First time connecting to these servers directly (keys to the kingdom, bwa-ha-ha-ha. oh, excuse me), so I'm going to take a look at the server properties, just to see if there are any issues there. Max memory is set, cool, first possible silly mistake clear. In fact, these look to be nicely set up. Oh, I'd like to see the ANSI Standards set by default, but it's not a big deal. The default location for database data is the F:\ drive, where I saw all the activity last time. Cool, the people maintaining the servers in our company listen, parallelism threshold is set to 35 and optimize for ad hoc is enabled. No shocks, no surprises. The basic setup is appropriate. On to the problem database.

Nothing wrong in the properties. The database is in SIMPLE recovery, but I think it's a reporting system, so no worries there. Again, I'd prefer to see the ANSI settings for connections, but that's the worst thing I can see.

Time to look at the queries, tables, indexes and statistics because all the information I've collected over the last several days suggests that we're not looking at a systemic problem (except possibly not enough memory), but at the traditional tuning issues. I just want to note that, I started looking at the system, not the queries. So should you when tuning your environment.

I know, from the data collected through SQL Monitor, what my top poor performing queries are, and the most frequently called, etc. I'm starting with the most frequently called. I'm going to get the execution plan for this thing out of the cache (although, with the cache dumping constantly, I might not get it). And it's not there. Called 1.3 million times over the last 3 days, but it's not in cache. Wow. OK. I'll see what's in cache for this database:

SELECT  deqs.creation_time,
        deqs.execution_count,
        deqs.max_logical_reads,
        deqs.max_elapsed_time,
        deqs.total_logical_reads,
        deqs.total_elapsed_time,
        deqp.query_plan,
        SUBSTRING(dest.text, (deqs.statement_start_offset / 2) + 1,
                  (deqs.statement_end_offset - deqs.statement_start_offset) / 2
                  + 1) AS QueryStatement
FROM    sys.dm_exec_query_stats AS deqs
        CROSS APPLY sys.dm_exec_sql_text(deqs.sql_handle) AS dest
        CROSS APPLY sys.dm_exec_query_plan(deqs.plan_handle) AS deqp
WHERE   dest.dbid = DB_ID('Warehouse')
AND deqs.statement_end_offset > 0
AND deqs.statement_start_offset > 0
ORDER BY deqs.max_logical_reads DESC ;

And looking at the most expensive operation, we have our first bad boy:

Multiple table scans against very large sets of data and a sort operation. a sort operation? It's an insert. Oh, I see, the table is a heap, so it's doing an insert, then sorting the data and then inserting into the primary key. First question, why isn't this a clustered index? Let's look at some more of the queries.

The next one is deceiving. Here's the query plan:

You're thinking to yourself, what's the big deal? Well, what if I told you that this thing had 8036318 reads? I know, you're looking at skinny little pipes. Know why? Table variable. Estimated number of rows = 1. Actual number of rows. well, I'm betting several more than one considering it's read 8 MILLION pages off the disk in a single execution. We have a serious and real tuning candidate. Oh, and I missed this, it's loading the table variable from a user defined function. Let me check, let me check. YES! A multi-statement table valued user defined function. And another tuning opportunity. This one's a beauty, seriously. Did I also mention that they're doing a hash against all the columns in the physical table. I'm sure that won't lead to scans of a 500,000 row table, no, not at all. OK. I lied. Of course it is. At least it's on the top part of the Loop which means the scan is only executed once.

I just did a cursory check on the next several poor performers. all calling the UDF. I think I found a big tuning opportunity.

At this point, I'm typing up internal emails for the company. Someone just had their baby called ugly. In addition to a series of suggested changes that we need to implement, I'm also apologizing for being such an unkind monster as to question whether that third eye & those flippers belong on such an otherwise lovely child.