



                      INSERT INTO Resources(ResourceUID)
                      VALUES (38);
                      go 50


                      This could be resolved with a temp table



                      CREATE TABLE #RID (id int)
                      DECLARE @UID int =38
                      INSERT INTO #RID
                      SELECT r.id
                      from
                      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID

                      SELECT @uid, remark
                      from Settings s
                      INNER JOIN #RID r
                      ON r.id =s.resourceId
                      Order by typeID
                      OPTION(RECOMPILE)

                      DROP TABLE #RID


                      Again with accurate estimates.



                      This was done with my own dataset,YMMV.





                      Written with sp_executesql



                      With a variable



                      exec sp_executesql N'
                      DECLARE @RID int;
                      SELECT @RID=r.id from
                      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID;

                      SELECT @uid, remark
                      from Settings
                      where resourceId = @uid
                      Order by typeID
                      OPTION(RECOMPILE);',
                      N'@UID int',
                      @UID=38


                      With a temp table



                      exec sp_executesql N'

                      CREATE TABLE #RID (id int)

                      INSERT INTO #RID
                      SELECT r.id
                      from
                      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID

                      SELECT @uid, remark
                      from Settings s
                      INNER JOIN #RID r
                      ON r.id =s.resourceId
                      Order by typeID
                      OPTION(RECOMPILE)

                      DROP TABLE #RID',
                      N'@UID int',
                      @UID=38


                      Still 100% correct estimates on my test






                      share|improve this answer





















                      • 1





                        You could also create filtered statistics for atypically distributed ResourceUID values to help the cardinality estimator, together with OPTION (RECOMPILE) or embedded literals e.g. CREATE STATISTICS [id (resourceUID = 38)] ON dbo.Resources (id) WHERE resourceUID = 38 WITH FULLSCAN;. But the main problem is sorting large values unnecessarily, as addressed by Forrest's answer.

                        – Paul White
                        yesterday


















                      2














                      To me it appears that the where clause in the query is giving the issue, and is the cause of the low estimates, even if OPTION(RECOMPILE) is used.



                      I created some test data, and in the end came up with two solutions, storing the ID field from resources in either a variable (if it is always unique) or a temp table, if we can have more than one ID's.



                      Base test records



                      SET NOCOUNT ON
                      DECLARE @i int= 1;
                      WHILE @i <= 10000
                      BEGIN
                      INSERT INTO [dbo].[Settings]([resourceId],[typeID],remark)
                      VALUES(@i,@i,'KEPT THESE VALUES OUT BECAUSE IT WOULD CLUTTER THE EXAMPLES, VALUES OVER 8000 Chars entered here'); -- 23254 character length on each value
                      INSERT INTO [dbo].[Resources](resourceUID)
                      VALUES(@i);
                      SET @i += 1;
                      END


                      Insert the 'Seek' values, as to get to the same approximate resultset as OP (1300 records)



                      INSERT INTO  [dbo].[Settings]([resourceId],[typeID],remark)
                      VALUES(38,38,'KEPT THESE VALUES OUT BECAUSE IT WOULD CLUTTER THE EXAMPLES, VALUES OVER 8000 Chars entered here')
                      GO 1300


                      Change compat & Update statistics to match OP



                      ALTER DATABASE StackOverflow SET COMPATIBILITY_LEVEL = 120;
                      UPDATE STATISTICS settings WITH FULLSCAN;
                      UPDATE STATISTICS resources WITH FULLSCAN;


                      Original query



                      exec sp_executesql N'
                      select r.id
                      FROM Resources r
                      inner join Settings on resourceid=r.id
                      where resourceUID=@UID
                      ORDER BY typeID',
                      N'@UID int',
                      @UID=38


                      My estimates are even worse, with one estimated row, while 1300 are returned.
                      And like OP stated, it does not matter if I add OPTION(RECOMPILE)



                      An important thing to note, is that when we get rid of the where clause the estimates are 100% correct, which is expected since we are using all data in both tables.



                      I forced the indexes just to make sure we use the same ones as in the previous query, to prove the point



                      exec sp_executesql N'
                      select r.id,remark
                      FROM Resources r with(index([IX_UID]))
                      inner join Settings WITH(INDEX([IX_Test]))
                      on resourceid=r.id
                      ORDER BY typeID',
                      N'@UID int',
                      @UID=38


                      As expected, good estimates.



                      So, what could we change to get better estimates but still seek on our values?



                      IF @UID is unique, as in the example OP gave, we could put the single id that was returned from resources in a variable, then seek on that variable with an OPTION(RECOMPILE)



                      DECLARE @UID int =38 , @RID int;
                      SELECT @RID=r.id from
                      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID;

                      SELECT @uid, remark
                      from Settings
                      where resourceId = @uid
                      Order by typeID
                      OPTION(RECOMPILE);


                      Which gives 100% accurate estimates



                      But what if there are multiple resourceUID's in resources?



                      add some test data



                      INSERT INTO Resources(ResourceUID)
                      VALUES (38);
                      go 50


                      This could be resolved with a temp table



                      CREATE TABLE #RID (id int)
                      DECLARE @UID int =38
                      INSERT INTO #RID
                      SELECT r.id
                      from
                      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID

                      SELECT @uid, remark
                      from Settings s
                      INNER JOIN #RID r
                      ON r.id =s.resourceId
                      Order by typeID
                      OPTION(RECOMPILE)

                      DROP TABLE #RID


                      Again with accurate estimates.



                      This was done with my own dataset,YMMV.





                      Written with sp_executesql



                      With a variable



                      exec sp_executesql N'
                      DECLARE @RID int;
                      SELECT @RID=r.id from
                      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID;

                      SELECT @uid, remark
                      from Settings
                      where resourceId = @uid
                      Order by typeID
                      OPTION(RECOMPILE);',
                      N'@UID int',
                      @UID=38


                      With a temp table



                      exec sp_executesql N'

                      CREATE TABLE #RID (id int)

                      INSERT INTO #RID
                      SELECT r.id
                      from
                      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID

                      SELECT @uid, remark
                      from Settings s
                      INNER JOIN #RID r
                      ON r.id =s.resourceId
                      Order by typeID
                      OPTION(RECOMPILE)

                      DROP TABLE #RID',
                      N'@UID int',
                      @UID=38


                      Still 100% correct estimates on my test






                      share|improve this answer





















                      • 1





                        You could also create filtered statistics for atypically distributed ResourceUID values to help the cardinality estimator, together with OPTION (RECOMPILE) or embedded literals e.g. CREATE STATISTICS [id (resourceUID = 38)] ON dbo.Resources (id) WHERE resourceUID = 38 WITH FULLSCAN;. But the main problem is sorting large values unnecessarily, as addressed by Forrest's answer.

                        – Paul White
                        yesterday
















                      2












                      2








                      2







                      To me it appears that the where clause in the query is giving the issue, and is the cause of the low estimates, even if OPTION(RECOMPILE) is used.



                      I created some test data, and in the end came up with two solutions, storing the ID field from resources in either a variable (if it is always unique) or a temp table, if we can have more than one ID's.



                      Base test records



                      SET NOCOUNT ON
                      DECLARE @i int= 1;
                      WHILE @i <= 10000
                      BEGIN
                      INSERT INTO [dbo].[Settings]([resourceId],[typeID],remark)
                      VALUES(@i,@i,'KEPT THESE VALUES OUT BECAUSE IT WOULD CLUTTER THE EXAMPLES, VALUES OVER 8000 Chars entered here'); -- 23254 character length on each value
                      INSERT INTO [dbo].[Resources](resourceUID)
                      VALUES(@i);
                      SET @i += 1;
                      END


                      Insert the 'Seek' values, as to get to the same approximate resultset as OP (1300 records)



                      INSERT INTO  [dbo].[Settings]([resourceId],[typeID],remark)
                      VALUES(38,38,'KEPT THESE VALUES OUT BECAUSE IT WOULD CLUTTER THE EXAMPLES, VALUES OVER 8000 Chars entered here')
                      GO 1300


                      Change compat & Update statistics to match OP



                      ALTER DATABASE StackOverflow SET COMPATIBILITY_LEVEL = 120;
                      UPDATE STATISTICS settings WITH FULLSCAN;
                      UPDATE STATISTICS resources WITH FULLSCAN;


                      Original query



                      exec sp_executesql N'
                      select r.id
                      FROM Resources r
                      inner join Settings on resourceid=r.id
                      where resourceUID=@UID
                      ORDER BY typeID',
                      N'@UID int',
                      @UID=38


                      My estimates are even worse, with one estimated row, while 1300 are returned.
                      And like OP stated, it does not matter if I add OPTION(RECOMPILE)



                      An important thing to note, is that when we get rid of the where clause the estimates are 100% correct, which is expected since we are using all data in both tables.



                      I forced the indexes just to make sure we use the same ones as in the previous query, to prove the point



                      exec sp_executesql N'
                      select r.id,remark
                      FROM Resources r with(index([IX_UID]))
                      inner join Settings WITH(INDEX([IX_Test]))
                      on resourceid=r.id
                      ORDER BY typeID',
                      N'@UID int',
                      @UID=38


                      As expected, good estimates.



                      So, what could we change to get better estimates but still seek on our values?



                      IF @UID is unique, as in the example OP gave, we could put the single id that was returned from resources in a variable, then seek on that variable with an OPTION(RECOMPILE)



                      DECLARE @UID int =38 , @RID int;
                      SELECT @RID=r.id from
                      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID;

                      SELECT @uid, remark
                      from Settings
                      where resourceId = @uid
                      Order by typeID
                      OPTION(RECOMPILE);


                      Which gives 100% accurate estimates



                      But what if there are multiple resourceUID's in resources?



                      add some test data



                      INSERT INTO Resources(ResourceUID)
                      VALUES (38);
                      go 50


                      This could be resolved with a temp table



                      CREATE TABLE #RID (id int)
                      DECLARE @UID int =38
                      INSERT INTO #RID
                      SELECT r.id
                      from
                      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID

                      SELECT @uid, remark
                      from Settings s
                      INNER JOIN #RID r
                      ON r.id =s.resourceId
                      Order by typeID
                      OPTION(RECOMPILE)

                      DROP TABLE #RID


                      Again with accurate estimates.



                      This was done with my own dataset,YMMV.





                      Written with sp_executesql



                      With a variable



                      exec sp_executesql N'
                      DECLARE @RID int;
                      SELECT @RID=r.id from
                      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID;

                      SELECT @uid, remark
                      from Settings
                      where resourceId = @uid
                      Order by typeID
                      OPTION(RECOMPILE);',
                      N'@UID int',
                      @UID=38


                      With a temp table



                      exec sp_executesql N'

                      CREATE TABLE #RID (id int)

                      INSERT INTO #RID
                      SELECT r.id
                      from
                      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID

                      SELECT @uid, remark
                      from Settings s
                      INNER JOIN #RID r
                      ON r.id =s.resourceId
                      Order by typeID
                      OPTION(RECOMPILE)

                      DROP TABLE #RID',
                      N'@UID int',
                      @UID=38


                      Still 100% correct estimates on my test






                      share|improve this answer















                      To me it appears that the where clause in the query is giving the issue, and is the cause of the low estimates, even if OPTION(RECOMPILE) is used.



                      I created some test data, and in the end came up with two solutions, storing the ID field from resources in either a variable (if it is always unique) or a temp table, if we can have more than one ID's.



                      Base test records



                      SET NOCOUNT ON
                      DECLARE @i int= 1;
                      WHILE @i <= 10000
                      BEGIN
                      INSERT INTO [dbo].[Settings]([resourceId],[typeID],remark)
                      VALUES(@i,@i,'KEPT THESE VALUES OUT BECAUSE IT WOULD CLUTTER THE EXAMPLES, VALUES OVER 8000 Chars entered here'); -- 23254 character length on each value
                      INSERT INTO [dbo].[Resources](resourceUID)
                      VALUES(@i);
                      SET @i += 1;
                      END


                      Insert the 'Seek' values, as to get to the same approximate resultset as OP (1300 records)



                      INSERT INTO  [dbo].[Settings]([resourceId],[typeID],remark)
                      VALUES(38,38,'KEPT THESE VALUES OUT BECAUSE IT WOULD CLUTTER THE EXAMPLES, VALUES OVER 8000 Chars entered here')
                      GO 1300


                      Change compat & Update statistics to match OP



                      ALTER DATABASE StackOverflow SET COMPATIBILITY_LEVEL = 120;
                      UPDATE STATISTICS settings WITH FULLSCAN;
                      UPDATE STATISTICS resources WITH FULLSCAN;


                      Original query



                      exec sp_executesql N'
                      select r.id
                      FROM Resources r
                      inner join Settings on resourceid=r.id
                      where resourceUID=@UID
                      ORDER BY typeID',
                      N'@UID int',
                      @UID=38


                      My estimates are even worse, with one estimated row, while 1300 are returned.
                      And like OP stated, it does not matter if I add OPTION(RECOMPILE)



                      An important thing to note, is that when we get rid of the where clause the estimates are 100% correct, which is expected since we are using all data in both tables.



                      I forced the indexes just to make sure we use the same ones as in the previous query, to prove the point



                      exec sp_executesql N'
                      select r.id,remark
                      FROM Resources r with(index([IX_UID]))
                      inner join Settings WITH(INDEX([IX_Test]))
                      on resourceid=r.id
                      ORDER BY typeID',
                      N'@UID int',
                      @UID=38


                      As expected, good estimates.



                      So, what could we change to get better estimates but still seek on our values?



                      IF @UID is unique, as in the example OP gave, we could put the single id that was returned from resources in a variable, then seek on that variable with an OPTION(RECOMPILE)



                      DECLARE @UID int =38 , @RID int;
                      SELECT @RID=r.id from
                      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID;

                      SELECT @uid, remark
                      from Settings
                      where resourceId = @uid
                      Order by typeID
                      OPTION(RECOMPILE);


                      Which gives 100% accurate estimates



                      But what if there are multiple resourceUID's in resources?



                      add some test data



                      INSERT INTO Resources(ResourceUID)
                      VALUES (38);
                      go 50


                      This could be resolved with a temp table



                      CREATE TABLE #RID (id int)
                      DECLARE @UID int =38
                      INSERT INTO #RID
                      SELECT r.id
                      from
                      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID

                      SELECT @uid, remark
                      from Settings s
                      INNER JOIN #RID r
                      ON r.id =s.resourceId
                      Order by typeID
                      OPTION(RECOMPILE)

                      DROP TABLE #RID


                      Again with accurate estimates.



                      This was done with my own dataset,YMMV.





                      Written with sp_executesql



                      With a variable



                      exec sp_executesql N'
                      DECLARE @RID int;
                      SELECT @RID=r.id from
                      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID;

                      SELECT @uid, remark
                      from Settings
                      where resourceId = @uid
                      Order by typeID
                      OPTION(RECOMPILE);',
                      N'@UID int',
                      @UID=38


                      With a temp table



                      exec sp_executesql N'

                      CREATE TABLE #RID (id int)

                      INSERT INTO #RID
                      SELECT r.id
                      from
                      Resources r where resourceUID = @UID

                      SELECT @uid, remark
                      from Settings s
                      INNER JOIN #RID r
                      ON r.id =s.resourceId
                      Order by typeID
                      OPTION(RECOMPILE)

                      DROP TABLE #RID',
                      N'@UID int',
                      @UID=38


                      Still 100% correct estimates on my test







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited 2 days ago

























                      answered 2 days ago









                      Randi VertongenRandi Vertongen

                      1,847316




                      1,847316








                      • 1





                        You could also create filtered statistics for atypically distributed ResourceUID values to help the cardinality estimator, together with OPTION (RECOMPILE) or embedded literals e.g. CREATE STATISTICS [id (resourceUID = 38)] ON dbo.Resources (id) WHERE resourceUID = 38 WITH FULLSCAN;. But the main problem is sorting large values unnecessarily, as addressed by Forrest's answer.

                        – Paul White
                        yesterday
















                      • 1





                        You could also create filtered statistics for atypically distributed ResourceUID values to help the cardinality estimator, together with OPTION (RECOMPILE) or embedded literals e.g. CREATE STATISTICS [id (resourceUID = 38)] ON dbo.Resources (id) WHERE resourceUID = 38 WITH FULLSCAN;. But the main problem is sorting large values unnecessarily, as addressed by Forrest's answer.

                        – Paul White
                        yesterday










                      1




                      1





                      You could also create filtered statistics for atypically distributed ResourceUID values to help the cardinality estimator, together with OPTION (RECOMPILE) or embedded literals e.g. CREATE STATISTICS [id (resourceUID = 38)] ON dbo.Resources (id) WHERE resourceUID = 38 WITH FULLSCAN;. But the main problem is sorting large values unnecessarily, as addressed by Forrest's answer.

                      – Paul White
                      yesterday







                      You could also create filtered statistics for atypically distributed ResourceUID values to help the cardinality estimator, together with OPTION (RECOMPILE) or embedded literals e.g. CREATE STATISTICS [id (resourceUID = 38)] ON dbo.Resources (id) WHERE resourceUID = 38 WITH FULLSCAN;. But the main problem is sorting large values unnecessarily, as addressed by Forrest's answer.

                      – Paul White
                      yesterday




















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f227288%2fsort-spills-to-tempdb-due-to-varcharmax%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

                      Alcedinidae

                      Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]