Sql-server – Should I refresh query plan cache

Best info for the subject found on MSDN is here: Execution Plan Caching and Reuse . Quote from the MSDN article:

"Removing Execution Plans from the Procedure Cache

Execution plans remain in the procedure cache as long as there is enough memory to store them. When memory pressure exists, the Database Engine uses a cost-based approach to determine which execution plans to remove from the procedure cache. To make a cost-based decision, the Database Engine increases and decreases a current cost variable for each execution plan according to the following factors.

When memory pressure exists, the Database Engine responds by removing execution plans from the procedure cache. To determine which plans to remove, the Database Engine repeatedly examines the state of each execution plan and removes plans when their current cost is zero. An execution plan with zero current cost is not removed automatically when memory pressure exists; it is removed only when the Database Engine examines the plan and the current cost is zero. When examining an execution plan, the Database Engine pushes the current cost towards zero by decreasing the current cost if a query is not currently using the plan."

It's better to read the complete article, it's very well documented. See that it also has some links.

Well, the issue is now resolved:

While it would seem logical to use filtered indexes (NOT NULL), to reduce database size and as so many sources on the web say, increase performance, the reality it seems is something else entirely.

In layman's terms, SQL Server query planner resolves even your basic inner joins without making any assumptions as to the content of the columns. Even though NULL values do not form a join, they must be included in the column index in order for query planner to use it, unless otherwise specified with predicates such as WHERE joinCol_ID IS NOT NULL. Basically, SQL Server does not use filtered indexes for joins at all, unless the queries themselves are modified to account for the filter value. Instead, it will create new statistics on these columns and / or use a clustered index scan or other indexes including the column, whichever it deems most effective. Using filtered indexes on foreign keys is therefore an absolutely horrid idea.

We still have no idea how months worth of testing this in multiple other environments never produced the same results outside of this one, single DB, but this is the way it's supposed to work. Apparently something that as far as we know is not related to cache, statistics or configurations, caused the production DB to behave differently and correctly detect and use the filtered indexes, while all of the testing environments simply used the old indexes (seeing as the indexes were dropped and recreated with the same name, this seems a valid theory even if there is no real proof).

So the lesson of the story: The web is filled with examples of how underused filtered indexes are, how awesome they can be. But this serious downside never popped up except as a nagging thought in the back of my head saying "if these are so great, then why aren't NULL values filtered out of indexes by default, since they only take up space and only serve a purpose in special circumstances"? Well, now I know why. :)