Large memory grant requests I have one query with multiple execution plans, the memory granted to one plan is huge comparing to the 2nd one 





based on this article https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/sql_server_team/addressing-large-memory-grant-requests-from-optimized-nested-loops/ 


  The issue occurs when the outer table of the Nested Loop join has a
  predicate that filters the result to a small input, but the batch sort
  appears to be using an estimate for cardinality that is equivalent to
  the entire outer table. This can result in a perceived excessive
  memory grant which in a very concurrent server can have several
  side-effects, like OOM conditions, memory pressure for plan cache
  eviction, or unexpected RESOURCE_SEMAPHORE waits. We have seen how a
  single query that match this pattern can actually get several GB’s of
  granted memory on high-end machines (1TB+ RAM).
  
  One option until now would be to disable this feature globally using
  Trace Flag 2340, as described in KB 2801413. However, in SQL Server
  2016 RC0 we have changed the behavior to maintain the advantage of the
  optimization, but now the max grant limit is based on the available
  memory grant space. This improvement also translates into better
  scalability, in the sense more queries can be executed with a smaller
  memory footprint. We are looking at back porting this behavior to an
  upcoming have ported this behavior to SQL Server 2014 Service Pack 2,
  and as usual deliver added value to in-market versions.


This is exactly what I am seeing however I am using SQL Server 2016 Enterprise. 

These are the execution plans 

https://www.brentozar.com/pastetheplan/?id=SJ0mYAy0b

https://www.brentozar.com/pastetheplan/?id=BJzutC1R-

My questions are


What is the reason for 2 execution plans?
The optimizer is using the top execution plan, I forced it to use the lower plan but after sometime it goes again to the top one, any reason for that?
How to fix this problem? This issue causes the application to crash (there were many RESOURCE_SEMAPHORE waits and the application become unresponsive)? Should I use the hint : DISABLE_OPTIMIZED_NESTED_LOOP or  Trace Flag 2340?

NOTE : I checked the XML and both plans have  NestedLoops Optimized="false"
1. What is the reason for 2 execution plans?


From the sys.query_context_settings (Transact-SQL) documentation:


  
    There are a number of context settings available in SQL Server that influence the query semantics (defining the correct result of the query). The same query text compiled under different settings may produce different results (depending on the underlying data).
  


It seems most likely the same query text was submitted from sessions with different context settings. See also Slow in the Application, Fast in SSMS? by Erland Sommarskog.


  2. The optimizer is using the top execution plan, I forced it to use the lower plan but after sometime it goes again to the top one, any reason for that?


Plans will still recompile from time to time based on the normal rules around changes to e.g. underlying objects, statistics, schema. Forcing a query store plan helps ensure the plan used will be at least fundamentally similar to the source plan, as sys.query_store_plan (Transact-SQL) notes:


  
    Forcing mechanism does not guarantee that exactly this plan will be used for the query referenced by query_id. Plan forcing causes query to be compiled again and typically produces exactly the same or similar plan to the plan referenced by plan_id.
  


Each (re-)compilation may produce plans with different estimates (including memory grant) depending on any values in the query that are visible to the optimizer at the time of compilation. A specific memory grant cannot be forced using query store or plan guides.


  3. How to fix this problem?


As Dan Guzman's answer suggests, if the plan is very sensitive to specific parameter values, compiling a fresh plan on every execution using an OPTION (RECOMPILE) hint may be the best practical solution.

That said, there are very few tools available to affect update-side execution plans, which can be complex where things like cascading foreign keys and indexed views are involved. If all else fails, you may find that an execution plan without sorts (to order rows in index key order) produces the best result. There is no documented way that I'm aware of to generate plans without these sorts, but you could try forcing the plan obtained with undocumented trace flag 8795 on.

You might also try a suitable MAX_GRANT_PERCENT query hint or simply install (or make available to SQL Server) enough memory to handle your workload.