Viewing 15 posts - 4,846 through 4,860 (of 59,070 total)
Thanks for the feedback, Grant. I am concerned. While I wouldn't expect such a thing to be "radical" in a test and development environment, seeing "some"...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 9, 2021 at 7:32 pm
Still not quite right. The MAX datatypes (LOBs) ARE actually allowed in RowStore indexes. They're allowed in INCLUDEs, just not as a key.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 9, 2021 at 4:08 pm
@vscurtis...
Still waiting to hear which version of SQL Server you're using.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 9, 2021 at 4:03 pm
First, what index level are you looking at in sys.dm_db_index_physical stats? If it's not level "0" and it's not "IN ROW DATA", you can mostly forget about it.
Before we move...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 9, 2021 at 3:46 pm
p.s. I contacted the Web Master to restore the post I accidentally hit "Report" on .
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 9, 2021 at 3:39 pm
Thanks for the feedback, Grant. I am concerned. While I wouldn't expect such a thing to be "radical" in a test and development environment, seeing "some" thrash and...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 9, 2021 at 3:24 pm
"It Depends". If it also calls stuff in a RBAR fashion, then not really. Someone needs to define what it's supposed to do and then create a new stored procedure...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 9, 2021 at 3:19 pm
Crud. My apologies. I hit "report" on your last post by mistake and it doesn't provide an "are you sure question".
Anyway, you said...
It's coming from Table - Indexes - Reorganize....
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 9, 2021 at 3:11 pm
Thanks for the feedback, Grant. I am concerned. While I wouldn't expect such a thing to be "radical" in a test and development environment, seeing "some" thrash and having be...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 9, 2021 at 3:02 pm
So, the trigger has been in place, but has not fired. It's simple: On I/U/D, send me an email with the user_name().
I rebuilt the index on Friday morning, this...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 9, 2021 at 2:47 pm
Am i correct in assuming that you didn't actually identify the code that was causing the contention or, if you did, that you spent little time trying to figure out...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 9, 2021 at 5:57 am
Understood on the SSIS thing but the Op wasn't using SSIS. For that matter, I typically try to make it so that I never have to use SSIS...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 9, 2021 at 5:01 am
I'm not sure why Jeff keeps talking about the version of SQL Server. We are not talking about BULK INSERT here.
Because that import flat file thing has been upgraded...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 9, 2021 at 4:53 am
Have any of you good folks used the "Automatic Tuning" feature of SQL Server 2016 for on-prem? If so, how'd it work out for you?
I ask because I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 9, 2021 at 4:46 am
One of the things we fixed was analyzing waits: tempDb bottleneck (Allocation Pressure).
And how did you fix that?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 8, 2021 at 8:32 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 4,846 through 4,860 (of 59,070 total)