January 28, 2009 at 10:30 am
I didn't test Jeff's code against just one partition, but from what I saw of the data when run against the whole table, I'd have to say that in that case the results may be what you would be looking for. This would be a good test for someone to try.
It may be a while before I can, as I have some other things going on right now outside of work that are taking up quite a bit of my free time.
January 28, 2009 at 10:53 am
Wooh ... this is some article. Great job! 😎
Paul DB
January 28, 2009 at 11:00 am
Paul DB (1/28/2009)
Wooh ... this is some article. Great job! 😎
Thank you. :blush:
February 21, 2009 at 8:42 pm
You know, I've been so busy the last month or so, I missed this when it first came out. This is an impressive piece of work, Lynn, congratulations. I am sure that I will be referring to it in the future.
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
February 21, 2009 at 9:41 pm
RBarryYoung (2/21/2009)
You know, I've been so busy the last month or so, I missed this when it first came out. This is an impressive piece of work, Lynn, congratulations. I am sure that I will be referring to it in the future.
Thank you. :blush:
I do have to give credit to Jeff for the groundwork he laid in his article, and to Gail for the idea based on her comment on Jeff's work about the "quirky update" not working with partitioned tables. That was my incentive to find a viable solution.
February 25, 2009 at 11:55 am
Grant Fritchey (1/27/2009)
Uh... Wow... Over-achieve much?
Ha! This coming from a guy who wrote 180 pages on execution plans.
And Lynn, I concur with all of the above who congratulated your article, very nice writing and explanation of the process.
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
April 27, 2009 at 7:01 am
As you suggested the "Order by" testing with Jeffs solution, I also tested your marvellous solution for partitioned objects.
First findings .... It no longer works .... SQL2008 ( sp1 ) is getting smarter.
The more things we try to fool it, it just ignores them.
They must have a huge pile of fools, to anticipate all the foolish things we try 😀 (forcing a sets processing in a certain order.)
I'm still trying to figure out why ..... or why not.
Johan
Learn to play, play to learn !
Dont drive faster than your guardian angel can fly ...
but keeping both feet on the ground wont get you anywhere :w00t:
- How to post Performance Problems
- How to post data/code to get the best help[/url]
- How to prevent a sore throat after hours of presenting ppt
press F1 for solution, press shift+F1 for urgent solution 😀
Need a bit of Powershell? How about this
Who am I ? Sometimes this is me but most of the time this is me
April 27, 2009 at 7:48 am
ALZDBA (4/27/2009)
As you suggested the "Order by" testing with Jeffs solution, I also tested your marvellous solution for partitioned objects.First findings .... It no longer works .... SQL2008 ( sp1 ) is getting smarter.
The more things we try to fool it, it just ignores them.
They must have a huge pile of fools, to anticipate all the foolish things we try 😀 (forcing a sets processing in a certain order.)
I'm still trying to figure out why ..... or why not.
Okay, I really need to get SQL Server 2008 Developers Edition. Have you tested the ORDER BY on the partitioned table itself?
April 27, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Actually, it only looked like the ORDER BY method worked in my article. It wasn't the ORDER BY that made it work. Of course, I'm just a day or two from submitting the article for republishing and I don't want to give away too much thunder. 🙂
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 3, 2009 at 12:55 am
Lynn Pettis (4/27/2009)
ALZDBA (4/27/2009)
As you suggested the "Order by" testing with Jeffs solution, I also tested your marvellous solution for partitioned objects.First findings .... It no longer works .... SQL2008 ( sp1 ) is getting smarter.
The more things we try to fool it, it just ignores them.
They must have a huge pile of fools, to anticipate all the foolish things we try 😀 (forcing a sets processing in a certain order.)
I'm still trying to figure out why ..... or why not.
Okay, I really need to get SQL Server 2008 Developers Edition. Have you tested the ORDER BY on the partitioned table itself?
Lynn, try here. $45 is pretty good, and because I'm an Amazon Prime customer, I get the 2-day shipping free.
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
June 3, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Lynn,
I can't believe that I missed this article when it came out. This is a fantastic article that I've put into my briefcase.
Fantastic job.
Wayne
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes
Viewing 11 posts - 31 through 40 (of 40 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply