Different Query perfromance on different machines

underprocessableHi
> The query plan is almost same on both machines.
That's the problem I think. Why does not the table have an index/s?
How big is your table?
"Pushkar" <pushkartiwari@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23h$zzJxgGHA.1260@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am strange behavior in queries on two instances of SQL Server on two
> different machines. On one machine query gakes almost 2 minutes and on
> another machine query timeout after 10 minutes.
> The query plan is almost same on both machines.
> Table on which I am doing select does not have any indexes on both
> machines.
> I am not able to figure out the exact cause of the problem. My query is
> very simple, without any join, then too it is behaving differently,
> strange.
> Configurations of machine with slow performance:
> Win2k3 enterprise edition,P4 3.39 GHz, 1 GB Ram,SQL Server 2000, Developer
> edition.
> Configurations of machine with fast performance:
> Win2k SP4,P4 2.8 GHz, 1.5 GB Ram,SQL Server 2000, Enterprise edition.
> I have attached query plan on both machines.
> Any help is appreciated.
> Thanks
> Pushkar
>|||Thanks Uri for your promt reply.
I can not understand why the same query Plan on both the machine is the
problem.
>Why does not the table have an index/s?
We do not have any index/s because we are performing bulk insert operation
on the table which becomes very slow for indexed table.
Anyway if index will help then it will boost the query performance on both
machines. I just want that I should approx. same performance on both
machines first, then I can think of other optimizations also.
> How big is your table?
Table contains 1 crores of rows.
Thanks,
Pushkar
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:%23I6gDZxgGHA.1520@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> That's the problem I think. Why does not the table have an index/s?
> How big is your table?
>
>
>
>
> "Pushkar" <pushkartiwari@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23h$zzJxgGHA.1260@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||> I can not understand why the same query Plan on both the machine is the
> problem.
No, you said ALMOST the same
"Pushkar" <pushkartiwari@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23selJ5xgGHA.3756@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Uri for your promt reply.
> I can not understand why the same query Plan on both the machine is the
> problem.
> We do not have any index/s because we are performing bulk insert operation
> on the table which becomes very slow for indexed table.
> Anyway if index will help then it will boost the query performance on both
> machines. I just want that I should approx. same performance on both
> machines first, then I can think of other optimizations also.
> Table contains 1 crores of rows.
> Thanks,
> Pushkar
>
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:%23I6gDZxgGHA.1520@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>|||If query plan is exactly the same on both machine can you suggest me, where
should dig upon to find out the cause of the problem?
Thanks,
Pushkar
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:%23NjQ3BygGHA.2456@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> No, you said ALMOST the same
>
> "Pushkar" <pushkartiwari@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23selJ5xgGHA.3756@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>|||Adding more;
I have taken reading for "SQLServer: I/O - Page Reads/sec" on both machines
which are as follows:
Slow Server : 250(Avg)
Fast Server: 1200(Avg)
How can I increase this parameter on slow server to match up to the fast
one.
Thanks
Pushkar
"Pushkar" <pushkartiwari@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u6HN2EygGHA.4404@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If query plan is exactly the same on both machine can you suggest me,
> where should dig upon to find out the cause of the problem?
> Thanks,
> Pushkar
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:%23NjQ3BygGHA.2456@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>|||I don't have these counters on my SQL 2000 instance but it stands to reason
that the main difference in performance may be related to disk performance
if a lot of data is scanned. I would expect physical disk: disk bytes /sec
to reflect the performance difference if this is the case.

> How can I increase this parameter on slow server to match up to the fast
> one.
Without hardware changes, about all you can do is move files around.
Sequential scan performance is mostly dictated by the I/O subsystem.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Pushkar" <pushkartiwari@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23I6hPWygGHA.1272@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Adding more;
> I have taken reading for "SQLServer: I/O - Page Reads/sec" on both
> machines which are as follows:
> Slow Server : 250(Avg)
> Fast Server: 1200(Avg)
> How can I increase this parameter on slow server to match up to the fast
> one.
> Thanks
> Pushkar
>
> "Pushkar" <pushkartiwari@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u6HN2EygGHA.4404@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>