Viewing 15 posts - 28,096 through 28,110 (of 59,101 total)
SpringTownDBA (11/23/2012)
These are logical reads, not physical reads.Every seek into a table gets counted as a logical read.
That doesn't explain why the number of reads jumps so high...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 24, 2012 at 1:17 pm
mahesh.dasoni (11/24/2012)
Steps required by which we can completely remove replication in sql server 2005.
Step 1. Press the {f1} key to activate Books Online.
Step 2. Search for "replication [SQL...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 24, 2012 at 12:41 pm
DBAs will always be needed even in such an environment of double-checks by change-control. Who else but a DBA could figure out that such things as you mention actually...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 24, 2012 at 12:32 pm
opc.three (11/24/2012)
Jeff Moden (11/22/2012)
dave-L (11/22/2012)
True using a UDF to...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 24, 2012 at 11:08 am
Bhuvnesh (11/22/2012)
Jeff Moden (11/22/2012)
Either put the CI on the GUID with a decent FILL FACTOR to prevent rampant page splits during inserts
what would be that decent valure ?...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 24, 2012 at 10:28 am
CELKO (11/23/2012)
No, we don't need to unlearn anything. Like anything else, UPDATE works just fine if you use it correctly.
That is an awful argument and you know...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 23, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Bharat Panthee (12/8/2010)
I think it is better to write CLR function for it,if you are using sql server 2005 or 2008
This is why I don't allow people to write CLRs...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 23, 2012 at 4:23 pm
peterdru401 (11/21/2012)
which in turn improve the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2012 at 11:02 pm
CELKO (11/22/2012)
I'm doing a DB review and have always been taught to write updates with a JOIN like using this syntax.
UPDATE Target
SET col_list = S.col_list
FROM Table1 AS Target
...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Gabe T. (11/22/2012)
@FundID = @FundID --Anchor: forces a clustered index update so the quirky update works in order.
That won't act as an anchor because you have a variable = variable....
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Aadhar Joshi (11/22/2012)
I am getting error while executing this stored procedurePlease help.
Please provide the actual error you're getting.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2012 at 10:25 pm
matthew.peters (11/22/2012)
I have the following query which runs considerably slower when we change the isolation level to read uncomitted, I just wanted to understand why. I have attached the 2...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2012 at 10:22 pm
p.s. In 2008 and above, you can setup an audit but I believe that will still record the database as being "accessed" even if you just expand the tables...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Heh... you could always do the SOFH thing... set it to offline and wait for the phone to ring. I Dev ad Staging boxes which have about 10 times...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2012 at 9:53 pm
They are simple, indeed and, by themselves, I don't see them causing the deadlock. Are they "wrapped" in other procedures that use explicit transactions?
Also, if the [ObjectID] ASC, [EventType]...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 22, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 28,096 through 28,110 (of 59,101 total)