dbcc cleantable batch size explanation





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







5















I have a very large table with 500 mil rows and a Text column that I will be dropping.
In my Dev environment, I have dropped the column and began the reclaim process, but im not sure what the batch size on the “DBCC CLEANTABLE (MyDb,'dbo.LargeTbl, 100000)” statement actually does.



I have tried setting it to 5, expecting it to check the first 5 rows and end. “DBCC CLEANTABLE (MyDb,'dbo.LargeTbl, 5)” and it took 28 hours.
So I restored the db, set it to 100,000 and it took 4 hours



Actual Question:
Does the batch size tell the dbcc cleantable how many rows to do at a time and continuously keep running 100K at a time till it goes thru all 500mil rows?
Or once I run the 100,000 do I have to run it again till I do all 500 mil rows?



On my second test, (running the 100K once) I was able to reclaim 30GB. Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..










share|improve this question































    5















    I have a very large table with 500 mil rows and a Text column that I will be dropping.
    In my Dev environment, I have dropped the column and began the reclaim process, but im not sure what the batch size on the “DBCC CLEANTABLE (MyDb,'dbo.LargeTbl, 100000)” statement actually does.



    I have tried setting it to 5, expecting it to check the first 5 rows and end. “DBCC CLEANTABLE (MyDb,'dbo.LargeTbl, 5)” and it took 28 hours.
    So I restored the db, set it to 100,000 and it took 4 hours



    Actual Question:
    Does the batch size tell the dbcc cleantable how many rows to do at a time and continuously keep running 100K at a time till it goes thru all 500mil rows?
    Or once I run the 100,000 do I have to run it again till I do all 500 mil rows?



    On my second test, (running the 100K once) I was able to reclaim 30GB. Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..










    share|improve this question



























      5












      5








      5








      I have a very large table with 500 mil rows and a Text column that I will be dropping.
      In my Dev environment, I have dropped the column and began the reclaim process, but im not sure what the batch size on the “DBCC CLEANTABLE (MyDb,'dbo.LargeTbl, 100000)” statement actually does.



      I have tried setting it to 5, expecting it to check the first 5 rows and end. “DBCC CLEANTABLE (MyDb,'dbo.LargeTbl, 5)” and it took 28 hours.
      So I restored the db, set it to 100,000 and it took 4 hours



      Actual Question:
      Does the batch size tell the dbcc cleantable how many rows to do at a time and continuously keep running 100K at a time till it goes thru all 500mil rows?
      Or once I run the 100,000 do I have to run it again till I do all 500 mil rows?



      On my second test, (running the 100K once) I was able to reclaim 30GB. Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..










      share|improve this question
















      I have a very large table with 500 mil rows and a Text column that I will be dropping.
      In my Dev environment, I have dropped the column and began the reclaim process, but im not sure what the batch size on the “DBCC CLEANTABLE (MyDb,'dbo.LargeTbl, 100000)” statement actually does.



      I have tried setting it to 5, expecting it to check the first 5 rows and end. “DBCC CLEANTABLE (MyDb,'dbo.LargeTbl, 5)” and it took 28 hours.
      So I restored the db, set it to 100,000 and it took 4 hours



      Actual Question:
      Does the batch size tell the dbcc cleantable how many rows to do at a time and continuously keep running 100K at a time till it goes thru all 500mil rows?
      Or once I run the 100,000 do I have to run it again till I do all 500 mil rows?



      On my second test, (running the 100K once) I was able to reclaim 30GB. Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..







      sql-server sql-server-2016 dbcc






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 15 hours ago









      Paul White

      54.1k14287460




      54.1k14287460










      asked 15 hours ago









      TomaszTomasz

      806




      806






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          7














          In addition to the great answer by armitage you probably do not need to use DBCC CLEANTABLE in your scenario.



          You state




          Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..




          The best practices in the Microsoft documents says:




          DBCC CLEANTABLE should not be executed as a routine maintenance task. Instead, use DBCC CLEANTABLE after you make significant changes to variable-length columns in a table or indexed view and you need to immediately reclaim the unused space. Alternatively, you can rebuild the indexes on the table or view; however, doing so is a more resource-intensive operation.




          It seems like time and space are your biggest goals. Generally rebuilding an index is quicker (but more resource intensive) than a reorg.



          As you are working on a Development server.



          Just rebuild your indexes and you will get the benefits of the index reorg and the DBCC CLEANTABLE at the same time, and probably much quicker.



          Note Rebuild and Reorganize are not the same thing:




          • Reorganize and Rebuild Indexes (Microsoft)

          • Rebuild or Reorganize: SQL Server Index Maintenance (Brent Ozar)

          • SQLskills SQL101: REBUILD vs. REORGANIZE(Paul Randal)






          share|improve this answer


























          • i thought the same thing and ran the test in reverse. 1) dropped the column 2) defrag all indexes (only reclaimed 30GB) 3) ran cleantable and got 60gb... looks like i need both, this is a one time thing

            – Tomasz
            15 hours ago













          • @Tomasz I edited my answer, not sure what you mean by 'defrag all indexes' but Reorg (what you said in your question) & Rebuild (what I said in this answer) are not the same thing.

            – James Jenkins
            14 hours ago








          • 1





            ah, sorry. i reorganized them each time. i will run one more test where i will drop the column and rebuild the index and share the results. thank you.

            – Tomasz
            14 hours ago



















          3














          According to the Microsoft documentation the Batch Size tells the DBCC CleanTable the number of rows to process per transaction. This relates to the number of rows that the DBCC CleanTable processes internally as the DBCC CleanTable process runs.



          By taking the example in the documentation and modifying to add a million rows and then running the sample script multiple times with varying values for batch size ( see below) it appears that specifying a small batch size increase the execution time as DBCC CleanTable is only operating on the number of rows specified in the batch size.




          • No Batch size specified

          • A batch size of 5

          • A batch size of 100,00






          share|improve this answer
























          • So just to confirm, the process will go thru the entire 500Mil rows, just "exclusively locking" 100K at a time and also allow for backup logs to occur.

            – Tomasz
            15 hours ago












          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "182"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f234041%2fdbcc-cleantable-batch-size-explanation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          7














          In addition to the great answer by armitage you probably do not need to use DBCC CLEANTABLE in your scenario.



          You state




          Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..




          The best practices in the Microsoft documents says:




          DBCC CLEANTABLE should not be executed as a routine maintenance task. Instead, use DBCC CLEANTABLE after you make significant changes to variable-length columns in a table or indexed view and you need to immediately reclaim the unused space. Alternatively, you can rebuild the indexes on the table or view; however, doing so is a more resource-intensive operation.




          It seems like time and space are your biggest goals. Generally rebuilding an index is quicker (but more resource intensive) than a reorg.



          As you are working on a Development server.



          Just rebuild your indexes and you will get the benefits of the index reorg and the DBCC CLEANTABLE at the same time, and probably much quicker.



          Note Rebuild and Reorganize are not the same thing:




          • Reorganize and Rebuild Indexes (Microsoft)

          • Rebuild or Reorganize: SQL Server Index Maintenance (Brent Ozar)

          • SQLskills SQL101: REBUILD vs. REORGANIZE(Paul Randal)






          share|improve this answer


























          • i thought the same thing and ran the test in reverse. 1) dropped the column 2) defrag all indexes (only reclaimed 30GB) 3) ran cleantable and got 60gb... looks like i need both, this is a one time thing

            – Tomasz
            15 hours ago













          • @Tomasz I edited my answer, not sure what you mean by 'defrag all indexes' but Reorg (what you said in your question) & Rebuild (what I said in this answer) are not the same thing.

            – James Jenkins
            14 hours ago








          • 1





            ah, sorry. i reorganized them each time. i will run one more test where i will drop the column and rebuild the index and share the results. thank you.

            – Tomasz
            14 hours ago
















          7














          In addition to the great answer by armitage you probably do not need to use DBCC CLEANTABLE in your scenario.



          You state




          Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..




          The best practices in the Microsoft documents says:




          DBCC CLEANTABLE should not be executed as a routine maintenance task. Instead, use DBCC CLEANTABLE after you make significant changes to variable-length columns in a table or indexed view and you need to immediately reclaim the unused space. Alternatively, you can rebuild the indexes on the table or view; however, doing so is a more resource-intensive operation.




          It seems like time and space are your biggest goals. Generally rebuilding an index is quicker (but more resource intensive) than a reorg.



          As you are working on a Development server.



          Just rebuild your indexes and you will get the benefits of the index reorg and the DBCC CLEANTABLE at the same time, and probably much quicker.



          Note Rebuild and Reorganize are not the same thing:




          • Reorganize and Rebuild Indexes (Microsoft)

          • Rebuild or Reorganize: SQL Server Index Maintenance (Brent Ozar)

          • SQLskills SQL101: REBUILD vs. REORGANIZE(Paul Randal)






          share|improve this answer


























          • i thought the same thing and ran the test in reverse. 1) dropped the column 2) defrag all indexes (only reclaimed 30GB) 3) ran cleantable and got 60gb... looks like i need both, this is a one time thing

            – Tomasz
            15 hours ago













          • @Tomasz I edited my answer, not sure what you mean by 'defrag all indexes' but Reorg (what you said in your question) & Rebuild (what I said in this answer) are not the same thing.

            – James Jenkins
            14 hours ago








          • 1





            ah, sorry. i reorganized them each time. i will run one more test where i will drop the column and rebuild the index and share the results. thank you.

            – Tomasz
            14 hours ago














          7












          7








          7







          In addition to the great answer by armitage you probably do not need to use DBCC CLEANTABLE in your scenario.



          You state




          Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..




          The best practices in the Microsoft documents says:




          DBCC CLEANTABLE should not be executed as a routine maintenance task. Instead, use DBCC CLEANTABLE after you make significant changes to variable-length columns in a table or indexed view and you need to immediately reclaim the unused space. Alternatively, you can rebuild the indexes on the table or view; however, doing so is a more resource-intensive operation.




          It seems like time and space are your biggest goals. Generally rebuilding an index is quicker (but more resource intensive) than a reorg.



          As you are working on a Development server.



          Just rebuild your indexes and you will get the benefits of the index reorg and the DBCC CLEANTABLE at the same time, and probably much quicker.



          Note Rebuild and Reorganize are not the same thing:




          • Reorganize and Rebuild Indexes (Microsoft)

          • Rebuild or Reorganize: SQL Server Index Maintenance (Brent Ozar)

          • SQLskills SQL101: REBUILD vs. REORGANIZE(Paul Randal)






          share|improve this answer















          In addition to the great answer by armitage you probably do not need to use DBCC CLEANTABLE in your scenario.



          You state




          Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..




          The best practices in the Microsoft documents says:




          DBCC CLEANTABLE should not be executed as a routine maintenance task. Instead, use DBCC CLEANTABLE after you make significant changes to variable-length columns in a table or indexed view and you need to immediately reclaim the unused space. Alternatively, you can rebuild the indexes on the table or view; however, doing so is a more resource-intensive operation.




          It seems like time and space are your biggest goals. Generally rebuilding an index is quicker (but more resource intensive) than a reorg.



          As you are working on a Development server.



          Just rebuild your indexes and you will get the benefits of the index reorg and the DBCC CLEANTABLE at the same time, and probably much quicker.



          Note Rebuild and Reorganize are not the same thing:




          • Reorganize and Rebuild Indexes (Microsoft)

          • Rebuild or Reorganize: SQL Server Index Maintenance (Brent Ozar)

          • SQLskills SQL101: REBUILD vs. REORGANIZE(Paul Randal)







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 14 hours ago

























          answered 15 hours ago









          James JenkinsJames Jenkins

          2,04022045




          2,04022045













          • i thought the same thing and ran the test in reverse. 1) dropped the column 2) defrag all indexes (only reclaimed 30GB) 3) ran cleantable and got 60gb... looks like i need both, this is a one time thing

            – Tomasz
            15 hours ago













          • @Tomasz I edited my answer, not sure what you mean by 'defrag all indexes' but Reorg (what you said in your question) & Rebuild (what I said in this answer) are not the same thing.

            – James Jenkins
            14 hours ago








          • 1





            ah, sorry. i reorganized them each time. i will run one more test where i will drop the column and rebuild the index and share the results. thank you.

            – Tomasz
            14 hours ago



















          • i thought the same thing and ran the test in reverse. 1) dropped the column 2) defrag all indexes (only reclaimed 30GB) 3) ran cleantable and got 60gb... looks like i need both, this is a one time thing

            – Tomasz
            15 hours ago













          • @Tomasz I edited my answer, not sure what you mean by 'defrag all indexes' but Reorg (what you said in your question) & Rebuild (what I said in this answer) are not the same thing.

            – James Jenkins
            14 hours ago








          • 1





            ah, sorry. i reorganized them each time. i will run one more test where i will drop the column and rebuild the index and share the results. thank you.

            – Tomasz
            14 hours ago

















          i thought the same thing and ran the test in reverse. 1) dropped the column 2) defrag all indexes (only reclaimed 30GB) 3) ran cleantable and got 60gb... looks like i need both, this is a one time thing

          – Tomasz
          15 hours ago







          i thought the same thing and ran the test in reverse. 1) dropped the column 2) defrag all indexes (only reclaimed 30GB) 3) ran cleantable and got 60gb... looks like i need both, this is a one time thing

          – Tomasz
          15 hours ago















          @Tomasz I edited my answer, not sure what you mean by 'defrag all indexes' but Reorg (what you said in your question) & Rebuild (what I said in this answer) are not the same thing.

          – James Jenkins
          14 hours ago







          @Tomasz I edited my answer, not sure what you mean by 'defrag all indexes' but Reorg (what you said in your question) & Rebuild (what I said in this answer) are not the same thing.

          – James Jenkins
          14 hours ago






          1




          1





          ah, sorry. i reorganized them each time. i will run one more test where i will drop the column and rebuild the index and share the results. thank you.

          – Tomasz
          14 hours ago





          ah, sorry. i reorganized them each time. i will run one more test where i will drop the column and rebuild the index and share the results. thank you.

          – Tomasz
          14 hours ago













          3














          According to the Microsoft documentation the Batch Size tells the DBCC CleanTable the number of rows to process per transaction. This relates to the number of rows that the DBCC CleanTable processes internally as the DBCC CleanTable process runs.



          By taking the example in the documentation and modifying to add a million rows and then running the sample script multiple times with varying values for batch size ( see below) it appears that specifying a small batch size increase the execution time as DBCC CleanTable is only operating on the number of rows specified in the batch size.




          • No Batch size specified

          • A batch size of 5

          • A batch size of 100,00






          share|improve this answer
























          • So just to confirm, the process will go thru the entire 500Mil rows, just "exclusively locking" 100K at a time and also allow for backup logs to occur.

            – Tomasz
            15 hours ago
















          3














          According to the Microsoft documentation the Batch Size tells the DBCC CleanTable the number of rows to process per transaction. This relates to the number of rows that the DBCC CleanTable processes internally as the DBCC CleanTable process runs.



          By taking the example in the documentation and modifying to add a million rows and then running the sample script multiple times with varying values for batch size ( see below) it appears that specifying a small batch size increase the execution time as DBCC CleanTable is only operating on the number of rows specified in the batch size.




          • No Batch size specified

          • A batch size of 5

          • A batch size of 100,00






          share|improve this answer
























          • So just to confirm, the process will go thru the entire 500Mil rows, just "exclusively locking" 100K at a time and also allow for backup logs to occur.

            – Tomasz
            15 hours ago














          3












          3








          3







          According to the Microsoft documentation the Batch Size tells the DBCC CleanTable the number of rows to process per transaction. This relates to the number of rows that the DBCC CleanTable processes internally as the DBCC CleanTable process runs.



          By taking the example in the documentation and modifying to add a million rows and then running the sample script multiple times with varying values for batch size ( see below) it appears that specifying a small batch size increase the execution time as DBCC CleanTable is only operating on the number of rows specified in the batch size.




          • No Batch size specified

          • A batch size of 5

          • A batch size of 100,00






          share|improve this answer













          According to the Microsoft documentation the Batch Size tells the DBCC CleanTable the number of rows to process per transaction. This relates to the number of rows that the DBCC CleanTable processes internally as the DBCC CleanTable process runs.



          By taking the example in the documentation and modifying to add a million rows and then running the sample script multiple times with varying values for batch size ( see below) it appears that specifying a small batch size increase the execution time as DBCC CleanTable is only operating on the number of rows specified in the batch size.




          • No Batch size specified

          • A batch size of 5

          • A batch size of 100,00







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 15 hours ago









          armitagearmitage

          838512




          838512













          • So just to confirm, the process will go thru the entire 500Mil rows, just "exclusively locking" 100K at a time and also allow for backup logs to occur.

            – Tomasz
            15 hours ago



















          • So just to confirm, the process will go thru the entire 500Mil rows, just "exclusively locking" 100K at a time and also allow for backup logs to occur.

            – Tomasz
            15 hours ago

















          So just to confirm, the process will go thru the entire 500Mil rows, just "exclusively locking" 100K at a time and also allow for backup logs to occur.

          – Tomasz
          15 hours ago





          So just to confirm, the process will go thru the entire 500Mil rows, just "exclusively locking" 100K at a time and also allow for backup logs to occur.

          – Tomasz
          15 hours ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f234041%2fdbcc-cleantable-batch-size-explanation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Statuo de Libereco

          Tanganjiko

          Liste der Baudenkmäler in Enneberg