Viewing 15 posts - 23,671 through 23,685 (of 59,099 total)
You're correct. But I've never seen it do that in TempDB even with the Sort_In_TempDB option turned on. It seems to always do it in whatever the source...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 12, 2014 at 7:45 am
ScottPletcher (5/9/2014)
Jeff Moden (5/7/2014)
On the SORT IN TEMPDB thing... It'll only affect TEMPDB by 10 or 20% of what the largest index is.
I don't understand the rationale for that...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 12, 2014 at 5:41 am
isuckatsql (5/11/2014)
It seems the jury is still out on the best way to do this.http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3498646/select-count-vs-keep-a-counter
While I appreciate the concern of the 2 fellows whose posts you cited, I'll suggest...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 11, 2014 at 9:27 pm
thomashohner (5/11/2014)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 11, 2014 at 8:12 pm
tombiagioni1983 (5/11/2014)
If there is a better method of implementation, please share it with me.
There's is indeed. See Luis' code, which he previously posted. Remember that CROSS APPLY is...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 11, 2014 at 8:03 pm
sqlservercentral.com 32358 (5/11/2014)
I had chosen this over set based because there's a set of processes that need followed depending on the values in each row.
Stop thinking like that....
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 11, 2014 at 8:01 pm
Luis Cazares (5/11/2014)
Your query looks just like mine but using a while loop instead of a single operation. Why would you do that.
Because and like he said, he's a C#...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 11, 2014 at 11:37 am
tombiagioni1983 (5/7/2014)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 11, 2014 at 11:32 am
Heh... :blush: No. It's nothing like that. Actually, it's because I'm a bit lazy. All those recalculated aggregates would mean that I'd have to worry about...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 11, 2014 at 9:47 am
Having done a couple of dozen interviews for Senior Level Developers and DBAs over the last 2 years or so, I'm totally amazed at how low the bar has been...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 10, 2014 at 9:43 pm
Sometimes we forget that... the thing about local speakers, I mean. And it seems that SQL Saturday may have changed quite a bit since Andy originally defined it. ...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 10, 2014 at 9:04 pm
In that case, the best you can do is start monitoring and making a plan for the indexes and stats. Check which indexes are used or not and how...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 10, 2014 at 8:40 pm
thomashohner (5/9/2014)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 10, 2014 at 8:15 pm
If you want real performance, I'd recommend that you stop counting altogether. Indexed views have an overhead on inserts in that they have to recalculate the totals for the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 10, 2014 at 8:10 pm
[font="Arial Black"]WHY[/font] are you returning 600K rows to begin with???:blink: And [font="Arial Black"]WHERE [/font]are you returning them to? :unsure:
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 10, 2014 at 10:36 am
Viewing 15 posts - 23,671 through 23,685 (of 59,099 total)