Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase «««1234

Restructure 100 Million Row (or more) Tables in Seconds. SRSLY! Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Friday, October 5, 2012 7:52 PM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:46 PM
Points: 35,218, Visits: 31,676
Gosh... another great article, Solomon. As with anything else, planning and having the resources available for parallel table existance is important but this article covers a problem that a whole lot of people have had even on just SSC. Instead of explaining the whole gambit in the future, I'm just going to point them to this article if they have the extra disk space. Very well done.

As a side bar, I agree with you about triggers in general but especially on the type of triggers needed to pull off this bit SQL prestidigitation. If they are well written and supported by correct indexing, they don't add much in the line of overhead at all.

Again, my hat's off to you for this great article.


--Jeff Moden
"RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for "Row-By-Agonizing-Row".

First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column."

(play on words) "Just because you CAN do something in T-SQL, doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T." --22 Aug 2013

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Post #1369360
Posted Monday, October 8, 2012 9:55 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: Tuesday, September 2, 2014 8:36 AM
Points: 3,918, Visits: 3,638
Solomon Rutzky (10/5/2012)[hr
... and now in SQL Server 2012 you can add a NOT NULL field with a default without locking the table ...

That is a nice little tidbit of information that I had missed in the SQL 2012 documentation. Thanks for pointing that out, that will be helpful.
Post #1369915
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 1:16 PM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, September 19, 2014 2:01 PM
Points: 239, Visits: 1,028
Solomon, here's the article I wrote that similar but instead uses change tracking. [url=http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Change+Tracking/74397/][/url]

Luke C
MCSE: Data Platform, MCP, MCTS, MCITP - Database Administrator & Database Developer
Post #1370549
Posted Tuesday, December 25, 2012 8:27 AM
SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:42 PM
Points: 424, Visits: 55
Great article.
Post #1400066
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase «««1234

Permissions Expand / Collapse