July 13, 2018 at 7:19 am
Hi.
I am trying to understand if there is actually any difference between using separate jobs for each step or one job with many steps.
I know the steps run one after the other, but apart from that?
any ideas?
thanks
July 13, 2018 at 8:05 am
astrid 69000 - Friday, July 13, 2018 7:19 AMHi.
I am trying to understand if there is actually any difference between using separate jobs for each step or one job with many steps.
I know the steps run one after the other, but apart from that?
any ideas?
thanks
If all of the steps are logically part of one process, why clutter up SQL Agent with lots of related jobs?
If you have steps within a single job, you can configure the 'on success' and 'on failure' behaviour to control which steps are executed (or not) in the event of issues.
Separate jobs can run on separate schedules.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Martin Rees
You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.
Stan Laurel
July 13, 2018 at 12:31 pm
Yes I can understand that, I was trying to figure out if there was another reason, maybe something is carry within the job, I am trying to solve a bigger problem and I am looking at every possible solution.
July 13, 2018 at 12:38 pm
.. maybe something is carry within the job
Please explain what you mean by this.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Martin Rees
You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.
Stan Laurel
July 13, 2018 at 12:45 pm
I have an open post here about an issue that I have that sometimes my jobs run and run but nothing is going on. Jobs running indefinitely
The job doesnt stop but doesnt do anything either.
It is a step on a job that causes the problem (not always the same step).
So I was thinking if separating the steps can be a wise option.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply