Viewing 15 posts - 2,056 through 2,070 (of 2,640 total)
Technically a cross db query shouldn't be that much different to a single db query ( on the same server ). Make sure your indexing and query is spot on...
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
July 11, 2006 at 6:03 am
actually secondary indexes are even more selective, typically 95% or better. You can improve matters with a covered index ( we'll agree to disagree about column order !! ). It's...
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
July 11, 2006 at 6:01 am
No experience with this SAN - but - it is important to remember that the performance of a disk is not altered by a SAN, each spindle can still only...
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
July 11, 2006 at 5:55 am
sadly you really have to do this yourself. I make use of various data modelling tools ( if available to me ) otherwise Visio will do.
I usually work in word,...
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
July 11, 2006 at 5:04 am
In a "proper" controlled environment you would have to have documentation before release to production. The thought of having undocumented dts/sis packages in a production environment is quite scary. I...
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
July 11, 2006 at 4:30 am
I haven't really spent any time examinaing the system tables within sql 2005, ms has made a pretty good job of hiding much of the system data. Views and stuff...
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
July 11, 2006 at 4:24 am
in your restored database try the table
sysusermsgs
I can't get data out of it in master ( yet )
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
July 10, 2006 at 10:16 am
to be blunt the optimiser is probably picking the correct index, you probably don't provide the most efficient indexe for your query. Have you changed any settings in QA away...
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
July 10, 2006 at 9:17 am
32bit sql server std will only use 2gb ram no matter what. 900mb of free ram shows that you have 900mb of wasted memory - I fail to understand why...
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
July 10, 2006 at 9:07 am
You might want to consider partitioning if the table is large.
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
July 10, 2006 at 8:57 am
I'd either sack the lead developer or find a new job! ( probably both )
the single user will have little impact one way or another ( it may indicate poor...
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
July 10, 2006 at 8:56 am
Take a read through Ken Henderson's Guru guide to architecture. The xp_prepare stuff runs in memory out of sql process and has a limited memory pool - I assume, but...
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
July 10, 2006 at 8:49 am
I don't have a 6.5 server to test this but it could be the 6.5 on your 2k has a 6.5 collation - this might be the problem.
In 2000 under...
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
July 10, 2006 at 8:41 am
have you tried using the 32bit driver from sql 2005?
mdac is really client so how do you normally get your isam data into 2000 , I assume dts ?
If it's...
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
July 10, 2006 at 8:36 am
raid 5 has a 25% write efficiency on equal available spindles vs raid 10. It also has poor rebuild efficiency, trying to rebuild a disk within a raid 5 array...
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
July 10, 2006 at 8:27 am
Viewing 15 posts - 2,056 through 2,070 (of 2,640 total)