Viewing 15 posts - 16,981 through 16,995 (of 49,552 total)
mlcote (8/23/2012)
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 23, 2012 at 1:02 pm
In your specific case.
If there was a supported command that did what you're asking, it would have to be supported for everyone, from top DBAs that know the risk down...
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 23, 2012 at 9:43 am
Somewhere to start.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 23, 2012 at 7:26 am
iirc it's covered in chapter 4 of this: http://www.simple-talk.com/books/sql-books/troubleshooting-sql-server-a-guide-for-the-accidental-dba/
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 23, 2012 at 6:45 am
No, thread stacks do not use memory in the buffer pool, they use the non-buffer memory.
CLR disabled does not mean no CLR. The system assemblies can still be used. There's...
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 23, 2012 at 5:29 am
No way. MS does that and the next thing CSS/support is getting all sorts of calls "SQL Server corrupted my database!"
There must never be a documented/supported command or statement that...
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 23, 2012 at 4:41 am
You can with a TOP statement, but unless you have a row-limiting top SQL may very well just ignore the order by as there's no purpose for it.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 23, 2012 at 4:38 am
Just a note, partitioning is not about performance improvements most of the time. It's about maintenance, data loads, archiving and things like that.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 23, 2012 at 4:36 am
Not an issue, normal behaviour.
Max server memory sets the size of the buffer pool. There's also the non-buffer memory (CLR, linked server drivers, backup buffers, thread stacks, etc). That's allocated...
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 23, 2012 at 4:33 am
Yes. As Bol says, the key, the row locator and then any include columns. No include columns, that last section is empty then.
No. The clustered index key IS the row...
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 23, 2012 at 2:48 am
Jeff Moden (8/22/2012)
GilaMonster (8/21/2012)
Cursors are tools. Use them where they work, don't use them where they don't. Statements like 'you should never use a <whatever>' are just shortsighted
If we count...
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 23, 2012 at 2:14 am
No. The include columns are what you specify in the INCLUDE section of the index definition
"Each index row contains the nonclustered key value, a row locator and any included, or...
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 23, 2012 at 2:14 am
Evil Kraig F (8/22/2012)
GilaMonster (8/22/2012)
Minimal logging and bulk-logged recovery model: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Recovery+models/89664/ERG, BAD CRAIG! Giving out bad information again. :blush:
Err, you did? Where?
Now, as long as you're doing backups...
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 22, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Minimal logging and bulk-logged recovery model: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Recovery+models/89664/
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 22, 2012 at 2:47 pm
mtassin (8/22/2012)
GilaMonster (8/22/2012)
did I miss one that compared EXISTS/NOT EXISTS vs IN/NOT IN?
How would I compare things that do the complete opposite to each other?
EXISTS vs IN
NOT EXISTS vs NOT...
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
August 22, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 16,981 through 16,995 (of 49,552 total)