May 6, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I think thats just the process/session/request info, including the waiting lock summarized at the request level. But it doesn't have the detailed lock info, like entity_id.
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
May 6, 2009 at 1:23 pm
i donot have that information becuase this block was happend few hours ago. Please find attached the query that i am using to log this data, i appreciate if you can modify the query to include the info that you think is critical and should be logged too for future blocks.
May 6, 2009 at 1:51 pm
What version of SQL Server are you on?
May 6, 2009 at 3:11 pm
64 bit sql server 2005
May 7, 2009 at 9:36 am
I was wondering if it was the Express edition - since it only allows a limited number of active connections.
May 7, 2009 at 2:01 pm
raj more (5/7/2009)
I was wondering if it was the Express edition - since it only allows a limited number of active connections.
Not sure how reaching the max number of allowed connections - which by the way is a feature on all SQL Server versions - relates to Page and Row locking; could you please elaborate?
_____________________________________
Pablo (Paul) Berzukov
Author of Understanding Database Administration available at Amazon and other bookstores.
Disclaimer: Advice is provided to the best of my knowledge but no implicit or explicit warranties are provided. Since the advisor explicitly encourages testing any and all suggestions on a test non-production environment advisor should not held liable or responsible for any actions taken based on the given advice.May 7, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Here is a wild thought, please respond with your views, is it possible that index values of the three tables are in the same memory page and sql server is using page lock that's why they are locking each other?
May 7, 2009 at 8:20 pm
That is definitely wild 🙂 A page, either in memory or on disk, can not be shared between different objects.
As to original post - there must be something missing in your descriptions of objects referred. These kind of problems are hard to analyze, and even harder if one doesn't have access to the server where problem is occurring. My only suggestion - if possible, try to drop all objects (off course save object definitions, and data), recreate them one by one, and run dependent queries in similar order.
Viewing 8 posts - 16 through 22 (of 22 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply