On one customer's system, one of our database's tables has about 123 million rows. This table is a transaction table that is grouped by a batch key. The clustered index is 4 columns: batch key, transaction version, shift number, transaction number. One batch can have any number of transactions in it, but a query to count by batch shows the maximum number of transactions per batch is 764, and the count drops sharply from that peak.

Some of our queries that join to this transaction table are randomly getting bad query plans that choose to perform parallel index scans on the transaction table. Many of these queries run in separate connections. When this occurs, the parallel scans are causing constant deadlocking on this table.

The query plan shows a very large estimate for the number of rows in a batch-- about 20,000. I already know the maximum per batch is 764, so I was puzzled where this estimate comes from.

I ran DBCC SHOW_STATISTICS ('MyTable', 'MyTableClusteredIndex'). The statistics histogram that came back looks weird, because the EQ_ROWS numbers are incorrect. For example, here are the first 3 entries in the histogram. The EQ_ROWS numbers are very different than the actual number of rows found with a query using the same key (shown in the right-most column):

RANGE_HI_KEY RANGE_ROWS EQ_ROWS DISTINCT_RANGE_ROWS AVG_RANGE_ROWS ActualRows 58287 0 1 0 1 121 78045 664341.4 14512.91 1308 507.9888 134 86487 569858.3 14512.91 1208 471.8449 118 94282 574411.7 9070.57 538 1067.721 128

Since this is a production server, I do not want to try to mess with the statistics during business hours.

We have an internal dev server that we use for performance testing. The dev machine has 2 10-core processors on it and is using about 500 GB of memory. On this server, the transaction table has about 1.1 billion rows. The dev server shows a larger disparity between EQ_ROWS and the actual number of rows for each key. For example, some EQ_ROWS numbers are over 60,000, but the actual number of rows for those keys are between 130 to 160 rows.

If I run a manual UPDATE STATISTICS MyTable on our dev server, the statistics do not change. The EQ_ROWS are still the same incorrect numbers.

So far, I have found the same strange EQ_ROWS behavior on SQL 2014 SP 2 and SQL 2012 SP 3.

Our database servers run with the following trace flags enabled: 1222, 2312, 2453, 4199. I verified that disabling these trace flags globally does not change the behavior when updating statistics.

I verified that the UPDATE STATISTICS MyTable is not running in parallel. When it runs, its degree of parallelism is 1, so it does not look like parallelism is causing some kind of statistics estimation bug.

Aren't the EQ_ROWS values supposed to be the exact number of rows for that key value? If so, why are they incorrect? Does this look like a SQL Server bug?

(Note that I have ignored parameter sniffing, because this issue looks related to the statistics estimates. The query plan does not look related to parameter sniffing to me except for randomly optimizing the query for one of these keys.)

  • 1
    When you run show statistics, what does it show for rows sampled? You may need to sample a larger percentage than the default sampling mechanism, or even a full scan. Dec 28, 2016 at 19:31
  • Good call! The rows sampled on our customer's server are 541k out of 123m, so a very small fraction. On our billion row table, the sampled number is 1.5m out of 1.1b. Testing with fullscan... Dec 28, 2016 at 19:35
  • you can specify any sort of sample rate, not just fullscan
    – swasheck
    Dec 28, 2016 at 19:38
  • I've answered a question here that contains a query that may be useful for you. Additionally, I posted an answer here that contains some ideas for testing, though this answer is directly related to diminishing returns on statistics sampling on partitioned tables.
    – swasheck
    Dec 28, 2016 at 19:47
  • @swasheck Yes, thank you. I am going to run some tests on different sampling rates and report back. After > 1 hour, the 1b table full scan is a little over 1/2 finished, but the stats EQ_ROWS values look much better. Dec 28, 2016 at 21:07

1 Answer 1


As pointed out by sp_BlitzErik (thank you!), the problem here was the sampling rate was too low for the billion row transaction table. The more rows sampled by the statistics update, the more accurate the estimate, but the longer it takes for SQL Server to generate the statistics. There is a tradeoff between database maintenance time and statistics accuracy.

A simple `update statistics MyTable' was sampling 0.13% of the rows. This generated a very poor estimate for the "EQ_ROWS" column that was usually hundreds of times worse than the actual row counts. For example, some EQ_ROWS estimates were over 60,000 when the actual counts were about 150. On the other hand, the default stats update completed in 25 seconds-- pretty fast for a billion rows.

A full scan generated perfect EQ_ROWS statistics. However, the full scan required about 5 hours to complete. That would not be acceptable for the customer's database maintenance window.

Below is the chart of samples vs. accuracy. We're going to recommend the customer adjusts the sample size manually for the largest tables in the system. I expect we'll go with a sample size of about 10%. The Avg Stat Diff column is calculated as ABS(EQ_ROWS - ActualRowCount).

Sample Size Avg Stat Diff Time to Create Stats =============== ============= ==================== Default (0.13%) 42,755 00:00:25 1% 4,880 00:02:41 5% 940 00:13:47 10% 443 00:27:45 20% 209 00:56:28 50% 67 02:24:17 100% (fullscan) 0 ~5 hours

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.