Viewing 15 posts - 4,471 through 4,485 (of 5,841 total)
Oh, one more thing - be wary of using xp's in triggers. Better would be to put relevant data into a table that is asynchronously used to send the...
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
October 29, 2009 at 9:08 am
what error do you get? Have you checked various logs?
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
October 29, 2009 at 9:06 am
mssdprasad04 (10/28/2009)
Hi Sql Guru I tried with example which u gave but it is much time than what i already had can u give me those two possiblesolutions
I am...
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
October 29, 2009 at 9:05 am
There really was no need for indexing information or the query plan. 🙂 The query as written clearly was doing 4 table scans and 4 associated joins. ...
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
October 28, 2009 at 1:47 pm
If all your links to user_name are unique, this or something similar could work:
SELECT CASE WHEN MU.USER_NAME = ET.Prvd_ID THEN 'abc'
...
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
October 28, 2009 at 9:51 am
1) checkdb is VERY IO intensive, so I would expect to see indications of IO/Memory pressure during it's execution
2) There are MANY things that can interplay to cause memory to...
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
October 28, 2009 at 8:17 am
I would think that doing 4 table scans and 4 joins on a table with 40M rows WILL take some time. 🙂
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
October 28, 2009 at 8:14 am
Mark_Pratt (10/27/2009)
If partitioned tables in your PRIMARY filegroup only hold 6 months of data, your filegroup backup may only take...
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
October 27, 2009 at 3:15 pm
SinisterPenguin (10/27/2009)
OK - fair enough I stand corrected & I learned something 🙂
Which is precisely why we are all here on the SQLServerCentral forum!! 😎
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
October 27, 2009 at 9:19 am
Performance will improve because of exactly what I stated: partition elimination. You can have queries that will now touch just a (perhaps tiny) fraction of the table instead...
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
October 27, 2009 at 8:56 am
SinisterPenguin (10/27/2009)
TheSQLGuru (10/27/2009)
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
October 27, 2009 at 8:05 am
As Gail says, index column order is CRITICAL for most efficient querying. You need left-to-right hits on the columns or you can't do seeks.
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
October 27, 2009 at 5:24 am
1) monitoring for a few days is meaningless for db growth considerations.
2) you need to figure out how big each database will be over the course of 12...
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
October 27, 2009 at 5:18 am
Oh, and one more thing - 10GB is NOT a large database. My guess is that there are MANY other things you should be doing first to improve your...
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
October 27, 2009 at 5:12 am
1) the first poster is incorrect. you CAN get performance increases from partitioning without multiple filegroups - sometimes vast improvements even. This would come from partition elimination during...
Best,
Kevin G. Boles
SQL Server Consultant
SQL MVP 2007-2012
TheSQLGuru on googles mail service
October 27, 2009 at 5:10 am
Viewing 15 posts - 4,471 through 4,485 (of 5,841 total)