Viewing 15 posts - 1,546 through 1,560 (of 7,429 total)
Look for blocking in Profiler and with sp_lock, it may simply be that there selects from the other tables are blocking each other. If so and those tables don't have...
October 14, 2004 at 7:28 am
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Parameters had to be added in order of SP variables. Thus
strQ.Parameters.Add("@DueDate", SqlDbType.SmallDateTime).Value = txtDueDate.Text
strQ.Parameters.Add("@CloseDate", SqlDbType.SmallDateTime).Value = txtCompleteDate.Text
strQ.Parameters.Add("@Description", SqlDbType.Text).Value...
October 14, 2004 at 7:19 am
Are you sure it is not blocking itself. It cannot work on the current record if the trigger has locked it. Need to see what the trigger code is and...
October 14, 2004 at 7:10 am
The problem is you have to be able to set the order of the person and eliminate all but one in the join. If this is for a reporting application...
October 14, 2004 at 7:08 am
Long INs will tend to build a temporary table in memory and perform a join themselves behind the scenes but that threashold of exactly when it will happen can vary...
October 14, 2004 at 7:02 am
Need to know the tables involved DDL and how the data is represented such as hours worked and hours scheduled. Then we can help better.
October 13, 2004 at 5:19 pm
Simply something like this.
Update
T2
SET
AccountID = T1.AccountID
FROM
Table2 T2
INNER JOIN
Table1 T1
ON
T2.CompanyName = T1.CompanyName
October 13, 2004 at 5:16 pm
What exactly are you running in Query Analyzer. I have done a few things, syntax wise wrong, that have caused this in the past.
October 13, 2004 at 5:13 pm
Your answer is yes and no.
Yes at got thru NT Authority\System you cannot remove at from that I do believe unless at is now tied to Task Scheduler service (which...
October 13, 2004 at 5:12 pm
I assume that you posted to the MS groups as well as I found this response there and it looked like your message as the request.
This is the current behavior...
October 13, 2004 at 2:02 pm
As for the part about the whole row changing, the underlying engine knows which were expressly changed via the set, so only those could affect any index changes, the others...
October 13, 2004 at 1:51 pm
As long as you are always are sorting on the key fields then try
select top 100 * from (select top 300 * from tblX order by keys asc) tblI Order...
October 13, 2004 at 1:19 pm
All that said, you are already exploring the indexes. I would also suggest looking at the IO subsystem (hard drives, etc) to see if you can rebalance things to squeeze...
October 13, 2004 at 1:17 pm
Majority of any issues were data actually is corrupted is application not SQL, otherwise you should get errors. I however wouldn't use MSDE for anything critical as it is a...
October 13, 2004 at 1:09 pm
Short and simple, always provide the width with char, varchar and varbinary. And always set the precision and scale for numeric, decimal and so on.
October 13, 2004 at 6:58 am
Viewing 15 posts - 1,546 through 1,560 (of 7,429 total)