Hello Everybody,I have the following setup:- An MSSQL 2014 Standard server that houses multiple small databases (in excess of a hundred).- These databases are frequently dropped and restored by an application that uses this SQL Server.- There is a business need for this setup at this time, so I can't get away from it. Therefore answers like "don't have so many small databases that are frequently dropped and restored" would be somewhat unhelpful:-DThis is the problem I have:- When I connect SSMS 2014 to the server and expand the "Databases" node, it takes forever to display. In comparison, SSMS 2008 connected to SQL 2008R2 server with the same number of databases displays the Databases tree very quickly.I ran a trace to see what exactly SSMS 2014 is doing. When the "Databases" node is expanded, it runs a query that checks each database for Memory-Optimized Tables (new and wonderful feature of SQL 2014 for sure, but I'm not using it, at least yet). Naturally, when you have to loop through over a hundred DBs, it takes time. Worse yet, if one of these DBs is in process of being restored, the query sits and waits to time out before proceeding to the next DB. Sometimes this causes outright timeouts. Here is the query:[code]use [MyDatabase]SELECTISNULL((select top 1 1 from sys.filegroups FG where FG.[type] = 'FX'), 0) AS [HasMemoryOptimizedObjects][/code]To be sure, this is NOT a SQL Server performance issue. This server processes a rather heavy workload and has been doing so for over a month, and the workload completes within expected time limits or better. Even so I've done some basic performance measuring, and the server itself is quite all right. Moreover, if I connect SSMS 2008 to it, I get an error message (Index out of bounds or somesuch), but SSMS 2008 does connect, and displays the Databases tree much faster than SSMS 2014.I'd like to turn off the option to check for Memory Optimized Objects altogether, as I'm not using the feature. Or find some other solution. I've pored over all the options in SSMS, and googled until I was blue in the face, but nobody seems to have a solution to this problem that they cared to share. Perhaps I am missing something? Is there a way to mitigate this behavior somehow?All helpful answers appreciated.
↧