Viewing 15 posts - 1,891 through 1,905 (of 6,216 total)
Depends on the complexity. If you can do it in pure TSQL, I'd go that way. Some moves may require more of a row based processing metaphor, DTS makes more...
July 18, 2003 at 9:58 am
July 18, 2003 at 4:08 am
I meant adding a hint to the query to force it to use the index.
Andy
July 17, 2003 at 11:33 am
Downside to that is you're continuously checking (if you can call that a downside) and that it only happens when you push a change, so if you had a period...
July 17, 2003 at 11:32 am
If you use merge replication then you wouldn't have to do anything. You can do transaction with queued updates, but it doesn't support text columns. Either is better than doing...
July 17, 2003 at 9:02 am
July 17, 2003 at 9:02 am
July 17, 2003 at 9:00 am
Typically you do set up a job to do stuff like that. Alternatively you could just send over a new snapshot once a week/month which would clean out old data...
July 17, 2003 at 8:56 am
Yes it can run while people are using it, but it does have to acquire an exclusive lock on each table so that it can get a clean copy BCP'ed...
July 17, 2003 at 8:53 am
Havent tried/needed it, I'd guess is that you can run a script instead of just the simple column definition you get by default.
Andy
July 17, 2003 at 8:51 am
Should be possible. One way would be to run a DTS transform as part of replication (I know its there, but I've never tried it), another would be to replicate...
July 17, 2003 at 5:08 am
Agree. The other alternative (and a huge advantage in my opinion) is that if you need the key back, you can generate it on the client and avoid the round...
July 17, 2003 at 5:06 am
The best way to find out it to look at the query plan. You have to identify the data to delete it, so a good index plan is as important...
July 17, 2003 at 5:04 am
MS has a good whitepaper on perf and tuning on MSDN. Overall I'd say the impact is fairly minor, but it's there. Logreader and distribution agents use some memory, only...
July 17, 2003 at 5:03 am
Read only on purpose? Have you tried sp_dboption to remove the read only setting? Also the published attribute.
Andy
July 17, 2003 at 4:53 am
Viewing 15 posts - 1,891 through 1,905 (of 6,216 total)