Viewing 15 posts - 3,286 through 3,300 (of 18,926 total)
@Lynn, you realize I was only kidding with this right :w00t:
Ninja's_RGR'us (8/7/2011)
Lynn > sp_update_resume, sp_deploy_resume :-D.Come back anytime you want, you'll always be home here with us!
Now back on topic......
August 11, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Ninja's_RGR'us (8/11/2011)
Tom.Thomson (8/11/2011)
Ninja's_RGR'us (8/11/2011)
If you love synchronicities you'll love the humor in this one!http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1158766-391-1.aspx
But which is crazier there - the locking hint or the tortuous where clause (getting rid of...
August 11, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Tom.Thomson (8/11/2011)
Ninja's_RGR'us (8/11/2011)
If you love synchronicities you'll love the humor in this one!http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1158766-391-1.aspx
But which is crazier there - the locking hint or the tortuous where clause (getting rid of all...
August 11, 2011 at 7:15 pm
dheeraj gupta (8/11/2011)
Then how to leave specifically for which statistics has been updated while rebuild the table indexes and update the stats for rest of the things?
Need...
August 11, 2011 at 7:11 pm
SQLHeap (8/11/2011)
GilaMonster (8/11/2011)
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [N2] ON [dbo].table
(
field_name2 ASC,
...
August 11, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Evil Kraig F (8/11/2011)
GilaMonster (8/11/2011)
Add ID as a 3rd key column to this index:
Out of curiousity, why not include the ID instead of key it? Would reduce the tree...
August 11, 2011 at 7:05 pm
GilaMonster (8/11/2011)
Patch to SP4 first and confirm that the behaviour's unchanged (CSS will almost certainly want you to do that)
Am I better off proving this is a bug in 2008...
August 11, 2011 at 3:51 pm
GilaMonster (8/11/2011)
Patch to SP4 first and confirm that the behaviour's unchanged (CSS will almost certainly want you to do that)
Tx, I had forgotten about that one (1 call ever, 6...
August 11, 2011 at 3:47 pm
where >= DATEADD(D, 0, DATEDIFF(D, 0, GETDATE())) AND <= GETDATE()
for midnight next date, just put 1 instead of the 1 0 and then use < instead of <=
August 11, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Microsoft SQL Server 2005 - 9.00.4035.00 (Intel X86) Nov 24 2008 13:01:59 Copyright (c) 1988-2005 Microsoft Corporation Standard Edition on Windows NT 5.2 (Build 3790:...
August 11, 2011 at 3:41 pm
99% sure it's a bug in MS now.
I tried a lot of combos, new vms, new hardware, shrunk the log file, added a new log file, created a new blank...
August 11, 2011 at 3:26 pm
If you need help there I can refformat that whole proc in 10 seconds for you... just let me know.
Do you still need help with this problem (tuning wise)?
August 11, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Thanks for the update. And with the extra index?
BTW, if you don't post the actual execution plan we're just guessing at this... which we don't like to do ;-).
August 11, 2011 at 3:04 pm
From that info, the server likely has to scan the whole table.
Include the id you need to select in the N2 index (included column). as the third key.
Edited brain...
August 11, 2011 at 2:57 pm
I'm guessing this is a local db on a slow disk subsystem so if you have GBs of data to read then yes this will take a long time.
Without seeing...
August 11, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 3,286 through 3,300 (of 18,926 total)