dusanv
Programmer
- May 29, 2002
- 20
- 0
- 0
Our custom application is running very inefficiently on the SQL server. After doing execution traces, we found the following trace as the most expensive (always the same trace but with different parameters):
Execution Tree
--------------
Top(1)
|--Concatenation
|--Filter(WHERE
[Employee].[EmpID]=[@Param1003]))
| |--Bookmark Lookup(BOOKMARK[@Param1002]), OBJECT[RPWBSDB].[dbo].[Employee]))
| |--Constant Scan
|--Bookmark Lookup(BOOKMARK[Bmk1000]), OBJECT[RPWBSDB].[dbo].[Employee]))
|--Index Seek(OBJECT[RPWBSDB].[dbo].[Employee].[ixEmpID]), SEEK[Employee].[EmpID]=[@Param1003]) ORDERED FORWARD)
The common keywords to all this bad traces are Concatenate, Bookmark Lookup, and Constant Scan. Does anyone see something that jumps out as really bad in this trace? If so, what can be done to avoid them?
Thanks in advance for any help/suggestions!
Dusan
Execution Tree
--------------
Top(1)
|--Concatenation
|--Filter(WHERE
[Employee].[EmpID]=[@Param1003]))| |--Bookmark Lookup(BOOKMARK
[@Param1002]), OBJECT[RPWBSDB].[dbo].[Employee]))| |--Constant Scan
|--Bookmark Lookup(BOOKMARK
[Bmk1000]), OBJECT[RPWBSDB].[dbo].[Employee]))|--Index Seek(OBJECT
[RPWBSDB].[dbo].[Employee].[ixEmpID]), SEEK[Employee].[EmpID]=[@Param1003]) ORDERED FORWARD)The common keywords to all this bad traces are Concatenate, Bookmark Lookup, and Constant Scan. Does anyone see something that jumps out as really bad in this trace? If so, what can be done to avoid them?
Thanks in advance for any help/suggestions!
Dusan
