Stored proc running 30% slower through Java versus running directly on database

Question

I\'m using Java 1.6, JTDS 1.2.2 (also just tried 1.2.4 to no avail) and SQL Server 2005 to create a CallableStatement to run a stored procedure (with no parameters). I am seein

Answer 1

You can attach the Profiler and monitor for the events SQL:BatchCompleted and SP:Completed, with a filter on duration > 1000. Run the procedure from your Java client and from SSMS. Compare the Reads and the Writes of the two events (Java vs. SSMS). Are they significantly different? This would indicate considerably different execution paths or plans, with significant difference in I/O.

Also try to capture the Showplan XML event of the two and compare the plans (save the event as a .sqlplan file, open it in SSMS to easy analysis). Do they have similar plans? Are there wild differences in Estimate vs. Actual (rows, rewinds, rebinds)? Do they have same degree of parallelism? The plans can aso be retrieved from sys.dm_exec_requests view.

Are there any warning events raised, like Missing Column Statistics, Sort Warnings, Hash Warning, Execution Warnings, Blocked Process?

the point is that you have at your disposal a whole arsenal of investigation tools. Once you find the root cause of the difference, you can trace it down to what is different between your Java environment settings and the SSMS environment (ADO.Net SqlClient). Things like default transaction isolation level, ANSI settings etc etc.

Answer 2

I am not sure if this post is still relevant. We faced a similar problem in our application.

One key difference between running a stored procedure in SQL Management studio and one running from JDBC is that of transaction context. If you are using an ORM in Java, by default the stored procedure runs in a transaction context. When you run a stored procedure directly in SQL management studio the transaction is off. There is a substantial performance difference.

Answer 3

I recall having a similar issue a while ago, because JTDS was silently converting a string parameter to Unicode or something similar. As a result of that conversion, SQL Server was unable to use the index which is was using when we ran the stored proc from SSMS.

HIH

Answer 4

Sorry, I've not found a correct answer to this, so I don't want to allocate any of these as correct, so I am going to mark this answer as correct, and wish anyone luck who comes across anything similar!

Answer 5

Did you know that Microsoft ship JDBC drivers for their databases?

These may be more performant.

Obviously.. you may have resolved the problem by now.

Answer 6

Checking: Is your problem that two applications (SSMS, Java) are making the exact same identical call to SQL Server, and SQL Server is acting differently for each? If so, I hit things like this every year or two, and they hurt my brain for days.

Once, I ultimately isolated each process call and logging everything for the entire process in Profiler. I eventually noticed that the Login event (under TextData) showed a host of information, like so:

-- network protocol: TCP/IP
set quoted_identifier on
set arithabort off
set numeric_roundabort off
set ansi_warnings on
set ansi_padding on
set ansi_nulls on
set concat_null_yields_null on
set cursor_close_on_commit off
set implicit_transactions off
set language us_english
set dateformat mdy
set datefirst 7
set transaction isolation level read committed

The "Existing Connection" event will show this information as well--but, sometimes immediately subsequent calls (batches, RPCs, I disremember just now) are sent [ISQL or OSQL did this, I think] to immediately reset some of these -- Arithabort and Quoted_Identifier seem to be favorites, and other SET options also get modified depending on the settings or requirements of whatever connectivity protocols your application's database interface is using.

Another one: some settings are kept as attributes of a procedure at "create" time, and others are factored in at compile time. On the one hand, your connection's SET values may be being overwritten by the configuration saved at the time the procedure was created; on the other hand, your two connections may differ so much that two execution plans are generated for one procedure. (All of this information is, after sufficient research, available in the sys. tables and DMVs.)

In short, it seems to me that SQL obscurities are messing you up. To this day, I loathe all these goombah settings. Things below my notice keep messing around with them [I mean, really, what fool would set implicit_transaction for a connection pool on? But once they did...] and it's hard to build structures when the ground (rules) keep changing out from underneath you. After all, remember what the guy said about building castles in a swamp...