Viewing 15 posts - 37,966 through 37,980 (of 59,072 total)
I got this off a simple Google search...
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/mladenp/archive/2007/03/03/60125.aspx
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 13, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Phil Factor (6/13/2010)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 13, 2010 at 4:05 pm
I agree... it's a huge subject. My recommendation is to GOOGLE for "what is data model" and the other things you requested.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 13, 2010 at 4:01 pm
David Portas (6/13/2010)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 13, 2010 at 3:15 pm
David Portas (6/12/2010)
Jeff Moden (6/12/2010)
Indexes are not just about performance... they're a part of DRI.
Are you familiar with the SQL standard? It most certainly includes DRI and certainly does not...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 13, 2010 at 11:33 am
Ah.... another possibly very serious problem... you're updating the Numer_rachunku column. That column is used in joins in two of the sub queries including the one that I think...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 13, 2010 at 11:04 am
The UPDATE appears to be properly formed in that the target of the update is in the FROM clause so no problem there. I can't really tell because I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 13, 2010 at 10:51 am
niladri.sirkar (6/12/2010)
I have a question. In one of my applications, I am getting a Deadlock situation of there are more users using the site at the same time. Is there...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 12, 2010 at 12:48 pm
lugang (8/17/2005)
3) use with (nolock) in all queries possible
That's actually some pretty terrible advice and is usually indicative of some really bad code if it's actually needed to realize performance....
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 12, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Heh... it's simple. Just reverse almost everything that David said.
Keys and indexes do need to be considered together... that's part of what DRI is all about.
Indexes are not just...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 12, 2010 at 12:36 pm
David Portas (6/12/2010)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 12, 2010 at 11:45 am
You have an "accidental cross join" (ie... many-to-many) in the query due to either insufficient criteria or improper use of the UPDATE statement. Take a look in the estimated...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 12, 2010 at 11:24 am
trishdiep (6/12/2010)
Awesome, thanks so much to Jeff and Karthik!I want to say thank you to Jeff for helping so many of us, Much appreciated!:-)
Thank you very much for the feedback....
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 12, 2010 at 10:26 am
In fact, Randy, here's the SQL Server 2000 compatible general purpose string splitter function that I used (took me a bit to find it) before I started using SQL Server...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 12, 2010 at 10:16 am
randy rice (6/12/2010)
Jeff -...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 12, 2010 at 8:33 am
Viewing 15 posts - 37,966 through 37,980 (of 59,072 total)