Viewing 15 posts - 5,686 through 5,700 (of 5,842 total)
Personally I think the worst thing from a performance standpoint is if you routinely add columns to existing table it will fragment the hell out of your storage of said...
June 26, 2007 at 8:12 am
Please also post execution parameters that cause 1000cpu and others that make it jump to 5000. It could well be parameter sniffing and one or more situations cause it to...
June 26, 2007 at 7:50 am
1) I am at a loss to make a comment on the overall architecture here!! Good luck with it . . . 🙂
2) As for XML being overhead in a...
June 26, 2007 at 7:48 am
Take a look at COALESCE in BOL. You may be able to use it in the WHERE clause (and other places as well) to get exactly the results you desire.
June 20, 2007 at 8:39 am
1) Get (MUCH) bigger hardware.
or
2) Use the query governor cost limit to prevent 'runaway' queries from executing. In conjunction with this you may run a profiler to trap said calls...
June 20, 2007 at 8:03 am
The root cause of poor performance of the while-loop-no-tran solution is log flushes. REALLY BAD from a performance standpoint. Adding in explicit trans holds off on the flush until complete...
June 20, 2007 at 7:58 am
David Reed: I had looked into the MCA and decided not to pursue it due to cost and the month+ onsite at Redmond. I was hoping that SQL Ranger was...
June 20, 2007 at 7:51 am
Hey, how can I get to be one of those SQL Ranger type dudes?!?!
June 19, 2007 at 5:23 pm
1) When you want help tuning a query, ESPECIALLY a complex one such as this, you simply MUST include table definitions (to include indexes and keys, etc) and table data...
June 19, 2007 at 9:16 am
If I were the OPer, I would look for what has changed. If something worked and now it doesn't, SOMETHING has been altered somewhere, somehow.
I would check name resolution stuff...
June 18, 2007 at 9:21 am
Isn't Enterprise Edition 5 times as expensive as Standard?? That could be one reason for not upgrading! 🙂
I actually don't know the answer to the 4CPU or 4Core question. I...
June 18, 2007 at 7:08 am
I thought that table variables, while created as an object in tempdb like a temp table, contain all their data in memory given that sufficient memory exists - at which time...
June 15, 2007 at 1:26 pm
1) All but one of the numerous situations I have tested using hyperthreaded CPUs on SQL Server boxes resulted in OFF being faster - often significantly so. The remaining situation...
June 15, 2007 at 10:50 am
That's a bit too broad of a generalization, Irfan. Table variables come with significant limitations that make them less performant than temp tables (when they are both used optimally). Also,...
June 15, 2007 at 7:28 am
The actual overhead of the variables is essentially negligible, even for hundreds of them I would bet. They are RAM and CPU constructs, and thus operate in the micro- and...
June 15, 2007 at 7:21 am
Viewing 15 posts - 5,686 through 5,700 (of 5,842 total)