Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
I disabled "auto-close" but it makes no difference.
The GUI is still reacting very slow as are any other connections to the DB.
Any further help will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
January 14, 2004 at 6:46 am
My CPU Usage is on average at 20%. System Idle Process: 97 then : iexplore, OUTLOOK.exe ... The rest seem fine.
The auto-close db option is set to ON.
January 13, 2004 at 1:29 pm
I have already checked. SQL Server takes up the most memory with 21mb. After that it's just the normal iexplore (18mb) and explorer (15mb).
No other processes seem to be causing...
January 13, 2004 at 12:42 pm
Thanks for all your input.
We did a rebuild of all the indexes and the queries seem to be running a bit faster.
I have a feeling that there might be some...
April 22, 2003 at 2:39 am
To answer your question, Jeremy, a backup from SQL 6.5 cannot be restored in SQL 2000.
That's why we had to script the database.
Thanks Hirenk, I'll try your suggestion. Do you...
April 17, 2003 at 9:20 am
Hi Steve
The use of DISTINCT won't work since
the record where
Accounts.Acc_Type = 'ALL' might be matched before Customers.Acc_Type = Accounts.Type is matched and then the 'ALL' will be displayed due...
November 12, 2002 at 1:00 am
Matthew, I cannot change the clustered index to another column as the line_id column is the only true incremental column in this table. I am not familiar with the use...
November 4, 2002 at 2:57 am
No, Matthew, you actually did understand the requirements correctly. It was my test data that was not complete, that's why GBN's solution worked at the time. I replaced it with...
November 4, 2002 at 1:38 am
The execution plan indicates that 86% of the processing is on the "Clustered Index Scan" on both TableA and TableB. That being the LINE_ID columns on both.
Should I change the...
November 1, 2002 at 5:39 am
Nope, does not work. I put indexes on all the columns used in the join and the query still executes for 7 min.
J
November 1, 2002 at 3:07 am
Great stuff.
Both the solutions that DavidBurrows and GBN gave work well. The performance is a bit better on GBN's solution though. Must be the fact that there is only one...
November 1, 2002 at 2:13 am
Well, looks like there is no shorter way of doing this. Thanks for the input, Matthew.
J
October 30, 2002 at 2:22 pm
Thanks NPeeters, you are absolutely correct about the use of the ISNULL. I created this sample SQL in quite a hurry. But anyway this not part of my real problem...
October 30, 2002 at 6:30 am
Thanks for the help. I am still hacking away at the problem.
October 29, 2002 at 4:34 am
Thanks, but that will not work. It will still give me two results. What I wan't to happen is a test for the first condition and if the condition is...
October 25, 2002 at 9:22 am
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)