Viewing 15 posts - 4,456 through 4,470 (of 5,841 total)
I will go with the others and posit parameter sniffing/plan caching as the culprit here. OPTION (RECOMPILE) or dynamic sql as a solution.
November 9, 2009 at 9:22 am
Grant Fritchey (11/9/2009)
November 9, 2009 at 9:19 am
You can determine this by set statistics IO on and running a single-row-hit select on the indexed column (that doesn't have to hit the base table). whatever you get...
November 9, 2009 at 9:15 am
IIRC the "best practice" when installing SQL 2008 is to PRE-install SP1, then install RTM, then REinstall SP1 and CUx if you wish. There are a number of issues...
November 9, 2009 at 9:11 am
Steve Jones - Editor (11/9/2009)
Great job. I hadn't heard of this when I read the article, but it makes great sense.
Yepper. I have had several clients that have benefited...
November 9, 2009 at 9:08 am
pauljacob (11/4/2009)
November 4, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Vincent Central (10/30/2009)
October 30, 2009 at 6:59 pm
huston.dunlap (10/30/2009)
October 30, 2009 at 6:55 pm
second should be faster since the move AND the creation of the clustered index are done in one step. BTW, be prepared for a pretty sizeable tlog for this...
October 30, 2009 at 6:47 pm
No harm will be done, but the table/index will (continue to) be blocked while the rollback occurs, which can take pretty much as long as the work to that point...
October 30, 2009 at 6:44 pm
As long as your second job is PURELY reads, then you shouldn't get deadlocks. However, it WILL be blocked by the first (updating) job while the first is running....
October 30, 2009 at 6:38 pm
bcronce (10/30/2009)
Intel's new i7 Xeons support Hyperthreading and it actually works this time
It always worked (exclusive of bugs). But it did (and in my completely uninformed opinion will continue...
October 30, 2009 at 3:22 pm
CXPACKET waits (parallelism) are just a mask of something more sinister going on with query performance
Hmm - in my experience CXPACKET waits are almost always the result of a suboptimal...
October 30, 2009 at 2:45 pm
If you have the same problem did you try the same solution (-g startup setting)?
October 29, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 4,456 through 4,470 (of 5,841 total)