Logged Operations
-
Lynn Pettis (4/12/2011)
Bottom line, your stating your interpretation of the support information isn't enough. Support your position with code, hard data from the DMV's, output from t-logs (yes, there is a way to read the logs). Post the code and your results. Posting the code allows others to verify your results, to experiment with other alternatives.To paraphrase an old saying, "Code talks, BS walks."
You are correct. I should have provided something that proved what I was stating was correct.
I have no hard data from a DMV, but I think this is clear enough.
Declare @quote1 varchar(max),@quote2 varchar(max)
,@quote3 varchar(max)
SET @quote1 = 'Data affecting the version store' -- QOTD Answer;
SET @quote2 = '"Inserts" into the version store' -- QOTD Answer explination;
SET @quote3 = '“insert” into the Append-Only store' -- QOTD Answer refernece;
SELECT 'X' where @quote1 = @quote2
union
SELECT 'X' where @quote2 = @quote3
union
SELECT 'X' where @quote1 = @quote3;
I know that the above code will never return any value or result other than "(no column name)".
Other people told me it does, and others are telling me that this code does not execute.
I asked for this to be explained. It was not the first thing I asked, but it is where it ended up.
-
WayneS (4/7/2011)
mohammed moinudheen (4/7/2011)
It is very tough to get this question right:)Actually, I meant it to be tough. The other choices are all myths that a lot of people believe, and I wanted to debunk those at the same time.
You did just that, mate. I chose TRUNCATE.
[font="Arial"]Low-hanging fruit picker and defender of the moggies[/font]For better assistance in answering your questions, please read this[/url].
Understanding and using APPLY, (I)[/url] and (II)[/url] Paul White[/url]Hidden RBAR: Triangular Joins[/url] / The "Numbers" or "Tally" Table: What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url] Jeff Moden[/url]
-
SanDroid (4/12/2011)
Lynn Pettis (4/12/2011)
Bottom line, your stating your interpretation of the support information isn't enough. Support your position with code, hard data from the DMV's, output from t-logs (yes, there is a way to read the logs). Post the code and your results. Posting the code allows others to verify your results, to experiment with other alternatives.To paraphrase an old saying, "Code talks, BS walks."
You are correct. I should have provided something that proved what I was stating was correct.
I have no hard data from a DMV, but I think this is clear enough.
Declare @quote1 varchar(max),@quote2 varchar(max)
,@quote3 varchar(max)
SET @quote1 = 'Data affecting the version store' -- QOTD Answer;
SET @quote2 = '"Inserts" into the version store' -- QOTD Answer explination;
SET @quote3 = '“insert” into the Append-Only store' -- QOTD Answer refernece;
SELECT 'X' where @quote1 = @quote2
union
SELECT 'X' where @quote2 = @quote3
union
SELECT 'X' where @quote1 = @quote3;
I know that the above code will never return any value or result other than "(no column name)".
Other people told me it does, and others are telling me that this code does not execute.
I asked for this to be explained. It was not the first thing I asked, but it is where it ended up.
Please explain how your code supports your position. All I see is a union of 3 selects of a literal value based the comparison of two variables.
-
Lynn Pettis (4/12/2011)
SanDroid (4/12/2011)
Lynn Pettis (4/12/2011)
Bottom line, your stating your interpretation of the support information isn't enough. Support your position with code, hard data from the DMV's, output from t-logs (yes, there is a way to read the logs). Post the code and your results. Posting the code allows others to verify your results, to experiment with other alternatives.To paraphrase an old saying, "Code talks, BS walks."
You are correct. I should have provided something that proved what I was stating was correct.
I have no hard data from a DMV, but I think this is clear enough.
Declare @quote1 varchar(max),@quote2 varchar(max)
,@quote3 varchar(max)
SET @quote1 = 'Data affecting the version store' -- QOTD Answer;
SET @quote2 = '"Inserts" into the version store' -- QOTD Answer explination;
SET @quote3 = '“insert” into the Append-Only store' -- QOTD Answer refernece;
SELECT 'X' where @quote1 = @quote2
union
SELECT 'X' where @quote2 = @quote3
union
SELECT 'X' where @quote1 = @quote3;
I know that the above code will never return any value or result other than "(no column name)".
Other people told me it does, and others are telling me that this code does not execute.
I asked for this to be explained. It was not the first thing I asked, but it is where it ended up.
Please explain how your code supports your position. All I see is a union of 3 selects of a literal value based the comparison of two variables.
My position is that the three variables will never be equal to each other, but the QOTD answer is only correct if they do.
I await any explination as to why these three variables where submitted as being equal.
If you have some code you can post that that show these three values taken from the QOTD material are equal and have the same meaning, please post it. I did have an example that used soundex but I have seen that function give a false positive in the past.
If you feel like posting more questions about what I am stating, please provide a code example.
Remember, it is up to you to provide code to back up what you are trying to say.
-
SanDroid (4/12/2011)
Lynn Pettis (4/12/2011)
SanDroid (4/12/2011)
Lynn Pettis (4/12/2011)
Bottom line, your stating your interpretation of the support information isn't enough. Support your position with code, hard data from the DMV's, output from t-logs (yes, there is a way to read the logs). Post the code and your results. Posting the code allows others to verify your results, to experiment with other alternatives.To paraphrase an old saying, "Code talks, BS walks."
You are correct. I should have provided something that proved what I was stating was correct.
I have no hard data from a DMV, but I think this is clear enough.
Declare @quote1 varchar(max),@quote2 varchar(max)
,@quote3 varchar(max)
SET @quote1 = 'Data affecting the version store' -- QOTD Answer;
SET @quote2 = '"Inserts" into the version store' -- QOTD Answer explination;
SET @quote3 = '“insert” into the Append-Only store' -- QOTD Answer refernece;
SELECT 'X' where @quote1 = @quote2
union
SELECT 'X' where @quote2 = @quote3
union
SELECT 'X' where @quote1 = @quote3;
I know that the above code will never return any value or result other than "(no column name)".
Other people told me it does, and others are telling me that this code does not execute.
I asked for this to be explained. It was not the first thing I asked, but it is where it ended up.
Please explain how your code supports your position. All I see is a union of 3 selects of a literal value based the comparison of two variables.
My position is that the three variables will never be equal to each other, but the QOTD answer is only correct if they do.
I await any explination as to why these three variables where submitted as being equal.
If you have some code you can post that that show these three values taken from the QOTD material are equal and have the same meaning, please post it. I did have an example that used soundex but I have seen that function give a false positive in the past.
If you feel like posting more questions about what I am stating, please provide a code example.
Remember, it is up to you to provide code to back up what you are trying to say.
You still haven't proven your point. I still see nothing in the code above that supports your position regarding the version store. I have also gone back through the QotD and all the posts and see nothing regarding this code.
Please explain how this supports your position regarding the version store. You assert that this code supports your position, now prove it.
-
Lynn Pettis (4/12/2011)
SanDroid (4/12/2011)
You are correct. I should have provided something that proved what I was stating was correct.I have no hard data from a DMV, but I think this is clear enough.
Declare @quote1 varchar(max),@quote2 varchar(max)
,@quote3 varchar(max)
SET @quote1 = 'Data affecting the version store' -- QOTD Answer;
SET @quote2 = '"Inserts" into the version store' -- QOTD Answer explination;
SET @quote3 = '“insert” into the Append-Only store' -- QOTD Answer refernece;
SELECT 'X' where @quote1 = @quote2
union
SELECT 'X' where @quote2 = @quote3
union
SELECT 'X' where @quote1 = @quote3;
You still haven't proven your point. I still see nothing in the code above that supports your position regarding the version store. I have also gone back through the QotD and all the posts and see nothing regarding this code.
Please explain how this supports your position regarding the version store. You assert that this code supports your position, now prove it.
Lynn,
I pointed out what I think SanDroid was trying to say in this post: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/FindPost1090218.aspx
I think this is one of those cases where the English language is imprecise and leaves too much up to the reader. The definition for affect is: "have an effect upon", so in the quote "data affecting the version store" the "data affecting" part can refer to the data changed in the actual database not the data inserted into the version store. (Since it is the data that is affecting the version store.) And that data is logged. Of course the data actually inserted into the version store affects the version store as well. So I technically I think both interpretations are correct.
Disclaimer: I am not an English major, so I could be wrong. (It has been known to happen. :-))
-
You still haven't proven your point. I still see nothing in the code above that supports your position regarding the version store. I have also gone back through the QotD and all the posts and see nothing regarding this code.
Please explain how this supports your position regarding the version store. You assert that this code supports your position, now prove it.
Lynn Pettis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is where you and several others are so completely confused.
I have no specific assertion about the version store.
My assertion is that the three quotes in the first code are differant and state differant things.
Instead of responding to that assertion you keep demanding that I provide code to prove some other thing that you have yet to quote, refute, or provide any code to define.
Sorry I do not have any code for that. :hehe:
-
SanDroid (4/12/2011)
You still haven't proven your point. I still see nothing in the code above that supports your position regarding the version store. I have also gone back through the QotD and all the posts and see nothing regarding this code.
Please explain how this supports your position regarding the version store. You assert that this code supports your position, now prove it.
Lynn Pettis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is where you and several others are so completely confused.
I have no specific assertion about the version store.
My assertion is that the three quotes in the first code are differant and state differant things.
Instead of responding to that assertion you keep demanding that I provide code to prove some other thing that you have yet to quote, refute, or provide any code to define.
Sorry I do not have any code for that. :hehe:
You are correct, I am confused. What do the different values of the variables have to do with the version store? Please explain how these are related because I don't see it.
-
UMG Developer (4/12/2011)
Lynn,I pointed out what I think SanDroid was trying to say in this post: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/FindPost1090218.aspx
I think this is one of those cases where the English language is imprecise and leaves too much up to the reader. The definition for affect is: "have an effect upon", so in the quote "data affecting the version store" the "data affecting" part can refer to the data changed in the actual database not the data inserted into the version store. (Since it is the data that is affecting the version store.) And that data is logged. Of course the data actually inserted into the version store affects the version store as well. So I technically I think both interpretations are correct.
Disclaimer: I am not an English major, so I could be wrong. (It has been known to happen. :-))
Thank you so much for that.
You think this would be clear to anyone that compared what was given with the provided reference. Especialy when the article referenced a specific type of version store and gave it a special name.
You are one of the few that get it.
The refference material and the statement made about it are different and use different words.
In my universe when you state your answer as A + B = a*b but your reference material and your work shows A + C = a*c then your answer is marked as incorrect.
-
I really thought this dilemma was answered. Are we beating a dead-horse now?
If not, what exactly is the debate at this point?
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events -
Lynn,
Sorry I put so many words in my last response.
Here is the important part again.
I have no specific assertion about the version store.
Do you have any other questions? :hehe:
-
CirquedeSQLeil (4/12/2011)
I really thought this dilemma was answered. Are we beating a dead-horse now?If not, what exactly is the debate at this point?
I agree with Jason, what is the debate at this point?
-
CirquedeSQLeil (4/12/2011)
I really thought this dilemma was answered. Are we beating a dead-horse now?If not, what exactly is the debate at this point?
At this point there is no point. And people talking past each other (instead of communicating) do not constitute a debate.
Tom
-
Tom.Thomson (4/12/2011)
CirquedeSQLeil (4/12/2011)
I really thought this dilemma was answered. Are we beating a dead-horse now?If not, what exactly is the debate at this point?
At this point there is no point. And people talking past each other (instead of communicating) do not constitute a debate.
Tom,
Could not agree more. Not posting anything any more.
At first it was amusing, but this has become sad and is obviously distracting others.
Lynn,
as I stated in my first (private) message to you today please send me any real questions you may have in a private message.
-
SanDroid (4/12/2011)
Tom.Thomson (4/12/2011)
CirquedeSQLeil (4/12/2011)
I really thought this dilemma was answered. Are we beating a dead-horse now?If not, what exactly is the debate at this point?
At this point there is no point. And people talking past each other (instead of communicating) do not constitute a debate.
Tom,
Could not agree more. Not posting anything any more.
At first it was amusing, but this has become sad and is obviously distracting others.
Lynn,
as I stated in my first (private) message to you today please send me any real questions you may have in a private message.
Couldn't agree more with Tom, Jason, et al. We are beating a dead horse and you won't defend and support your position in a manner that makes sense (yes, I'm still cofused as to your position).
Also, if this not worth debating in a public forum, I am certainly NOT going to debate it privately.
Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 89 (of 89 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply