Home Dashboard Directory Help
Search

SQL Server Extended Events Page/Split Event Additions by Jonathan Kehayias


Status: 

Active


21
0
Sign in
to vote
Type: Suggestion
ID: 388482
Opened: 12/16/2008 9:19:04 PM
Access Restriction: Public
0
Workaround(s)
view

Description

The page_split event in SQL Server 2008 Extended Events would be much more useful if it could return additional information in its column payload. Currently, the payload only includes the file_id and page_id which limits its usefulness. Additions to the column payload would greatly extend the usefulness of the page_split event and the level of information that it would provide to SQL Server Administrators.
Details
Sign in to post a comment.
Posted by Michael Zilberstein on 2/11/2009 at 12:02 AM
Agree with Adam - the most useful case here will be some bucketizing target per allocation unit or at least object id that will also enable to filter by page id (new page id < old page id). Without this data event is much less useful.
Posted by Microsoft on 2/10/2009 at 7:06 PM
Update: this is something we will consider for next release. thanks
Posted by Adam Machanic on 2/4/2009 at 9:51 AM
What I would like to produce is something that will tell me a page split occurred, and page X was split and the new page is page Y. Number of bytes or rows moved, if applicable (and possible), would also be interesting. Agreed that information on the actual affected object is key--either via the allocation unit or just an object_id.
Posted by Microsoft on 1/8/2009 at 1:36 PM
Yes, getting information synchronously will be better. We will consider this PCU2. I will follow up with CSS as well
Posted by Jonathan Kehayias on 1/5/2009 at 2:04 PM
There is an Action for DatabaseID, but if it is available at the time of the split wouldn't it make more sense for it to be included in the payload data rather than having to be fetched sychronously on the connection executing? My understanding of Actions are that they have a bit more of a cost associated with them than the base payload, which may be incorrect, but if it is correct, it would be better to provide it initially since it would already be there.
Posted by Microsoft on 1/5/2009 at 1:56 PM
Thanks for your feeback. Yes, this can be very useful. Please note, that there is no need to add DatabaseID to this event since there is an Action for database_id. I am requesting Dev to add more comments
Sign in to post a workaround.