Index fragmentation removal and prevention has long been a part of normal database maintenance operations, not only in SQL Server, but across many platforms. Index fragmentation affects performance for a lot of reasons, and most people talk about the effects of random small blocks of I/O that can happen physically to disk based storage as something to be avoided. The general concern around index fragmentation is that it affects the performance of scans through limiting the size of read-ahead I/Os. It's based on this limited understanding of the problems that index fragmentation cause that some people have begun circulating the idea that index fragmentation doesn't matter with Solid State Storage devices (SSDs) and that you can just ignore index fragmentation going forward.
However, that is not the case for a number of reasons. This article will explain and demonstrate one of those reasons: that index fragmentation can adversely impact execution plan choice for queries. This occurs because index fragmentation generally leads to an index having more pages (these extra pages come from page split operations, as described in this post on this site), and so the use of that index is deemed to have a higher cost by SQL Server's query optimizer.
Let's look at an example.
The first thing that we need to do is build an appropriate test database and data set to use for examining how index fragmentation can impact query plan choice in SQL Server. The following script will create a database with two tables with identical data, one heavily fragmented and one minimally fragmented.
USE master; GO DROP DATABASE FragmentationTest; GO CREATE DATABASE FragmentationTest; GO USE FragmentationTest; GO CREATE TABLE GuidHighFragmentation ( UniqueID UNIQUEIDENTIFIER DEFAULT NEWID() PRIMARY KEY, FirstName nvarchar(50) NOT NULL, LastName nvarchar(50) NOT NULL ); GO CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX IX_GuidHighFragmentation_LastName ON GuidHighFragmentation(LastName); GO CREATE TABLE GuidLowFragmentation ( UniqueID UNIQUEIDENTIFIER DEFAULT NEWSEQUENTIALID() PRIMARY KEY, FirstName nvarchar(50) NOT NULL, LastName nvarchar(50) NOT NULL ); GO CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX IX_GuidLowFragmentation_LastName ON GuidLowFragmentation(LastName); GO INSERT INTO GuidHighFragmentation (FirstName, LastName) SELECT TOP 100000 a.name, b.name FROM master.dbo.spt_values AS a CROSS JOIN master.dbo.spt_values AS b WHERE a.name IS NOT NULL AND b.name IS NOT NULL ORDER BY NEWID(); GO 70 INSERT INTO GuidLowFragmentation (UniqueID, FirstName, LastName) SELECT UniqueID, FirstName, LastName FROM GuidHighFragmentation; GO ALTER INDEX ALL ON GuidLowFragmentation REBUILD; GO
After rebuilding the index, we can look at the fragmentation levels with the following query:
SELECT OBJECT_NAME(ps.object_id) AS table_name, i.name AS index_name, ps.index_id, ps.index_depth, avg_fragmentation_in_percent, fragment_count, page_count, avg_page_space_used_in_percent, record_count FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats( DB_ID(), NULL, NULL, NULL, 'DETAILED') AS ps JOIN sys.indexes AS i ON ps.object_id = i.object_id AND ps.index_id = i.index_id WHERE index_level = 0; GO
Here we can see that our GuidHighFragmentation table is 99% fragmented and uses 31% more page space than the GuidLowFragmentation table in the database, despite them having the same 7,000,000 rows of data. If we do perform a basic aggregation query against each of the tables and compare the execution plans on a default installation (with default configuration options and values) of SQL Server using SentryOne Plan Explorer:
-- Aggregate the data from both tables SELECT LastName, COUNT(*) FROM GuidLowFragmentation GROUP BY LastName; GO SELECT LastName, COUNT(*) FROM GuidHighFragmentation GROUP BY LastName; GO
If we look at the tooltips from the SELECT operator for each plan, the plan for the GuidLowFragmentation table has a query cost of 38.80 (the third-line down from the top of the tooltip) versus a query cost of 54.14 for the plan for the GuidHighFragmentation plan.
Under a default configuration for SQL Server, both of these queries end up generating a parallel execution plan since the estimated query cost is higher than the 'cost threshold for parallelism' sp_configure option default of 5. This is because the query optimizer first produces a serial plan (that can only be executed by a single thread) when compiling the plan for a query. If the estimated cost of that serial plan exceeds the configured 'cost threshold for parallelism' value, then a parallel plan is generated and cached instead.
However, what if the 'cost threshold for parallelism' sp_configure option isn't set to the default of 5 and is set higher? It's a best practice (and a correct one) to increase this option from the low default of 5 to anywhere from 25 to 50 (or even much higher) to prevent small queries from incurring the additional overhead of going parallel.
EXEC sys.sp_configure N'show advanced options', N'1'; RECONFIGURE; GO EXEC sys.sp_configure N'cost threshold for parallelism', N'50'; RECONFIGURE; GO EXEC sys.sp_configure N'show advanced options', N'0'; RECONFIGURE; GO
After following the best-practice guidelines and increasing the 'cost threshold for parallelism' to 50, re-running the queries results in the same execution plan for the GuidHighFragmentation table, but the GuidLowFragmentation query serial cost, 44.68, is now below the 'cost threshold for parallelism' value (remember its estimated parallel cost was 38.80), so we get a serial execution plan:
The additional page space in the GuidHighFragmentation clustered index kept the cost above the best-practice setting for 'cost threshold for parallelism' and resulted in a parallel plan.
Now imagine that this was a system where you followed the best-practice guidance and initially configured 'cost threshold for parallelism' at a value of 50. Then later you followed the misguided advice of just ignoring index fragmentation altogether.
Instead of this being a basic query, it's more complex, but if it also gets executed very frequently on your system, and as a result of index fragmentation, the page count tips the cost over to a parallel plan, it will use more CPU and impact overall workload performance as a result.
What do you do? Do you increase 'cost threshold for parallelism' so the query maintains a serial execution plan? Do you hint the query with OPTION(MAXDOP 1) and just force it to a serial execution plan?
Keep in mind that index fragmentation is likely not just affecting one table in your database, now that you're ignoring it entirely; it's likely that many clustered and non-clustered indexes are fragmented and have a higher-than-necessary count of pages, so the costs of many I/O operations are increasing as a result of the widespread index fragmentation, leading to potentially many inefficient query plans.
You can't just ignore index fragmentation entirely as some might want you to believe. Among other downsides from doing this, the accumulated costs of query execution will catch up to you, with query plan shifts because the query optimizer is a cost-based optimizer and so rightly deems those fragmented indexes as more expensive to utilize.
The queries and scenario here are obviously contrived, but we've seen execution plan changes caused by fragmentation in real life on client systems.
You need to make sure that you're addressing index fragmentation for those indexes where fragmentation causes workload performance problems, no matter what hardware you're using.