Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I've audited a SQLS2008 server with Profiler for one day.. the overhead didn't seem to trouble this new client my company has. They are using a legacy VB6 application as a front-end. They're experiencing timeouts once SQLS RAM usage is high. The server is currently running x64 sqls2008 on a VM with nearly 9 GB of RAM. SQL Server's 'max server memory option' is currently set to 6GB.

I've put the results of the trace in a table and queried them using this query.

SELECT TextData, ApplicationName, Reads
FROM [TraceWednesday] WHERE textdata is not null and EventClass = 12 GROUP BY TextData, ApplicationName, Reads ORDER BY Reads DESC

As I expected, some values are very high.

Top Reads, in pages.

Am I correct in thinking that the top one (2504188 pages) is 20033504 KB, which then is roughly ~20'000 MB, 20GB? These queries are often executed and can take quite some time to run. Eventually RAM is used up because of the cache fattening, and timeouts occur once SQL cannot 'splash' pages in the buffer pool as much. Costs go up. Am I correct in my understanding?

I've read that I should tune the associated T-SQL and create appropriate indices. Obviously cutting down the I/O would make SQL Server use less RAM. OR, maybe it might just slow down the process of chewing up the whole RAM. If a lot less pages are read, maybe it'll all run much better even when usage is high? (less time swapping, etc.)

Currently, our only option is to restart SQL once a week when RAM usage is high, suddenly the timeouts disappear. SQL breathes again.

I'm sure lots of DBAs have been in this situation.. I'm asking before I start digging out all of the bad T-SQL and put indices here and there, is there is something else I can do? Any advice except from what I know (not much yet..)

Much appreciated.

share|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Generally speaking, SQL Server will allocate as much memory as it is allowed to, without using the paging file. This memory is used as a cache for data pages. (There is also a plan cache and some other stuff, but I think that is out of scope for this question.) This allocation has the effect of "using up" all of the free memory on the server and often worries people who are not familiar with SQL Server.

Don't worry about the amount of memory, worry about physical page reads (which come from disk) and logical page reads (which come from memory. Logical page reads aren't as problematic as physical page reads because they occur much more quickly, but they still take a finite amount of time. Even if you had a terabyte of RAM and your entire database was cached in memory, it will still take a finite amount of time for the processors to hunt through all of your data. It is always better if SQL Server has less data to look through, even if it is totally cached in RAM.

Access to data slows down when your data does not fit in RAM and the server has to read it from the disk.

In your situation, it sounds like SQL is reading 20 GB of data. This will not fit in 6 GB of data cache, so SQL Server will re-use memory by loading data from disk over top of "old" data that it thinks that it no longer needs. If another query, from another user, comes along 1 second later, SQL may have to back to the disk to re-read that "old" data back.

Tuning queries and improving indexing should result in SQL Server having less data to look through, meaning that it is more likely that the data that must be looked through can remain in the data cache, in RAM, and less data will have to be read from disk in the case where the required data is not in the data cache.

Increasing RAM ("throwing hardware at the problem") also means that there is a better chance of keeping that data in RAM as well, BUT you can usually get a larger improvement (maybe a factor of 10x or more, if you are lucky and the indexing is really bad to start with--I've seen improvements of 60x and better) than you can by increasing the amount of RAM available for caching data (it is usually impossible to increase the amount of RAM by more than 2x or 3x without a new server or putting a lot of stress that hasn't been planed for on your VM environment.) Granted, it is usually easier/quicker to plug in new RAM chips than tune queries, but some times you do not have any choice.

Another thing that is worth doing is to make sure that your index statistics are being updated regularly. In environments with no DBA, this maintenance often goes by the wayside. Out-of-date statistics can cause the query engine to use inefficient plans, and this is particularly visible/painful with large tables.

One last observation: Restarting the SQL Server will flush all of the cache data, and that data will have to be reloaded from disk as queries come in after the SQL Server has restarted. Usually, that means a SQL Server is more sluggish after a restart, not faster. SQL Servers that are faster after a restart have usually been experiencing excessive blocking (restarting the server throws away all of the blocking and blocked connections) or they have been seeing a storm of queries that are causing it to read lots and lots of data from disk (often times, these queries are caused by distressed users who resubmit the same query several times, a few seconds or minutes apart, because things are "taking too long").

share|improve this answer
bitplayer, if the mdf and the transaction log reach up to 15 GB, how can a Query read 20GB of data? Could my calculations be wrong? Could Profiler spit out garbage values if the server is busy? – lb01 Jan 20 '11 at 3:01

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.