General discussion of SQL Topics; aimed for the novice-intermediate level Microsoft SQL Server User. Currently focuses on using SQL Server 2005.

Showing posts with label Record Count. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Record Count. Show all posts

Thursday, October 23, 2008

TSQL Code: Compare Tables of Databases on Separate Servers

NOTE: This script was originally developed to compare table row counts, but with the below mentioned modifications this could be helpful if you have a database that is shipped to another server and often times needs to be ETL into the other database and you are worried there may be records that aren't getting transferred properly (or at all).

The other day I came across a question on how to compare the tables in one database to the tables in another database, this was in concerns to a migration project. This person had a database that existed on an older server running SQL 2000 and they chose to migrate their database to a new server running SQL Server 2005. They had wanted to be able to somehow be able to visually display a comparison of the two databases to prove the conversion was successful, and also to display the comparisons of the tables. Results meeting above requirements are shown in Figure 1.

AW_Compare_All 
Figure 1 (results of running sp_CompareTables_All)

In response to this I had started to develop a TSQL script that created a stored procedure that would allow you to run it from the current database and specify the location of the original database. The script would then collect the tables and count the records within each table for both databases. It will display the table names on the outside (left and right) of the results, and the record counts will be next to each other on the inside (next to their table names); which will allow for a very simple and pleasing visual comparison. I wanted, and did, avoid using cursors or other techniques that will potentially bog down the system resources (such as the stored proc 'sp_MSForEachDB' and 'sp_MSForEachTable').

Now, this is a rough draft that I had thrown together and tested over a lunch period; so, there are some issues that can still be cleaned up on the script and it lacks the ability to detect if a table exists on one database, but not the other.

At the end of the script I'll also provide a quick comment that will allow you to change the results from displaying all tables and their row counts to display only the tables with mismatched row counts (which may be useful if you want to use this script as a method to troubleshoot databases that tend to not migrate all records).

The first problem faced is how to best access the server with the original database; while there are many options I chose to use the built-in stored procedure "sp_addlinkedserver". This procedure seems to be simple to implement and allows for seamless integration into TSQL code. Testing for this script was performed on the AdventureWorks database (developed for SQL 2005) on both test systems. The 'originating' database was on a SQL 2005 instance (although testing was briefly performed on SQL 2000 and SQL 2008 to validate compatibility). The 'originating' server is called TestServer35, the database is on an instance called Dev05; the database for both instances is called AdventureWorks2005. This information becomes important when using the sp_addlinkedserver command. I used the following TSQL code:

EXEC sp_addlinkedserver   
   
@server='TestServer35-5', 
   
@srvproduct='',
   
@catalog='AdventureWorks2005',
   
@provider='SQLNCLI', 
   
@datasrc='Server35\Dev05'
 

As you can see, the linked server is referenced as TestServer35-5. We will use this reference, in a four-part identifier (Server.Catalog.Schema.Table). The next obstacle is to obtain a listing of tables and their row counts. I used a script I had modified last year to perform this since this script will run both on SQL 2005 and SQL 2000 (you can view my script on SQLServerCentral.com's Script section at: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/scripts/Administration/61766/). I then take the results of this and store them into a temporary table; I also do this for the new database (on local server where this stored proc is running at).

Then comes the simple part of joining the two temp tables into a final temp table. I chose this route because I wanted to have the two database in separate temp tables in the event I want to work with that data, which I will be working with the data in my update to determine if a table is missing from one of the databases.

Here is the TSQL code I used (remember if you want to use this you will need to change the linked server information to the correct information; as well as to create this stored proc in the appropriate database):

--Change the database name to the appropriate databse
USE [AdventureWorks2005];
GO

CREATE PROCEDURE sp_CompareTables_all
 
AS
 
 
CREATE TABLE #tblNew
( tblName varchar(50), CountRows int )

INSERT INTO #tblNew
( tblName, CountRows)
SELECT o.name AS "Table Name", i.rowcnt AS "Row Count"
FROM sysobjects o, sysindexes i
WHERE i.id = o.id
AND indid IN(0,1)
AND xtype = 'u'
AND o.name <> 'sysdiagrams'
ORDER BY o.name

CREATE TABLE #tblOLD
( tblName varchar(50), CountRows int )

INSERT INTO #tblOLD
( tblName, CountRows)
SELECT lo.name AS "Table Name", li.rowcnt AS "Row Count"
--********
--Replace TestServer35-5 and AdventureWorks2005 below with your appropriate values
--********
FROM [TestServer35-5].[AdventureWorks2005].[dbo].[sysobjects] lo, 
   
[TestServer35-5].[AdventureWorks2005].[dbo].[sysindexes] li
WHERE li.id = lo.id
AND indid IN(0,1)
AND xtype = 'u'
AND lo.name <> 'sysdiagrams'
ORDER BY lo.name

CREATE TABLE #tblDiff
( OldTable varchar(50), OldRowCount int, NewRowCount int, NewTableName varchar(50))

INSERT INTO #tblDiff
( OldTable, OldRowCount, NewRowCount, NewTableName )
SELECT ol.tblName, ol.CountRows, nw.CountRows, nw.tblName
From    #tblNew nw
JOIN #tblOLD ol
ON (ol.tblName = nw.tblName AND ol.CountRows = nw.CountRows)
        
SELECT * FROM #tblDiff
        
DROP TABLE #tblNEW
DROP TABLE #tblOLD
DROP TABLE #tblDiff

 

You simply execute the code with the following TSQL:

EXECUTE sp_CompareTables_All
 

The results of this script are shown in Figure 1 (above).

Now, this is great if you want to have a list that you can go through yourself to verify each table matches in row counts. But, what if that database has 1000 or more tables? What if you are just, simply put, lazy? Why not utilize SQL Server to process this information for you?

Well, I sure enough did just that. With a very small modification to this script you can easily have it only display any tables that don't match up in record counts.

All you have to do is change the INSERT INTO #tblDiff block's "ON" statement to join if the CountRows are NOT equal. The following is the modified block of code; the remaining stored procedure remains the same:

ON (ol.tblName = nw.tblName AND ol.CountRows <> nw.CountRows)
 

I did also rename the stored procedure from "sp_CompareTables_All" to "sp_CompareTables_Diff", but this is optional for your own ability to clarify which stored proc is being used.

To get some results I had made a few modifications to the AdventureWorks2005 database. I had added a couple of rows to a table, and removed some rows from two tables. The results of the stored proc showing only the different tables are shown in Figure 2.

AW_Compare_Diff
Figure 2 (results of running sp_CompareTables_Diff)

As you can see the ability to change this script to show all tables or only different tables is very simple. Even setting up this script is simple, where the hardest part of the whole thing is adding a linked server (which is fairly simple also).

In a future post I'll revisit this script and include the ability to display tables that exist on one database, but not in the other. Be sure to check back for this update.

Until next time...Happy Coding!!

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Concept: Finding the Right Order...

The other day I was helping out a friend of mine with a space issue on their server, and one of the topics I discussed was the importance of find the best order to perform the operations in to utilize the least amount of extra hard drive space. While discussing this it came to mind that often times while plugging away with SQL we can get so intent on getting the job done (often times in the first way that works, while this is not necessarily the best way), that we might take for granted all of that hard drive space and server power available to us!

With just a little bit of forethought, planning, and understanding what we are trying to accomplish, we can actually use less disk space...and we could also potentially improve the performance we get out of SQL Server! I don't know about you, but getting better performance always ranks high on my list of desired accomplishments. I think this can be best demonstrated with an example....

For simplicity reasons I will use a database with a single table that each record being inserted will equal 1 MB of hard drive space. Thus, 1,000,000 records in our "simple database" will result in a database size of 1,000,000 MB. Now, let's say that on average this database grows by about 100,000 records per year. This would mean that with 1,000,000 records this database has been used for about 10 years. Now, assume there is a decent DR in place and the transaction log is kept at a fairly decent size of maybe 1,000 MB to accommodate for a months worth of data before the FULL backup operation. Simple enough, right?

So, 10 years has passed and the boss walks in and says they just merged with another company that has an identical database setup and stats with only different data and the two databases will be merged (since this is hypothetical, we will pretend that a merge of the data can be done without any issues and it would simply double our database size). Also, the boss says that they are archiving 5 years worth of data from both databases to match the business rules for hard copy storage on site and archiving. And lastly, the boss says "...because you don't look busy..." that they only want to have enough space in the database to allow for 2 years of data to be added and that they need the extra hard drive space available for other needs.

From a first glance you might say not a problem. We'll just merge the two databases, take out 5 years worth of data, perform a FULL backup, shrink the transaction log (leaving enough free space for a month worth of data), and then shrink the database down (leaving enough room for 2 years worth of data to be added later). I'm going to ignore the transaction log size in this analysis because there will typically be one out come of the size regardless of the steps taken; and this will differ based on the database recovery mode and method taken to perform these steps; and to analyze each possibility is beyond the scope and purpose of this blog. Now, let's look at how this might look on our system after each process...

First step in the above scenario would be to merge the two databases (remember that since the databases are originally from different companies, they are physically stored on separate hard drives).

HD Space Used: 2,000,000 MB
SQL Record Count: 2,000,000 records
SQL Space Used: 2,000,000 MB

Second step would be to take out 5 years worth of data.

HD Space Used: 2,000,000 MB
SQL Record Count: 1,000,000 records
SQL Space Used: 1,000,000 MB

Third step would be to perform a FULL backup (this is based on a FULL recovery model).

HD Space Used: 2,000,000 MB
SQL Record Count: 1,000,000 records
SQL Space Used: 1,000,000 MB

Fourth and Fifth steps to shrink the log and database.

HD Space Used: 1,200,000 MB
SQL Record Count: 1,000,000 records
SQL Space Used: 1,200,000 MB

 

From the above we can see that the maximum HD space being used would be 2,000,000 MB. Which depending on our available HD space this wouldn't be too much of a problem. The real issue would be the amount of resources needed; since this is hypothetical we can only imagine from a step-by-step that the resources being used would be fairly moderate. There are too many variables to be accurate when it comes to actual performance measuring, so I won't even attempt to measure it.

Now, what if we put a little thought towards these requirements from the "boss", and especially what if the HD space available to use was 1,800,000 MB. Now, we have a problem that can easily be resolved with just finding the right order. In this case, just making a simple change of placing Step # 1 at the very end and performing an extra (final) FULL backup and a (final) transaction log shrink will allow us to remain under 1,800,000 MB and also can save our server a lot of processing time, because it will have to process less records. We can also utilize the secondary server (the server holding the data from the company being merged with) processing power to cut total time being required to archive and thus decreasing the time required to merge because of the lower number of records being merged. Here is how the steps would look....

Step # 1: Remove data from each database at it's original location

HD Space Used (per Server): 1,000,000 MB
SQL Record Count (per Server): 500,000 records
SQL Space Used (per Server): 1,000,000 MB

Step # 2: Perform FULL backups for each database

HD Space Used (per Server): 1,000,000 MB
SQL Record Count (per Server): 500,000 records
SQL Space Used (per Server): 1,000,000 MB

Step # 3: Shrink the transaction log and databases

HD Space Used (per Server): 500,000 MB
SQL Record Count (per Server): 500,000 records
SQL Space Used (per Server): 500,000 MB

Step # 4: Merge the two databases

HD Space Used: 1,000,000 MB
SQL Record Count: 1,000,000 records
SQL Space Used: 1,000,000 MB

Step # 5: Perform FULL backups for database and shrink transaction log

HD Space Used: 1,200,000 MB
SQL Record Count: 1,000,000 records
SQL Space Used: 1,200,000 MB

 

Conclusion:

Now, you can easily see in the above scenario that we only use a maximum of 1,200,000 MB of space and that is because we are reserving that free space. Logically, by performing the data archiving before merging the two databases we save our server processing power because it will process ONLY that of which will remain in the database. Sometimes the order of operations will already be pre-determined from outside factors, sometimes it may be required to perform certain tasks in a particular sequence.

I hope this illustrates that it's not always good enough to just find a way to make things work; and that with little planning in the beginning you can save yourself time, lower the requirements to perform the tasks at hand, and also improve the performance of your SQL Server!