[dba-Tech] x64 tests

jwcolby jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Sat Jan 5 20:13:14 CST 2008


OK, I have the x64 system up and running.  I am doing tests on the same four
databases.  I have:

HSID which contains data used in selection criteria, with a PK.  50 million
records.
AZHSID contains address validated records of name / address fields
originally in HSID.  With a PK matching the PKs in HSID.  50 million records
ZipCodeWorld contains about 80K records of valid zip codes.  It has
information that allows me to exclude prisons, military FPOs etc.
PSM11132 contains all of the queries required for me to fill an actual order
of addresses (112000) going out to a client.

The order asks for:

Source File	FIELD	Select Codes		Description	Geography
					
HSID/INF	074	2, 3, 6	OR	Female 35 44	
HSID/INF	073	2, 3, 6		Female 45-54	
			AND		
HSID/INF	091	7-9, A-T		INC $50,000+	
			AND		
HSID/INF	282	Y		Tennis	
HSID/INF	283	Y	OR	Golf	
HSID/INF	284	Y	OR	Snow Skiing	
HSID/INF	288	Y	OR	Bicycling	
HSID/INF	292	Y	OR	Running	
HSID/INF	294	Y	OR	Horseback Riding	
HSID/INF	298	Y	OR	Power Boating	
HSID/INF	299	Y		Sailing	
			AND		
Zip Code World	015	16980		CBSA	Chicago
Zip Code World	015	19820	OR	CBSA	Detroit
Zip Code World	015	12580	OR	CBSA	Baltimore
Zip Code World	015	31100	OR	CBSA	Los Angeles
Zip Code World	015	35620	OR	CBSA	New York
Zip Code World	015	37980	OR	CBSA	Philadelphia
Zip Code World	015	47900		CBSA	Washington DC

As you can see basically they want women 35 to 54, income > 50K who
participate in various hobbies, and live in selected big metropolitan areas.

In order to prep the order I had to build cover indexes (field and PK) on
the hobby fields.  I already had cover indexes on the income and PK, and a
single cover index on ALL of the age fields plus the PK.  

I then built FOUR different views.  One for Age/Sex, one for income, and one
for hobbies.  Those three are ANDS so by pulling the PKs for each of those
views I could do an inner join to get the AND.  From these queries I
actually only pulled the PK field itself to minimize data pulled out of the
table.  I did not need the select data itself, just the PKs for the joins.  

I then built a fourth view of Zip Code World (ZCW) using the CBSA code that
selected ZIPS in specific metropolitan areas.  From this view I pulled ONLY
the zip field.

I built a FIFTH master view that pulled in the four views above, PLUS the
AZHSID table.  AZHSID contains the PK to match the HSID select views, plus
address validated name / address information.  That information will be
actually extracted and written into a flat file on disk, zipped and sent to
the client.

So I have age/sex, income, hobbies and AZHSID inner joined.  The data pulled
is just the PKID and name / address which includes Zip.  I then inner join
the zip from the ZCW view to limit the addresses to those in the right zip
codes.

Whew.

OK, so the thing I am going to time is the COUNT of the PKs in this big
query (how many people match all the criteria and live in the right zips).
I am going to time the count on my original system that I actually used to
run this order, and then on the new system.  

The original system (Stonehenge) is a AMD "3800" X2 with 4 gigs ram, Windows
2003 x32, SQL Server 2005 x32, with a dedicated raid controller card with an
8 drive raid 6 array.

The new system (W2k3x64) is (currently) an AMD "3800" x2 with 4 gigs ram,
Windows 2003 x64, SQL Server 2005 x64, with a pair of 650 gig IDE 100 hard
disks.  No raid.  The databases reside on one of the 650 gig drives and the
OS resides on the other.

Stonehenge runs the count query in 5:32 (5 minutes, 32 seconds) and counts
630,025 valid addresses with the criteria above, in the zips specified.
W2k3x64 runs the query in 9:26 (9 minutes and 32 seconds) and counts 630,025
records (just a check that we are counting the same thing).

So the first thing that we see is that the new system is slower.  The
difference is likely caused by the fact that the Raid array in Stonehenge
STREAMS data at 400 mbytes / sec whereas the single disk in W2k3x64 streams
MUCH slower, probably around 50 mbytes / second.  We do not KNOW that is the
reason for the difference at this point, but it is a pretty good bet.  I
"sacrificed" the video controller from Azul to build the new system (yea,
poor planning, forgot the damned video card) so I will probably move the
raid array into the new system, or more likely move the new system (and boot
disk) into the cabinet that Azul currently occupies.  Moving a raid array
with 8 disks is not something I want to do if I can avoid it.

Next, I am going to pull the other 4 gigs (two 2 gig sticks) out of Azul and
move it into W2k3x64.  I have a video card on order, will be here next week
but for now Azul is dead anyway so I might as well scrounge the memory as
well.

I did not take CPU and memory usage readings with just the 4 gigs, but with
8 in there both processors are pegging (100%) and the memory usage is
maximum (only about 200 megs available) and it is using about 8 gigs of page
file as well.

W2k3x64 runs the same query in 9:11 after adding two additional sticks of
memory and boosting the total to 8 gigs.

Oddly, SQL Server has a little control for telling it how much it can have
max, and it is maxed at ~2 gig bytes.  I was under the impression that it
would now allow SQL Server to natively use more ram.  Sigh.  there is an
unchecked box for "Use AWE to allocate memory" which I just checked and am
now rerunning the query a third time.

With AWE memory enabled, the query ran in 8:27.  A slight boost but
certainly not stellar.  So why is SQL Server not using more memory natively?

What I really need to do is create a dual boot with Windows 2003 x32 and SQL
Server 2003 x32, and then run the count query again for that.  I suspect
though that the Raid card and array would do more than anything to bump the
speed back up.

I am going to swap the quad core processor from Azul and see what that does
for me.  I think I will swap the view card and memory back in to Azul and
try running the same database on Azul.  It is virtually identical to
Stonehenge.  It has a quad core AMD, 4 gigs of memory and an 8 disk raid
array on the same controller card that Stonehenge has.  I could also TRY to
do a dual boot to W2K3x64 but it currently boots off the raid which makes
installing the new OS difficult (adds the issue of x64 raid drivers at
install time).  F6, floppy and all that.  I hate that stuff. 

Well, more later.

John W. Colby
Colby Consulting
www.ColbyConsulting.com 




More information about the dba-Tech mailing list