This isn't a traditional answer, but I thought it would be helpful to post benchmarks of some of the techniques mentioned so far. I'm testing on a 96 core server with SQL Server 2017 CU9.
Many scalability problems are caused by concurrent threads contending over some global state. For example, consider classic PFS page contention. This can happen if too many worker threads need to modify the same page in memory. As code becomes more efficient it may request the latch faster. That increases contention. To put it simply, efficient code is more likely to lead to scalability issues because the global state is contended over more severely. Slow code is less likely to cause scalability issues because the global state isn't accessed as frequently.
`HASHBYTES` scalability is partially based on the length of the input string. My theory was to why this occurs is that access to some global state is needed when the `HASHBYTES` function is called. The easy global state to observe is a memory page needs to be allocated per call on some versions of SQL Server. The harder one to observe is that there's some kind of OS contention. As a result, if `HASHBYTES` is called by the code less frequently then contention goes down. One way to reduce the rate of `HASHBYTES` calls is to increase the amount of hashing work needed per call. Hashing work is partially based on the length of the input string. To reproduce the scalability problem I saw in the application I needed to change the demo data. A reasonable worst case scenario is a table with 21 `BIGINT` columns. The definition of the table is included in the code at the bottom. To reduce Local Factors™, I'm using concurrent `MAXDOP 1` queries that operate on relatively small tables. My quick benchmark code is at the bottom.
Note the functions return different hash lengths. `MD5` and `SpookyHash` are both 128 bit hashes, `SHA256` is a 256 bit hash.
RESULTS (`NVARCHAR` vs `VARBINARY` conversion and concatenation)
--
In order to see if converting to, and concatenating, `VARBINARY` is truly more efficient / performant than `NVARCHAR`, an `NVARCHAR` version of the `RUN_HASHBYTES_SHA2_256` stored procedure was created from the same template (see "Step 5" in **BENCHMARKING CODE** section below). The only differences are:
1. Stored Procedure name ends in `_NVC`
1. `BINARY(8)` for the `CAST` function was changed to be `NVARCHAR(15)`
1. `0x7C` was changed to be `N'|'`
Resulting in:
CAST(FK1 AS NVARCHAR(15)) + N'|' +
instead of:
CAST(FK1 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
The table below contains the number of hashes performed in 1 minute. The tests were performed on a different server than was used for the other tests noted below.
╔════════════════╦══════════╦══════════════╗
║ Datatype ║ Test # ║ Total Hashes ║
╠════════════════╬══════════╬══════════════╣
║ NVARCHAR ║ 1 ║ 10200000 ║
║ NVARCHAR ║ 2 ║ 10300000 ║
║ NVARCHAR ║ AVERAGE ║ * 10250000 * ║
║ -------------- ║ -------- ║ ------------ ║
║ VARBINARY ║ 1 ║ 12500000 ║
║ VARBINARY ║ 2 ║ 12800000 ║
║ VARBINARY ║ AVERAGE ║ * 12650000 * ║
╚════════════════╩══════════╩══════════════╝
Looking at just the averages, we can calculate the benefit of switching to `VARBINARY`:
SELECT (12650000 - 10250000) AS [IncreaseAmount],
ROUND(((126500000 - 10250000) / 10250000) * 100.0, 3) AS [IncreasePercentage]
That returns:
IncreaseAmount: 2400000.0
IncreasePercentage: 23.415
RESULTS (hash algorithms and implementations)
--
The table below contains the number of hashes performed in 1 minute. For example, using `CHECKSUM` with 84 concurrent queries resulted in over 2 billion hashes being performed before time ran out.
╔════════════════════╦════════════╦════════════╦════════════╗
║ Function ║ 12 threads ║ 48 threads ║ 84 threads ║
╠════════════════════╬════════════╬════════════╬════════════╣
║ CHECKSUM ║ 281250000 ║ 1122440000 ║ 2040100000 ║
║ HASHBYTES MD5 ║ 75940000 ║ 106190000 ║ 112750000 ║
║ HASHBYTES SHA2_256 ║ 80210000 ║ 117080000 ║ 124790000 ║
║ CLR Spooky ║ 131250000 ║ 505700000 ║ 786150000 ║
║ CLR SpookyLOB ║ 17420000 ║ 27160000 ║ 31380000 ║
║ SQL# MD5 ║ 17080000 ║ 26450000 ║ 29080000 ║
║ SQL# SHA2_256 ║ 18370000 ║ 28860000 ║ 32590000 ║
║ SQL# MD5 8k ║ 24440000 ║ 30560000 ║ 32550000 ║
║ SQL# SHA2_256 8k ║ 87240000 ║ 159310000 ║ 155760000 ║
╚════════════════════╩════════════╩════════════╩════════════╝
If you prefer to see the same numbers measured in terms of work per thread-second:
╔════════════════════╦════════════════════════════╦════════════════════════════╦════════════════════════════╗
║ Function ║ 12 threads per core-second ║ 48 threads per core-second ║ 84 threads per core-second ║
╠════════════════════╬════════════════════════════╬════════════════════════════╬════════════════════════════╣
║ CHECKSUM ║ 390625 ║ 389736 ║ 404782 ║
║ HASHBYTES MD5 ║ 105472 ║ 36872 ║ 22371 ║
║ HASHBYTES SHA2_256 ║ 111403 ║ 40653 ║ 24760 ║
║ CLR Spooky ║ 182292 ║ 175590 ║ 155982 ║
║ CLR SpookyLOB ║ 24194 ║ 9431 ║ 6226 ║
║ SQL# MD5 ║ 23722 ║ 9184 ║ 5770 ║
║ SQL# SHA2_256 ║ 25514 ║ 10021 ║ 6466 ║
║ SQL# MD5 8k ║ 33944 ║ 10611 ║ 6458 ║
║ SQL# SHA2_256 8k ║ 121167 ║ 55316 ║ 30905 ║
╚════════════════════╩════════════════════════════╩════════════════════════════╩════════════════════════════╝
Some quick thoughts on all of the methods:
- `CHECKSUM`: very good scalability as expected
- `HASHBYTES`: scalability issues include one memory allocation per call and a large amount of CPU spent in the OS
- `Spooky`: surprisingly good scalability
- `Spooky LOB`: the spinlock `SOS_SELIST_SIZED_SLOCK` spins out of control. I suspect this is a general issue with passing LOBs through CLR functions, but I'm not sure
- `Util_HashBinary`: looks like it gets hit by the same spinlock. I haven't looked into this so far because there's probably not a lot that I can do about it:
[![spin your lock][1]][1]
- `Util_HashBinary 8k`: very surprising results, not sure what's going on here
**Final results tested on a smaller server:**
╔═════════════════════════╦════════════════════════╦════════════════════════╗
║ Hash Algorithm ║ Hashes over 11 threads ║ Hashes over 44 threads ║
╠═════════════════════════╬════════════════════════╬════════════════════════╣
║ HASHBYTES SHA2_256 ║ 85220000 ║ 167050000 ║
║ SpookyHash ║ 101200000 ║ 239530000 ║
║ Util_HashSHA256Binary8k ║ 90590000 ║ 217170000 ║
║ SpookyHashLOB ║ 23490000 ║ 38370000 ║
║ Util_HashSHA256Binary ║ 23430000 ║ 36590000 ║
╚═════════════════════════╩════════════════════════╩════════════════════════╝
BENCHMARKING CODE
--
**SETUP 1: Tables and Data**
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS dbo.HASH_SMALL;
CREATE TABLE dbo.HASH_SMALL (
ID BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK1 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK2 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK3 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK4 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK5 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK6 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK7 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK8 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK9 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK10 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK11 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK12 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK13 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK14 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK15 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK16 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK17 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK18 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK19 BIGINT NOT NULL,
FK20 BIGINT NOT NULL
);
INSERT INTO dbo.HASH_SMALL WITH (TABLOCK)
SELECT RN,
4000000 - RN, 4000000 - RN
,200000000 - RN, 200000000 - RN
, RN % 500000 , RN % 500000 , RN % 500000
, RN % 500000 , RN % 500000 , RN % 500000
, 100000 - RN % 100000, RN % 100000
, 100000 - RN % 100000, RN % 100000
, 100000 - RN % 100000, RN % 100000
, 100000 - RN % 100000, RN % 100000
, 100000 - RN % 100000, RN % 100000
FROM (
SELECT TOP (10000) ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT NULL)) RN
FROM master..spt_values t1
CROSS JOIN master..spt_values t2
) q
OPTION (MAXDOP 1);
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS dbo.LOG_HASHES;
CREATE TABLE dbo.LOG_HASHES (
LOG_TIME DATETIME,
HASH_ALGORITHM INT,
SESSION_ID INT,
NUM_HASHES BIGINT
);
**SETUP 2: Master Execution Proc**
GO
CREATE OR ALTER PROCEDURE dbo.RUN_HASHES_FOR_ONE_MINUTE (@HashAlgorithm INT)
AS
BEGIN
DECLARE @target_end_time DATETIME = DATEADD(MINUTE, 1, GETDATE()),
@query_execution_count INT = 0;
SET NOCOUNT ON;
DECLARE @ProcName NVARCHAR(261); -- schema_name + proc_name + '[].[]'
DECLARE @RowCount INT;
SELECT @RowCount = SUM(prtn.[row_count])
FROM sys.dm_db_partition_stats prtn
WHERE prtn.[object_id] = OBJECT_ID(N'dbo.HASH_SMALL')
AND prtn.[index_id] < 2;
-- Load assembly if not loaded to prevent load time from skewing results
DECLARE @OptionalInitSQL NVARCHAR(MAX);
SET @OptionalInitSQL = CASE @HashAlgorithm
WHEN 1 THEN N'SELECT @Dummy = dbo.SpookyHash(0x1234);'
WHEN 2 THEN N'' -- HASHBYTES
WHEN 3 THEN N'' -- HASHBYTES
WHEN 4 THEN N'' -- CHECKSUM
WHEN 5 THEN N'SELECT @Dummy = dbo.SpookyHashLOB(0x1234);'
WHEN 6 THEN N'SELECT @Dummy = SQL#.Util_HashBinary(N''MD5'', 0x1234);'
WHEN 7 THEN N'SELECT @Dummy = SQL#.Util_HashBinary(N''SHA256'', 0x1234);'
WHEN 8 THEN N'SELECT @Dummy = SQL#.Util_HashBinary8k(N''MD5'', 0x1234);'
WHEN 9 THEN N'SELECT @Dummy = SQL#.Util_HashBinary8k(N''SHA256'', 0x1234);'
/* -- BETA / non-public code
WHEN 10 THEN N'SELECT @Dummy = SQL#.Util_HashSHA256Binary8k(0x1234);'
WHEN 11 THEN N'SELECT @Dummy = SQL#.Util_HashSHA256Binary(0x1234);'
*/
END;
IF (RTRIM(@OptionalInitSQL) <> N'')
BEGIN
SET @OptionalInitSQL = N'
SET NOCOUNT ON;
DECLARE @Dummy VARBINARY(100);
' + @OptionalInitSQL;
RAISERROR(N'** Executing optional initialization code:', 10, 1) WITH NOWAIT;
RAISERROR(@OptionalInitSQL, 10, 1) WITH NOWAIT;
EXEC (@OptionalInitSQL);
RAISERROR(N'-------------------------------------------', 10, 1) WITH NOWAIT;
END;
SET @ProcName = CASE @HashAlgorithm
WHEN 1 THEN N'dbo.RUN_SpookyHash'
WHEN 2 THEN N'dbo.RUN_HASHBYTES_MD5'
WHEN 3 THEN N'dbo.RUN_HASHBYTES_SHA2_256'
WHEN 4 THEN N'dbo.RUN_CHECKSUM'
WHEN 5 THEN N'dbo.RUN_SpookyHashLOB'
WHEN 6 THEN N'dbo.RUN_SR_MD5'
WHEN 7 THEN N'dbo.RUN_SR_SHA256'
WHEN 8 THEN N'dbo.RUN_SR_MD5_8k'
WHEN 9 THEN N'dbo.RUN_SR_SHA256_8k'
/* -- BETA / non-public code
WHEN 10 THEN N'dbo.RUN_SR_SHA256_new'
WHEN 11 THEN N'dbo.RUN_SR_SHA256LOB_new'
*/
WHEN 13 THEN N'dbo.RUN_HASHBYTES_SHA2_256_NVC'
END;
RAISERROR(N'** Executing proc: %s', 10, 1, @ProcName) WITH NOWAIT;
WHILE GETDATE() < @target_end_time
BEGIN
EXEC @ProcName;
SET @query_execution_count = @query_execution_count + 1;
END;
INSERT INTO dbo.LOG_HASHES
VALUES (GETDATE(), @HashAlgorithm, @@SPID, @RowCount * @query_execution_count);
END;
GO
**SETUP 3: Collision Detection Proc**
GO
CREATE OR ALTER PROCEDURE dbo.VERIFY_NO_COLLISIONS (@HashAlgorithm INT)
AS
SET NOCOUNT ON;
DECLARE @RowCount INT;
SELECT @RowCount = SUM(prtn.[row_count])
FROM sys.dm_db_partition_stats prtn
WHERE prtn.[object_id] = OBJECT_ID(N'dbo.HASH_SMALL')
AND prtn.[index_id] < 2;
DECLARE @CollisionTestRows INT;
DECLARE @CollisionTestSQL NVARCHAR(MAX);
SET @CollisionTestSQL = N'
SELECT @RowsOut = COUNT(DISTINCT '
+ CASE @HashAlgorithm
WHEN 1 THEN N'dbo.SpookyHash('
WHEN 2 THEN N'HASHBYTES(''MD5'','
WHEN 3 THEN N'HASHBYTES(''SHA2_256'','
WHEN 4 THEN N'CHECKSUM('
WHEN 5 THEN N'dbo.SpookyHashLOB('
WHEN 6 THEN N'SQL#.Util_HashBinary(N''MD5'','
WHEN 7 THEN N'SQL#.Util_HashBinary(N''SHA256'','
WHEN 8 THEN N'SQL#.[Util_HashBinary8k](N''MD5'','
WHEN 9 THEN N'SQL#.[Util_HashBinary8k](N''SHA256'','
--/* -- BETA / non-public code
WHEN 10 THEN N'SQL#.[Util_HashSHA256Binary8k]('
WHEN 11 THEN N'SQL#.[Util_HashSHA256Binary]('
--*/
END
+ N'
CAST(FK1 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK2 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK3 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK4 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK5 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK6 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK7 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK8 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK9 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK10 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK11 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK12 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK13 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK14 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK15 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK16 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK17 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK18 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK19 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK20 AS BINARY(8)) ))
FROM dbo.HASH_SMALL;';
PRINT @CollisionTestSQL;
EXEC sp_executesql
@CollisionTestSQL,
N'@RowsOut INT OUTPUT',
@RowsOut = @CollisionTestRows OUTPUT;
IF (@CollisionTestRows <> @RowCount)
BEGIN
RAISERROR('Collisions for algorithm: %d!!! %d unique rows out of %d.',
16, 1, @HashAlgorithm, @CollisionTestRows, @RowCount);
END;
GO
**SETUP 4: Cleanup (DROP All Test Procs)**
DECLARE @SQL NVARCHAR(MAX) = N'';
SELECT @SQL += N'DROP PROCEDURE [dbo].' + QUOTENAME(sp.[name])
+ N';' + NCHAR(13) + NCHAR(10)
FROM sys.objects sp
WHERE sp.[name] LIKE N'RUN[_]%'
AND sp.[type_desc] = N'SQL_STORED_PROCEDURE'
AND sp.[name] <> N'RUN_HASHES_FOR_ONE_MINUTE'
PRINT @SQL;
EXEC (@SQL);
**SETUP 5: Generate Test Procs**
SET NOCOUNT ON;
DECLARE @TestProcsToCreate TABLE
(
ProcName sysname NOT NULL,
CodeToExec NVARCHAR(261) NOT NULL
);
DECLARE @ProcName sysname,
@CodeToExec NVARCHAR(261);
INSERT INTO @TestProcsToCreate VALUES
(N'SpookyHash', N'dbo.SpookyHash('),
(N'HASHBYTES_MD5', N'HASHBYTES(''MD5'','),
(N'HASHBYTES_SHA2_256', N'HASHBYTES(''SHA2_256'','),
(N'CHECKSUM', N'CHECKSUM('),
(N'SpookyHashLOB', N'dbo.SpookyHashLOB('),
(N'SR_MD5', N'SQL#.Util_HashBinary(N''MD5'','),
(N'SR_SHA256', N'SQL#.Util_HashBinary(N''SHA256'','),
(N'SR_MD5_8k', N'SQL#.[Util_HashBinary8k](N''MD5'','),
(N'SR_SHA256_8k', N'SQL#.[Util_HashBinary8k](N''SHA256'',')
--/* -- BETA / non-public code
, (N'SR_SHA256_new', N'SQL#.[Util_HashSHA256Binary8k]('),
(N'SR_SHA256LOB_new', N'SQL#.[Util_HashSHA256Binary](');
--*/
DECLARE @ProcTemplate NVARCHAR(MAX),
@ProcToCreate NVARCHAR(MAX);
SET @ProcTemplate = N'
CREATE OR ALTER PROCEDURE dbo.RUN_{{ProcName}}
AS
BEGIN
DECLARE @dummy INT;
SET NOCOUNT ON;
SELECT @dummy = COUNT({{CodeToExec}}
CAST(FK1 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK2 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK3 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK4 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK5 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK6 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK7 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK8 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK9 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK10 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK11 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK12 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK13 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK14 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK15 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK16 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK17 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK18 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK19 AS BINARY(8)) + 0x7C +
CAST(FK20 AS BINARY(8))
)
)
FROM dbo.HASH_SMALL
OPTION (MAXDOP 1);
END;
';
DECLARE CreateProcsCurs CURSOR READ_ONLY FORWARD_ONLY LOCAL FAST_FORWARD
FOR SELECT [ProcName], [CodeToExec]
FROM @TestProcsToCreate;
OPEN [CreateProcsCurs];
FETCH NEXT
FROM [CreateProcsCurs]
INTO @ProcName, @CodeToExec;
WHILE (@@FETCH_STATUS = 0)
BEGIN
-- First: create VARBINARY version
SET @ProcToCreate = REPLACE(REPLACE(@ProcTemplate,
N'{{ProcName}}',
@ProcName),
N'{{CodeToExec}}',
@CodeToExec);
EXEC (@ProcToCreate);
-- Second: create NVARCHAR version (optional: built-ins only)
IF (CHARINDEX(N'.', @CodeToExec) = 0)
BEGIN
SET @ProcToCreate = REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(@ProcToCreate,
N'dbo.RUN_' + @ProcName,
N'dbo.RUN_' + @ProcName + N'_NVC'),
N'BINARY(8)',
N'NVARCHAR(15)'),
N'0x7C',
N'N''|''');
EXEC (@ProcToCreate);
END;
FETCH NEXT
FROM [CreateProcsCurs]
INTO @ProcName, @CodeToExec;
END;
CLOSE [CreateProcsCurs];
DEALLOCATE [CreateProcsCurs];
**TEST 1: Check For Collisions**
EXEC dbo.VERIFY_NO_COLLISIONS 1;
EXEC dbo.VERIFY_NO_COLLISIONS 2;
EXEC dbo.VERIFY_NO_COLLISIONS 3;
EXEC dbo.VERIFY_NO_COLLISIONS 4;
EXEC dbo.VERIFY_NO_COLLISIONS 5;
EXEC dbo.VERIFY_NO_COLLISIONS 6;
EXEC dbo.VERIFY_NO_COLLISIONS 7;
EXEC dbo.VERIFY_NO_COLLISIONS 8;
EXEC dbo.VERIFY_NO_COLLISIONS 9;
EXEC dbo.VERIFY_NO_COLLISIONS 10;
EXEC dbo.VERIFY_NO_COLLISIONS 11;
**TEST 2: Run Performance Tests**
EXEC dbo.RUN_HASHES_FOR_ONE_MINUTE 1;
EXEC dbo.RUN_HASHES_FOR_ONE_MINUTE 2;
EXEC dbo.RUN_HASHES_FOR_ONE_MINUTE 3; -- HASHBYTES('SHA2_256'
EXEC dbo.RUN_HASHES_FOR_ONE_MINUTE 4;
EXEC dbo.RUN_HASHES_FOR_ONE_MINUTE 5;
EXEC dbo.RUN_HASHES_FOR_ONE_MINUTE 6;
EXEC dbo.RUN_HASHES_FOR_ONE_MINUTE 7;
EXEC dbo.RUN_HASHES_FOR_ONE_MINUTE 8;
EXEC dbo.RUN_HASHES_FOR_ONE_MINUTE 9;
EXEC dbo.RUN_HASHES_FOR_ONE_MINUTE 10;
EXEC dbo.RUN_HASHES_FOR_ONE_MINUTE 11;
EXEC dbo.RUN_HASHES_FOR_ONE_MINUTE 13; -- NVC version of #3
SELECT *
FROM dbo.LOG_HASHES
ORDER BY [LOG_TIME] DESC;
VALIDATION ISSUES TO RESOLVE
--
While focusing on the performance testing of a singular SQLCLR UDF, two issues that were discussed early on were not incorporated into the tests, but ideally should be investigated in order to determine which approach meets _all_ of the requirements.
1. The function will be executed twice per each query (once for the import row, and once for the current row). The tests so far have only referenced the UDF one time in the test queries. This factor might not change the ranking of the options, but it shouldn't be ignored, just in case.
1. In a comment that has since been deleted, Paul White had mentioned:
> One downside of replacing `HASHBYTES` with a CLR scalar function - it appears that CLR functions cannot use batch mode whereas `HASHBYTES` can. That might be important, performance-wise.
So that is something to consider, and clearly requires testing. If the SQLCLR options do not provide any benefit over the built-in `HASHBYTES`, then that adds weight to [Solomon's suggestion][2] of capturing existing hashes (for at least the largest tables) into related tables.
[1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VAjtQ.png
[2]: https://dba.stackexchange.com/a/228792/30859
