Viewing 15 posts - 49,081 through 49,095 (of 59,093 total)
rames.net (7/21/2008)
How can we handle the situation if the tempdb space was full?reply with more than 2 diff answers?
Your turn, Pal... how about some feedback. We need at least 2...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 24, 2008 at 4:58 am
nisan.al (7/24/2008)
So there are two options:
1. some definition are wrong - check if tempdb deifintions are set to ...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 24, 2008 at 4:56 am
So, do you have a grip on generating the test data or do you still need a bit o' help on that?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 24, 2008 at 4:48 am
Thanks, Jonathan...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 24, 2008 at 4:40 am
pockeyfan (7/22/2008)
Sergiy (7/22/2008)
First, there is "error" message with
update t1as "t1" could not be found
Can you post the error message?
Here is the error message:
Number (208) Severity (16) State...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 24, 2008 at 12:04 am
rbarryyoung (7/23/2008)
hmmm (scratches head) I guess I missed that transactional replication was involved.:ermm:
Heh... I missed that data marts were involved. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 23, 2008 at 11:39 pm
If you want the object ID from the name, why not just use...
SELECT OBJECT_ID('objectnamehere')
There are several system functions that will help keep you from redeveloping the wheel... just look them...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 23, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Ummm... let's do a small test on the "bad" machine... if you open a "Command Prompt" window, type DIR and press {Enter}, does it return anything? And, no, not...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 23, 2008 at 8:47 pm
If transactional replication does not replicate truncations, then there is no need to audit inserts to rebuild a truncated table because you can always get it back from the replicated...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 23, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Ah... I get it now... you want to test/compare every combination of 1 to 10 characters (36 characters total) of the old UDF against the new UDF. (3611)-1 is...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 23, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Thanks for the feedback...
By the way, being a bit of a code formatting and documentation freak, I really like your tagline on your posts. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 23, 2008 at 7:52 pm
rbarryyoung (7/23/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 23, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Lester Policarpio (7/21/2008)
I want to ask how to troubleshoot this kind of problem. I'm handling many servers everyday (select, update, delete). I created...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 23, 2008 at 6:34 pm
It may be operating off a bad cached plan... try the WITH RECOMPILE option in the stored procedure. It could also be "parameter sniffing"... lot's of articles available for...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 23, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Lynn Pettis (7/23/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 23, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 49,081 through 49,095 (of 59,093 total)