Viewing 15 posts - 4,036 through 4,050 (of 6,486 total)
The @@version reports what the SERVER is...SSMS is just the client, which can to some degree be used against 2000 and 2005 servers (small issues against 2000).
That unfortunately doesn't change...
March 19, 2008 at 3:27 pm
GSquared (3/19/2008)
Matt Miller (3/19/2008)...but three times faster is Marginally??? The Regex function is the last one one the list.
Sorry, didn't look far enough down on the list of results you...
March 19, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Well - you can change the compatibility level using sp_dbcmptlevel
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178653.aspx
However - some behaviors change from one compat level to another, AND - you can't "go back". This is not...
March 19, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Gareth Williams (3/19/2008)
Thanks Jeff for your help. I thought that might be the answer but hoping not.
I have to ask - what happens to all of the previous discounts? ...
March 19, 2008 at 3:18 pm
madan.25 (3/19/2008)
YES,DATABASE COMPATIBILITY IS SET TO 80THERE ARE ONLY TWO VALUES 70 AND 80
HOW TO MAKE IT 90?
That means you're connecting to a SQL 2000 server. No TRY/CATCH available...
March 19, 2008 at 3:15 pm
You're doing this on a SQL 2005 database instance - right? What's the database compatibility set to?
If it's still set to 80 - the new syntax won't work.
March 19, 2008 at 3:10 pm
All right - what error are you expecting to happen?
Also - that doesn't even parse correctly - you're missing a few things.
The code looks to be (without parsing errors):
ALTER PROCEDURE...
March 19, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Tomm Carr (3/19/2008)
March 19, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Suji (3/19/2008)
Developer Edition is as good as enterprise, i use that in my complany, only draw back is that you cant use snapshot in 2005
Suji -
What can you not...
March 19, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Lynn Pettis (3/19/2008)
Can't do a thing without seeing your code.😎
That's the CATCH!!!!
😀
March 19, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Results (executed against all 4M rows):
============================================================
CTE
============================================================
Table 'Tally'. Scan count 4000000, logical reads 16750657, physical reads 1, read-ahead reads 8,
lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads...
March 19, 2008 at 2:46 pm
GSquared (3/19/2008)
Judging by the IO numbers, I'm going to assume you used the inline function...
March 19, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Jeff Moden (2/22/2008)
Thanks for the feedback guys...Ryan and Mike C... thanks for the performance comparisons. That's good stuff. 😉
Sorry to resurrect this - but I came across a...
March 19, 2008 at 1:53 pm
All right... You asked for it now.....:)
First - the test scenario. Using Gus' table, and functions. I also threw in two variant to make sure that the system...
March 19, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Asusming you're using Array to mean "RAID group" - then I'd assume you'd see SOME improvement. If we're talking about sub-partitions of a single RAID group, then SQL Oracle's...
March 19, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 4,036 through 4,050 (of 6,486 total)