Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 


 
     
Recent Posts
   
Popular Topics
Home   
Search
    Members    Calendar    Who's On

Home » Article Discussions » Article Discussions by Author » Discuss content posted by Wayne Sheffield » Logged Operations
Add to briefcase
90 posts, Page 9 of 9
«««56789

Logged Operations Expand / Collapse
Rate Topic
Display Mode
Topic Options
Author
Message
UMG Developer
Posted Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:10 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:21 AM
Points: 2,163, Visits: 2,148
Lynn Pettis (4/12/2011)
SanDroid (4/12/2011)
You are correct. I should have provided something that proved what I was stating was correct.
I have no hard data from a DMV, but I think this is clear enough.
 Declare @quote1 varchar(max)
       ,@quote2 varchar(max)
       ,@quote3 varchar(max)
       
SET @quote1 = 'Data affecting the version store' -- QOTD Answer;
SET @quote2 = '"Inserts" into the version store'   -- QOTD Answer explination;
SET @quote3 =  '“insert” into the Append-Only store' -- QOTD Answer refernece;

SELECT 'X' where @quote1 = @quote2
union
SELECT 'X' where @quote2 = @quote3
union
SELECT 'X' where @quote1 = @quote3;



You still haven't proven your point. I still see nothing in the code above that supports your position regarding the version store. I have also gone back through the QotD and all the posts and see nothing regarding this code.

Please explain how this supports your position regarding the version store. You assert that this code supports your position, now prove it.


Lynn,

I pointed out what I think SanDroid was trying to say in this post: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/FindPost1090218.aspx

I think this is one of those cases where the English language is imprecise and leaves too much up to the reader. The definition for affect is: "have an effect upon", so in the quote "data affecting the version store" the "data affecting" part can refer to the data changed in the actual database not the data inserted into the version store. (Since it is the data that is affecting the version store.) And that data is logged. Of course the data actually inserted into the version store affects the version store as well. So I technically I think both interpretations are correct.

Disclaimer: I am not an English major, so I could be wrong. (It has been known to happen. )
Post #1092265
SanDroid
Posted Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:13 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:01 AM
Points: 1,232, Visits: 1,046
You still haven't proven your point. I still see nothing in the code above that supports your position regarding the version store. I have also gone back through the QotD and all the posts and see nothing regarding this code.

Please explain how this supports your position regarding the version store. You assert that this code supports your position, now prove it.

Lynn Pettis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And that is where you and several others are so completely confused.

I have no specific assertion about the version store.
My assertion is that the three quotes in the first code are differant and state differant things.

Instead of responding to that assertion you keep demanding that I provide code to prove some other thing that you have yet to quote, refute, or provide any code to define.
Sorry I do not have any code for that.
Post #1092267
Lynn Pettis
Posted Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:34 AM


SSC-Insane

SSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-Insane

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:09 AM
Points: 21,602, Visits: 27,432
SanDroid (4/12/2011)
You still haven't proven your point. I still see nothing in the code above that supports your position regarding the version store. I have also gone back through the QotD and all the posts and see nothing regarding this code.

Please explain how this supports your position regarding the version store. You assert that this code supports your position, now prove it.

Lynn Pettis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And that is where you and several others are so completely confused.

I have no specific assertion about the version store.
My assertion is that the three quotes in the first code are differant and state differant things.

Instead of responding to that assertion you keep demanding that I provide code to prove some other thing that you have yet to quote, refute, or provide any code to define.
Sorry I do not have any code for that.


You are correct, I am confused. What do the different values of the variables have to do with the version store? Please explain how these are related because I don't see it.


Lynn Pettis

For better assistance in answering your questions, click here
For tips to get better help with Performance Problems, click here
For Running Totals and its variations, click here or when working with partitioned tables
For more about Tally Tables, click here
For more about Cross Tabs and Pivots, click here and here
Managing Transaction Logs

SQL Musings from the Desert Fountain Valley SQL (My Mirror Blog)
Post #1092284
SanDroid
Posted Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:35 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:01 AM
Points: 1,232, Visits: 1,046
UMG Developer (4/12/2011)

Lynn,

I pointed out what I think SanDroid was trying to say in this post: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/FindPost1090218.aspx

I think this is one of those cases where the English language is imprecise and leaves too much up to the reader. The definition for affect is: "have an effect upon", so in the quote "data affecting the version store" the "data affecting" part can refer to the data changed in the actual database not the data inserted into the version store. (Since it is the data that is affecting the version store.) And that data is logged. Of course the data actually inserted into the version store affects the version store as well. So I technically I think both interpretations are correct.

Disclaimer: I am not an English major, so I could be wrong. (It has been known to happen. )


Thank you so much for that.
You think this would be clear to anyone that compared what was given with the provided reference. Especialy when the article referenced a specific type of version store and gave it a special name.

You are one of the few that get it.
The refference material and the statement made about it are different and use different words.

In my universe when you state your answer as A + B = a*b but your reference material and your work shows A + C = a*c then your answer is marked as incorrect.
Post #1092286
SQLRNNR
Posted Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:37 AM


SSCoach

SSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoach

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 1:07 PM
Points: 18,733, Visits: 12,332
I really thought this dilemma was answered. Are we beating a dead-horse now?

If not, what exactly is the debate at this point?


Jason AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
I have given a name to my pain...
MCM SQL Server 2008

SQL RNNR

Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw
Posting Data Etiquette - Jeff Moden
Hidden RBAR - Jeff Moden
VLFs and the Tran Log - Kimberly Tripp
Post #1092287
SanDroid
Posted Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:40 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:01 AM
Points: 1,232, Visits: 1,046
Lynn,
Sorry I put so many words in my last response.
Here is the important part again.

I have no specific assertion about the version store.

Do you have any other questions?
Post #1092289
Ignacio A. Salom Rangel
Posted Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:52 AM


Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, May 10, 2013 2:49 PM
Points: 3,051, Visits: 1,356
CirquedeSQLeil (4/12/2011)
I really thought this dilemma was answered. Are we beating a dead-horse now?
If not, what exactly is the debate at this point?

I agree with Jason, what is the debate at this point?



My blog
Post #1092301
L' Eomot Inversé
Posted Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:05 PM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:48 PM
Points: 7,088, Visits: 7,143
CirquedeSQLeil (4/12/2011)
I really thought this dilemma was answered. Are we beating a dead-horse now?

If not, what exactly is the debate at this point?

At this point there is no point. And people talking past each other (instead of communicating) do not constitute a debate.

Tom
Que conclure à la fin de tous mes longs propos? C'est que les préjugés sont la raison des sots. (Voltaire, 1756)
Post #1092311
SanDroid
Posted Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:09 PM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:01 AM
Points: 1,232, Visits: 1,046
Tom.Thomson (4/12/2011)
CirquedeSQLeil (4/12/2011)
I really thought this dilemma was answered. Are we beating a dead-horse now?

If not, what exactly is the debate at this point?

At this point there is no point. And people talking past each other (instead of communicating) do not constitute a debate.

Tom,
Could not agree more. Not posting anything any more.
At first it was amusing, but this has become sad and is obviously distracting others.

Lynn,
as I stated in my first (private) message to you today please send me any real questions you may have in a private message.
Post #1092314
Lynn Pettis
Posted Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:40 PM


SSC-Insane

SSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-Insane

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:09 AM
Points: 21,602, Visits: 27,432
SanDroid (4/12/2011)
Tom.Thomson (4/12/2011)
CirquedeSQLeil (4/12/2011)
I really thought this dilemma was answered. Are we beating a dead-horse now?

If not, what exactly is the debate at this point?

At this point there is no point. And people talking past each other (instead of communicating) do not constitute a debate.

Tom,
Could not agree more. Not posting anything any more.
At first it was amusing, but this has become sad and is obviously distracting others.

Lynn,
as I stated in my first (private) message to you today please send me any real questions you may have in a private message.


Couldn't agree more with Tom, Jason, et al. We are beating a dead horse and you won't defend and support your position in a manner that makes sense (yes, I'm still cofused as to your position).

Also, if this not worth debating in a public forum, I am certainly NOT going to debate it privately.


Lynn Pettis

For better assistance in answering your questions, click here
For tips to get better help with Performance Problems, click here
For Running Totals and its variations, click here or when working with partitioned tables
For more about Tally Tables, click here
For more about Cross Tabs and Pivots, click here and here
Managing Transaction Logs

SQL Musings from the Desert Fountain Valley SQL (My Mirror Blog)
Post #1092352
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase
90 posts, Page 9 of 9
«««56789

Permissions Expand / Collapse

 
 
Copyright © 2002-2013 Simple Talk Publishing. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use. Report Abuse.