Are you a page half full, or a page half empty kind of person?
I’ll never think “I’ve seen it all” when it comes to SQL Server– there’s just always someone waiting around the corner who’s found a weird new thing to do with it. But there are some things I really wish I could stop finding.
One of those things I hate finding is bad fillfactor settings. Fillfactor can be a useful tool to help performance, but it’s often a performance killer if you use it incorrectly.
A quick introduction: what is fillfactor, and how is it set?
“Fillfactor” is a setting for indexes in SQL Server. When you create or rebuild an index, you can tell SQL Server what percentage of each 8K data page used in the “leaf” level of the index it should fill up.
In other words, if you set a 90% fillfactor when you rebuild a clustered index, SQL Server will try to leave 10% of each leaf page empty. The empty space will be present on the page as it’s written on disk, and it’ll take up the same amount of space as it sits in memory.
By default, SQL Server uses a 100% fillfactor and tries to fill up all the pages in indexes as close to full as it can. Depending on how many rows actually fit on the page, your mileage may vary.
There are two ways to set fillfactor in SQL Server:
- At the SQL Server instance level using a sys.configurations setting for fill factor. (I don’t recommend using this option, for reasons I’ll describe below.)
- At an individual index level by specifying fillfactor when you create or rebuild the index.
Index maintenance jobs sometimes automate the second of these options. If you’re using an index maintenance stored procedure you picked up from around the web, you may be setting fillfactor without realizing it.
Why do people love to set fillfactor?
DBAs and developers often read that lowering the fillfactor improves performance by reducing page splits. Perhaps they’re trying to fix a performance problem, or perhaps they’re feeling paranoid. They either lower fillfactor too much on some indexes, or apply a fillfactor change to all indexes.
Here’s the scoop: it’s true that the default fillfactor of 100% isn’t always good. If I fill my pages to the brim, and then go back and need to insert a row onto that page, it won’t fit. To make the data fit and preserve the logical structure of the index, SQL Server will have to do a bunch of complicated things (a “bad” type of page split), including:
- Add a new page
- Move about half the data to the new page
- Mark the data that was moved on the old page so it’s not valid anymore
- Update page link pointers on existing pages to point to the new page
And yep, that’s a lot of work. It generates log records and causes extra IO. And yes, if you have this happen a lot, you might want to lower the fillfactor in that index a bit to help make it happen less often.
Where do people mess up fillfactor?
Here’s the thing: having a bunch of empty space on your data pages is ALSO bad for performance. Your data is more spread out so you probably have to read more pages into memory. You waste space in cache that’s just sitting there empty. That’s not only not awesome, it can be TERRIBLE in many cases.
This is particularly wasteful because not all indexes are prone to “bad” page splits. Let’s say I have a clustered index on an incrementing INT or BIGINT identity value. I insert loads of new rows and values are rarely updated or deleted. In this case I can fill my pages very full because I’m always putting new rows at the “end” of the index. Adding these new pages aren’t bad page splits– although unfortunately they are counted in the “page splits/sec” performance counter, which makes it very tricky to find just the “bad” splits.
I frequently find that people have put a fillfactor setting of 80 or below on all the indexes in a database. This can waste many GB of space on disk and in memory. This wasted space causes extra trips to storage, and the whole thing drags down the performance of your queries.
Best practices for setting fillfactor
Here’s some simple advice on how to set fillfactor safely:
- Don’t set the system wide value for fillfactor. It’s very unlikely that this will help your performance more than it hurts.
- Get a good index maintenance solution that checks index fragmentation and only acts on indexes that are fairly heavily fragmented. Have the solution log to a table. Look for indexes that are frequently fragmented. Consider lowering the fillfactor gradually on those individual indexes using a planned change to rebuild the index. When you first lower fillfactor, consider just going to 95 and reassessing the index after a week or two of maintenance running again. (Depending on your version and edition of SQL Server, the rebuild may need to be done offline. Reorganize can’t be used to set a new fillfactor.)
This second option may sound nitpicky, but in most environments it only takes a few minutes to figure out where you need to make a change. You can do it once a month. And it’s worth it– because nobody wants their database performance to slow down and realize that they’ve been causing extra IO by leaving many gigabytes of space in memory needlessly empty.
Now that we’ve covered the basics, how about those five things? Here’s the fine print on how fillfactor is implemented, and what it does and doesn’t impact.
1) Books Online warned you
The most painful thing about finding bad fillfactor settings is that the Microsoft team has tried to warn people about how bad fillfactor settings can hurt performance. Unfortunately, most people don’t seem to find the warning.
Check out this quote in Books Online: “For example, a fill factor value of 50 can cause database read performance to decrease by two times. “
That’s pretty clear, right? So if I set a fillfactor of 70 (when I don’t need it), I risk decreasing performance by 30%. That doesn’t sound great, either. Because of this delicate balance, follow the best practices above.
2) Fillfactor does not apply to heaps
The fillfactor setting only applies to indexes, not to all tables. If you have a table which does not have a clustered index, it’s called a “heap” in SQL Server. Heaps are weird in several ways. One of those ways is that fillfactor doesn’t apply– not even the fillfactor you set at the instance level. (Page splits don’t work the same way either, but this is not a good reason to have heaps.)
3) Fillfactor doesn’t impact new pages inserted at the end of an index
SQL Server only uses fillfactor when you’re creating, rebuilding, or reorganizing an index. It does not use fillfactor if it’s allocating a fresh new page at the end of the index.
Let’s look at the example of a clustered index where the key is an increasing INT identity value again. We’re just inserting rows and it’s adding new pages at the end of the index. The index was created with an 70% fillfactor (which maybe wasn’t a good idea). As inserts add new pages, those pages are filled as much as possible– likely over 70%. (It depends on the row size and how many can fit on the page.)
4) Fillfactor does not apply to LOB pages
Fillfactor applies to in-row data pages. When you create a table, depending on the data types, you have options as to when some large types get stored on-row, or off-row. When data is not stored in-row, fillfactor settings don’t apply to those special pages.
A general rule of thumb is that if you infrequently read large object columns, it’s better to keep those columns off-row. You will incur extra IO every time you need to fetch off-row data. but it keeps the frequently accessed in-row columns of your index more efficient.
5) Someone may have changed fillfactor without you realizing it
Once fillfactor is set on an index, it stays there. Further rebuilds or reorganizations of the index maintain that fillfactor unless you specify a different value. It’s easy for a change in fillfactor to sneak in. Unless you check for indexes with a fillfactor set, you might not realize what’s going on in your database.
Like anything else, there’s weird exceptions where in very rare cases, setting a super-low fillfactor on a very heavily updated table (which is probably small), can help reduce contention. These cases are very rare. Often there’s a better long term change in the application layer that would handle the issue.
Bottom line: If you find you’re using a low fill factor and you don’t know exactly why it was needed, always look carefully to see if you’re hurting performance more than helping it. And if you’re using the same fillfactor on all of your indexes, you’re probably wasting lots of valuable memory.
How to check your fillfactor today
Our free sp_BlitzIndex tool looks for all sorts of insanity in your indexes at the database level. It will snoop through your metadata and warn you about low fillfactor values, plus let you know exactly how big those indexes have grown. Check it out today.
...
Free live webcasts for developers and DBAs. Just check boxes to sign up.