wait_typewaiting_tasks_countwait_time_msmax_wait_time_mssignal_wait_time_ms

CLR_AUTO_EVENT 52285838414020656

CLR_MANUAL_EVENT ...

It is usually done with 4 threads, but for test purpoases everything I've mentioned previously is done with only onw thread.

Results from you qeury

task_addressstatelast_wait_typestateforced_yield_count

0x000000086E15C508SUSPENDEDCLR_JOINE_TASK_ATTACHED_TO_CLR0

0x00000005801E0E08RUNNINGCLR_MANUAL_EVENTE_TASK_ATTACHED_TO_CLR0

C# CLR code: This is an excerpt since the actual code is probably 1000+ lines.

An example of what is return from the LoadReports() and loaded in the ReportInfo dictionary

#Id ...

-->HowardW

Yep, I'll try to post the code in the next post.

Btw. I tried running the code as a console app with the following results

100.000 rows read to memory and the...

opc.three (4/19/2011)

---

Something else worth checking immediately after an instance restart, as your process is running and after your process completes:

-- credit to Bob B: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/sqlnetfx/thread/bbc1c753-c5df-4d52-a567-c982cf506051

SELECT SUM(pages_allocated_count) / 128.0 AS...

I'm always considering to re-consider 🙂 But I don't think I will rewrite it in TSQL, my thought was to make it a console application and run it with xp_cmdshell...

I tried setting MemToLeave in increments without any difference in execution time. I even tried setting it to 2GB without noticing any performance gains.

-> HowardW

Yes, the SQL server is 64bit

Doing the calculations in .Net does not remove parallelism since you can expicitly specify that in the code.

-> Incindium

I tried running the code with smaller batch sizes with the following results

[Num rows][local time][db server time]

500 0.12s ...

I understand that but I don't like to leave things hanging without a reasonable explanation as to why this behaviour is encountered. It still seems strange to me to say...

Hi,

I guess I probably could have used TSQL instead of the CLR in this scenario but I still think there is something lurking in background somewhere which makes the code...

Hi,

I understand what you are saying and I would have thought that it could have been a data transfer problem. But the data is stored on the remote db server...