Viewing 15 posts - 41,986 through 42,000 (of 49,571 total)
I'd try dropping the MAXDOP to 4 and see how it goes. Since it's a warehouse (big queries) I wouldn't take it to 1
January 5, 2009 at 1:04 pm
sql_er (1/5/2009)
Does what you said mean that I am not breaking any chain when I do that
Conditional yes.
There are some limitations on point-in-time recovery when there are bulk operations...
January 5, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Jonathan Kehayias (1/5/2009)
GilaMonster (1/5/2009)
January 5, 2009 at 12:37 pm
When you perform a bulk operation under bulk-logged recovery, the details of the changes are not logged, just a record of what pages were logged. When the log is then...
January 5, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I had a similar piece of code (for SQL) at my former company. I didn't take the code when I left, of course. I should probably rewrite and retest it...
January 5, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Jonathan Kehayias (1/5/2009)
They were an online blogging/community site for six years, and had no backups of their SQL Database
Now that's just stupid. As is their comment that mirroring (as in...
January 5, 2009 at 12:03 pm
SQLBOT (1/5/2009)
You don't need a third party tool.
use DBNAMESELECT * FROM ::fn_dblog(null, null)
GO
That only reads the active portion of the transaction log. It doesn't read a transaction log backup.
January 5, 2009 at 11:13 am
Eeep. That does not look good.
There's no way that I know of to get a negative page number, as the page number is an incremental count of 8k chunks...
January 5, 2009 at 11:01 am
Ells (1/5/2009)
January 5, 2009 at 10:59 am
Michael Earl (1/5/2009)
I used to link to google now and then, but that link makes the point much better so I am going to have to use it.
Likewise. 😎 :hehe:
January 5, 2009 at 10:51 am
GermanDBA (1/5/2009)
January 5, 2009 at 10:41 am
Please don't cross post. It just wastes peoples time and fragments replies.
No replies to this thread please. Direct replies to: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic629723-106-1.aspx
January 5, 2009 at 10:36 am
RBarryYoung (1/5/2009)
Actually, I heard from someone at PASS that WITH RECOMPILE does not work reliably for this problem in SQL2005, but "is fixed" in SQL 2008.
Wasn't that for the 'catch-all'...
January 5, 2009 at 10:22 am
RBarryYoung (1/5/2009)
January 5, 2009 at 10:01 am
Grant Fritchey (1/5/2009)
Since you're working in SQL Server 2005, you could simple add the index as an INCLUDE column.
From what I can tell from the exec plan, they're already include...
January 5, 2009 at 9:55 am
Viewing 15 posts - 41,986 through 42,000 (of 49,571 total)