Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
Incredibly enough, this "tool" yields grater speeds on SS 2000!
Tested on 16632 rows on one database it yielded a 7 sec increase in speed (from 9 to 2 sec),
and on...
March 3, 2008 at 10:07 am
Well that was quick testing, if I ever saw one.
And Chris, you'r hunch was on the dot - it works perfectly, just pasted into Management Studio 🙂
So no more trouble...
March 3, 2008 at 8:57 am
Hm..an interesting suggestion, to say the least! Now why didn't I think of that 🙂
Looking at the query you presented, I think it will work first time round, but I'll...
March 3, 2008 at 8:31 am
So did anyone have time to look at the execution plans?
March 3, 2008 at 4:40 am
I updated the previous post....the plans are there
February 29, 2008 at 4:37 am
I totaly agree Gail... since the query was written from inside out, so to speak, it'a a leftover from the test phase....it's been rectified in production...but I saved the test...
February 29, 2008 at 4:09 am
Ofcourse not Kenneth....but since the table names are in Serbian, I don't know if I should translate them to english?
Well here goes...if you need them translated for clarity, I will...
February 29, 2008 at 1:54 am
I forgot to mention that tables that are used in the query were not ported from 2000 but created from a DDL script, and all indexes, keys, constraints also, so...
February 28, 2008 at 7:15 am
You should probably try and get your results per conta in a derived table
select GEST, CTB
from
(
select
GEST=sum(fo.eivain),
...
February 28, 2008 at 1:57 am
Well the problem is you put an aggregate function into a query as well as a column name, but when you do this (for example SUM(col)) you need to tell...
February 28, 2008 at 1:35 am
He could use VARCHAR instead of char....that way it doesn't matter what value he puts, as long as it is >= 8
February 28, 2008 at 1:30 am
Ok, thanks guys...this is not the first derived table query that I've had this problem with. But, I'll keep trying and implement some of that "armtwisting" on it.
Thanks again to...
February 28, 2008 at 1:23 am
Both SQL 2000 and 2005 are installed on the same server machine.
The databases that I tested the query on have the same tables (same structure, indexes etc.), with different amounts...
February 27, 2008 at 7:53 am
Hm...we solved that problem by introducing a UDF which returns a table of values, parsing the string of statuses with commas as delimiters, for example.
So you could pass a varchar,...
February 27, 2008 at 7:06 am
Thanks for your qick response.
Well, query plans do differ....and the one that uses INNER joins even uses temp tables to "optimize rewinds" ?! And there is a significant difference in...
February 27, 2008 at 3:29 am
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)