Viewing 15 posts - 3,526 through 3,540 (of 49,571 total)
SQLRNNR (2/24/2016)
GilaMonster (2/24/2016)
jasona.work (2/24/2016)
/Me leans back, grabs bucket of popcorn
Sure sounds like Gail answered the original question, yet for some reason the OP decided to focus on the comments about...
February 24, 2016 at 1:29 pm
Consider spinning up Azure VMs for your test lab machines. They're not all that expensive, probably cheaper in the long run than buying hardware from home, and if you shut...
February 24, 2016 at 1:05 pm
jasona.work (2/24/2016)
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1763775-3412-1.aspx/Me leans back, grabs bucket of popcorn
Sure sounds like Gail answered the original question, yet for some reason the OP decided to focus on the comments about performance...
INSERT INTO...
February 24, 2016 at 1:02 pm
That's not what I meant by performance. I asked earlier about index maintenance on part of the table as a reason for you to be doing partitioning, same as data...
February 24, 2016 at 9:13 am
If he's using his domain account, then either his account has been granted access, or he's a member of a group that has been granted access. Check the logins, check...
February 24, 2016 at 7:00 am
It sounds like you're partitioning with the expectation of performance gains. If you are, don't waste your time. Partitioning is not, in general, done for performance and you don't automatically...
February 24, 2016 at 6:51 am
That's not a good design for partitioning, it involves a lot of data movement. It's generally advised that once rows are in a partition, that they not be moved (because...
February 24, 2016 at 3:28 am
Anyone? http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1763388-2799-1.aspx
It's not SQL Server (the UNIQUE gives that away at the least). I don't know what it is, and the OP keeps posting questions here that turn out to...
February 23, 2016 at 5:56 am
What database are you using? That is not SQL Server, and since it's not SQL Server, you're unlikely to get help here (this is a Microsoft SQL Server site).
February 23, 2016 at 5:53 am
The revised only has three columns in the group by, the original had 5.
Hang on. That's not even SQL Server. What database engine are you using?
This site is specifically for...
February 23, 2016 at 4:59 am
I didn't say remove the HAVING line.
The ordinal specification of columns is a really bad idea, hard to read and prone to errors. Go and fix the group by and...
February 23, 2016 at 4:47 am
Lol, the vendor is talking garbage.
Log backups truncate transaction logs in full/bulk-logged recovery. Checkpoint truncates the log in simple recovery. If you're in full/bulk-logged and doing regular log backups you...
February 23, 2016 at 4:44 am
Start by specifying column names in group by and order by, If, once you've finished doing that there's still an error, post the revised query.
February 23, 2016 at 4:25 am
saum70 (2/23/2016)
I found one work around i.e. to specify dbo in the procedure
That's not a workaround, that's the correct solution. All tables should be schema-qualified in procedures. You should start...
February 23, 2016 at 2:37 am
So the rebuild didn't fix it then.
There are two ways SQL can read an index, first using the IAM, second using the index root page and the next page pointers....
February 23, 2016 at 2:30 am
Viewing 15 posts - 3,526 through 3,540 (of 49,571 total)