Viewing 15 posts - 1,111 through 1,125 (of 5,843 total)
1) What build of sql server are you on?
2) How, EXACTLY, are you determining how much memory the SQL Server windows service is using?
3) Have you run dbcc memorystatus and...
May 3, 2016 at 7:41 am
Gail is spot on as usual.
I have been consulting on SQL Server since the mid-1990s and I can count on two hands the number of times I have seen CMEMTHREAD...
May 3, 2016 at 7:39 am
15-20 on CTFP
Number of PHYSICAL cores in each NUMA node for MAXDOP (or lower). If it is a pure OLAP box you may benefit from higher.
Remember you can override...
May 3, 2016 at 7:35 am
Synchronous Database Mirroring is your option on SQL 2014 Standard Edition.
May 1, 2016 at 9:48 am
Sorry, don't have time to go into cmemthread waits.
But CTFP of 5 is universally too low on modern SQL Servers. Without additional information I would go with 15 for OLTP...
April 29, 2016 at 3:01 pm
I have come across a few clients over the years that had built their own "column-based" auditing. In every case the overhead of such systems (regardless of how they did...
April 27, 2016 at 8:10 am
Maybe this?
UPDATE ... SET field = @string1 + cast('' as varchar(8000)) + @string2
April 27, 2016 at 7:49 am
Your max memory setting is too high for a 64GB box. BUT there is NO formula that can be right for all servers. Different people have different stuff running on...
April 27, 2016 at 7:46 am
do a web search for: itzik ben-gan gaps and islands
April 27, 2016 at 7:44 am
1) Never, EVER use SSMS to do ANY form of DDL activity!!! You can use it to get things set the way you think you want them, but then you...
April 27, 2016 at 7:43 am
Grant Fritchey (4/26/2016)
TheSQLGuru (4/26/2016)
Is TF 8649 supported now? If not (or even if so) it could be better to use Adam Machanic's spiffy high-CPU-estimate trick: http://sqlblog.com/blogs/adam_machanic/archive/2013/07/11/next-level-parallel-plan-porcing.aspx
I doubt it, but...
April 26, 2016 at 8:54 am
Then why does setting a stupid minimum slow down startup? I thought it was because it allocated the memory.
The engine has a WAITFOR DELAY '00:02:23' built into it that...
April 26, 2016 at 8:53 am
Thanks for your answer, one last question i would like to know is, if SQL Server like to consume whole available memory then why it is not consuming whole RAM...
April 26, 2016 at 7:42 am
Is TF 8649 supported now? If not (or even if so) it could be better to use Adam Machanic's spiffy high-CPU-estimate trick: http://sqlblog.com/blogs/adam_machanic/archive/2013/07/11/next-level-parallel-plan-porcing.aspx
April 26, 2016 at 7:34 am
Glad to hear it was a win all around. I just wanted to point out that is often isn't. 🙂
April 26, 2016 at 7:18 am
Viewing 15 posts - 1,111 through 1,125 (of 5,843 total)