Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 286 total)

  • RE: Massive IOs!

    aureolin (10/28/2011)


    Evil Kraig F (10/27/2011)


    Out of curiousity, OP... Usually the older systems were heavily tuned and something 'tipped', or something new exploded (which wouldn't be on 32bit, these days). ...

  • RE: Non-Clustered Indexes and Truncated Tables

    It might be faster if you drop an index before population and re-create it after. It will also reduce the fragmentation and page splits. And in this case statistics for...

  • RE: index on big table

    tfifield (10/27/2011)


    Alexander,

    The number of times I've seen a heap out perform a clustered index on this sort of thing can be counted on one hand with some fingers left over....

  • RE: index on big table

    drew.allen (10/25/2011)


    dva2007 (10/25/2011)


    If your index doesn't return all of the fields in your query, then it still needs to look up the record in order to retrieve those fields. ...

  • RE: index on big table

    Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/25/2011)


    However there is physical ordering of the rows inside the pages, and in attempts to maintain the rows in the physical order in pages, which...

  • RE: Limit Records to Clients

    It's either in SQL stored procedure or in Java app. To find a sp which contains this text you can use something like this:

    select OBJECT_SCHEMA_NAME(object_id) +'.'+ OBJECT_NAME(object_id), definition

    from sys.sql_modules...

  • RE: Corrupted Execution Plan

    Such JOIN condition is usually very bad for performance, because the optimizer cannot use an index seek on it:

    "ON dbo.TrimLeadingZeros(t.driverid) = dbo.TrimLeadingZeros(r.driverId)"

  • RE: Doubled the size of my SQL Server and now getting bad performance

    Thanks! I've never got into details of that max memory setting before.

  • RE: performance of the query and index

    1. Tables are completely not normalized.

    2. It's better not to have a clustered index at all than that big and ugly one. It will add 68 bytes to each and...

  • RE: Doubled the size of my SQL Server and now getting bad performance

    george sibbald (10/21/2011)


    a max memory setting of 118GB is the buffer pool only, other SQL caches will add to that.

    george, where did you get this?

  • RE: SQL Server Taking Long Time to allocate 80GB of min memory

    M_E_K (10/20/2011)


    Hi,

    However, I do have one lingering doubt about why so many people advise against having min/max set to the same value. What are potential problems of running with memory...

  • RE: How to only return one row per key with a LEFT JOIN

    "HAVING count(*) > 0" is totally useless expression.

    And "LEFT OUTER JOIN" can safely be replaced with "INNER JOIN" because of the conditions in WHERE clause.

  • RE: SQL Server Taking Long Time to allocate 80GB of min memory

    Why do you expect SQL Server to allocate memory if it doesn't need it right now?

    Do you experience any performance issues because of the Server not grabbing 80GB?

    If no...

  • RE: Reindexing

    It's better to use system QUOTENAME function to add [].

  • RE: Index Management

    So after 2 years this management script is still has a logic error which makes using it poitless if not saying harmful.

    Major issues:

    'IndexUsage' column calculated as (user_seeks+user_scans+user_lookups+user_updates) is used to...

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 286 total)