Viewing 15 posts - 766 through 780 (of 994 total)
And don't run a shrink of the data files - it will cause fragmentation. I documented this in SS2005 Books Online for DBCC SHRINKDATABASE. See http://www.sqlskills.com/blogs/paul/2007/11/13/AutoshrinkTurnItOFF.aspx for an example.
February 5, 2008 at 11:51 pm
matt stockham (2/5/2008)
jeff.williams3188 (2/5/2008)
Just one other note: In SQL Server 2005 the system stored procedure 'sp_updatestats' has been improved to only update statistics on tables that have been modified.
Do you...
February 5, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Yes - on the principal just do ALTER DATABASE yourdb SET WITNESS OFF to move down into high-protection mode (synchronous mirroring without automatic failover).
If you want to add a different...
February 5, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Yup - we found the cause - 3rd party file-system driver for an encryption solution that doesn't cope with NTFS alternate streams. I blogged abotu it at http://www.sqlskills.com/blogs/paul/2008/02/04/SearchEngineQA14Beware3rdPartyFilesystemDriversWithDBCCCHECKDB.aspx
February 4, 2008 at 3:19 pm
The problem isn't with the number of columns, but the size of the data you're trying to paste. I suspect you're running into a limitation on column editing in SSMS....
February 3, 2008 at 9:13 am
The problem is that the database snapshots which DBCC CHECKDB uses to run onlien in SS2005 can't be created (this is why you don't see the problem when running in...
February 3, 2008 at 9:09 am
Can you explain why it looks like a memory leak? I'm intrigued...
January 30, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Absolutely - DDL triggers is the way to go. I was just about to post an example for you that prevents DDL when I remembered that Kimberly had blogged it...
January 30, 2008 at 10:43 pm
What is it you're really trying to do? You shouldn't need to manually change system tables in 2005.
January 30, 2008 at 10:18 pm
It depends - if the IO bandwidth available from the local drives is more than that from the SAN, and your joins are IO bound, then you *may* see an...
January 30, 2008 at 8:34 pm
You'll only get big performance gains if your performance is constrained in some way on your current system. If you move to an IO subsystem that can provide faster reads...
January 30, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Following on from Andras post (and I agree - don't go changing the system tables) - what is it you're trying to do that you can't do with regular DDL?...
January 30, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Mu guess would be that the workload is a a lot higher on server A, plus you've got much more AWE memory for SQL Server to use - even so,...
January 30, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Is the linked server case sensitive?
January 30, 2008 at 6:47 pm
There have been some bugs with column comparisons on 2000 that are fixed in SP4:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/822747
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929440
Hopefully one of these is your issue - it doesn't sound like hardware is your problem.
January 30, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 766 through 780 (of 994 total)