I have a table with 23 columns. 8 columns are not always filled by users and so valued to default. Would this affect the overall performance of querying this table? Should I separate those 8 columns and link with a one-to-one relation?
Thanks
I have a table "PageInfo" wich has columns "PageID, Title(has "AboutUs" as one of the values), DateModified, Active". My other table is "AboutUs" and has columns "ID, WhatsNew, Welcome, Active".
My goal here is that if table "AboutUs" is affected as an "INSERT" or an "UPDATE" on any row, I want "PageInfo.DateModified" WHERE "PageInfo.Title = AboutUs" to be updated with "getDate()". Don't know if I'm clear enough but thanks in advance.
Gazzou
I have the following code:
Code Snippet
INSERT INTO [CICC].[dbo].[972createtest]
SELECT
Always81,
AccountNumber,
CAST(SUBSTRING(DateOfPayment,5,2) + SUBSTRING(DateOfPayment,1,2) + SUBSTRING(DateOfPayment,3,2) as datetime), CAST(TotalPmtAmt AS decimal(9,2))/100,
Collector,
PmtCode,
CAST(AmtPdToAgency AS decimal(9,2))/100,
CAST(AmtPdToClient AS decimal(9,2))/100
FROM [CICC].[dbo].[972create]
I'm trying to insert data into the table called 972createtest. It has the following columns and datatypes:
[Always81] [smallint] NULL,
[AccountNumber] [nvarchar](8) NULL,
[DateOfPayment] [nvarchar](6) NULL,
[TotalPmtAmt] [decimal](11, 2) NULL,
[Collector] [nvarchar](3) NULL,
[PmtCode] [smallint] NULL,
[AmtPdToAgency] [decimal](11, 2) NULL,
[AmtPdToClient] [decimal](11, 2) NULL
And here's a sample of the data stored in those columns:
81 01068713 092107 40.00 NJW 31 4000.00 0.00
81 01068713 111207 2000.00 NJW 31 2000.00 0.00
81 01068784 110806 10000.00 KSD 31 10000.00 0.00
81 01068784 121506 10000.00 KSD 31 10000.00 0.00
81 01068784 030507 10000.00 KSD 31 10000.00 0.00
81 01068784 033007 14100.00 KSD 31 14100.00 0.00
81 01068784 051807 7400.00 KSD 34 7400.00 0.00
Everytime I try to run the code, I get a message telling me "0 row(s) affected". What stupid thing am I doing wrong?
I am trying to use SQL Express to support unit testing of functionality which requires database access.
I created an express database (.mdf) which contains a database snapshot which is the database environment that each test expects to see when it starts. Through the execution of the test the database will be modified arbitrarily and I need to reset the database to the original state before the next test executes.
Here's what I do today:
Before Test:
The original database is copied to a unique location in the temp directory
A unique database name is generated (GUID-based)
I connect to the new database file with:
Server=.SQLEXPRESS;AttachDbFilename="PathToTempFile";Database="GuidDBName";Initial Catalog="GuidDBName";Trusted_Connection=Yes;User Instance=true
During the test all database access is routed to the temporary database GuidDBName
After Test:
Close all active database connections and clear the connection pool
Connect to the master database and detach the database:
Server=.SQLEXPRESS;Database=master;Initial Catalog=master;Trusted_Connection=Yes;User Instance=true - sp_detach_db 'GuidDBName'
Delete the temporary file
When I do this, everything seems to work correctly but when I re-open the original database it has changed unexpectedly and includes the modifications that were made by the test as it ran.
Can anyone explain why this is happening and/or provide a solution?
Is there a way to copy the structure from one database to anotherwithout affecting the actual data?For example, I added new fields and stored procedures to a db in mydevelopment environment. There are a lot of them.I now want to make the same changes to my production environment db butdon't want to affect the data. Only the fields, stored procs &constraints and stuff pertaining to the structure of the db should bechanged.Does anyone know of a program that can do this or can this be done inMS SQL Enterprise Manager.Any help would be appreciated.7078895
View 2 Replies View RelatedHi,
I would like to know how to add SELECT row to a table variable. It's not for my SELECT syntax(code following is just an ugly example) that I want help it's for the use of table variable.
Your help will greatly appreciate!!!
ex :
DECLARE @MyTestVar table (
idTest int NOT NULL,
anotherColumn int NOT NULL)
SET @MyTestVar = (SELECT idTest, anotherColumn FROM tTest)-- This cause an error :-- Must declare the variable '@MyTestVar'. ???? What?
We are approaching the "go live" date of a big application upgrade, so while the application is being upgraded i was asked to lock out all users and backup all databases and make sure the data isnt changed during a period of time
It turns out, as one of my databases is being replicated to another server, i cant put that database in read_only mode, or restricted_mode, without removing the replication.
Removing the replication means i have to set it up again and that means another 3 hours added to an already cram-packed weekend without sleep!
How I can lock out the users to make sure there are no changes to a database other then read_only/restricted_mode/single_user ?
I really don't want to touch that replication...
Hi,
I need to estimate the effort required in writing some SSIS packages.
Could anyone provide some pointers to the various factors (E.g. number of tables, source, etc.) which influence the effort estimate for SSIS packages?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
B@ns
I've a variable in my SP that I'd like to use to change the format of my output. Try this!
select case when 1=2 then cast(1 as decimal(10,2)) else cast(2 as decimal(10,0)) end
Then this:
select case when 1=1 then cast(1 as decimal(10,2)) else cast(2 as decimal(10,0)) end
Why in either case, the output is returned as n.nn ? Whilst single select expressions (like these):
select cast(1 as decimal(10,2)) -- = 1.00
select cast(2 as decimal(10,0)) -- = 2
Work fine.
In my SELECT query I have: MIN(a.orderdue) AS 'Oldest order date'
This works in that it brings through the oldest order date, however it brings through a date format like: 2015-06-11 11:30.000
So I amended the SELECT query to:
MIN (CONVERT(varchar(17),a.orderdue,103)) AS 'Oldest order date'
This brings the date through as 11/06/2015, which is preferable.
But I have noticed that doing this has affected the output: the MIN function no longer returns the first (oldest) date, but a completely different value.
Obviously my changing the formatting for the date has affected the MIN output. Is there any way I can amend the formatting of the date without this happening?
Hi all,
Got a good question to ask. At the moment, I do not have any control over the reporting server webserver. This is due to the company's policy. The webhosting is controled by antoher department.
Anyways, the question is the following:- Is there a way to customize the config file for the htmlviewer (css style sheet, rendering and others) for a specific client without affecting the rest ?
There are about 20 clients on a server, and I am responsible for one of them. I had customized my config file to render or allow only two formats for this particular client. Since I don't have any control over the websever, I just can't replace the config file without affecting the others. How do i do this ? I just want th config file to ONLY affect a certain client's HTMLViewer and not the others. I tried to do some research on this, but came up empty handed.
Thanks !
Bernard
Our database creates proposals, work orders, and purchase orders. Each of those systems pulls from the same price list. I need to be able to adjust pricing for products without affecting the proposals, work orders, and purchase orders. Does anybody know how to steer me in this direction?
Email: jason73178@hotmail.com
1. Use mssql server agent service to take the schedule
2. Use a .NET windows service with timers to call SqlClientConnection
above, which way would be faster and get a better performance?
Hello Everyone,I have a very complex performance issue with our production database.Here's the scenario. We have a production webserver server and adevelopment web server. Both are running SQL Server 2000.I encounted various performance issues with the production server with aparticular query. It would take approximately 22 seconds to return 100rows, thats about 0.22 seconds per row. Note: I ran the query in singleuser mode. So I tested the query on the Development server by taking abackup (.dmp) of the database and moving it onto the dev server. I ranthe same query and found that it ran in less than a second.I took a look at the query execution plan and I found that they we'rethe exact same in both cases.Then I took a look at the various index's, and again I found nodifferences in the table indices.If both databases are identical, I'm assumeing that the issue is relatedto some external hardware issue like: disk space, memory etc. Or couldit be OS software related issues, like service packs, SQL Serverconfiguations etc.Here's what I've done to rule out some obvious hardware issues on theprod server:1. Moved all extraneous files to a secondary harddrive to free up spaceon the primary harddrive. There is 55gb's of free space on the disk.2. Applied SQL Server SP4 service packs3. Defragmented the primary harddrive4. Applied all Windows Server 2003 updatesHere is the prod servers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.67GHZTotal Physical Memory 2GB, Available Physical Memory 815MBWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1Here is the dev serers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.80GHz2GB DDR2-SDRAMWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1I'm not sure what else to do, the query performance is an order ofmagnitude difference and I can't explain it. To me its is a hardware oroperating system related issue.Any Ideas would help me greatly!Thanks,Brian T*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
View 2 Replies View RelatedHello Everyone,I have a very complex performance issue with our production database.Here's the scenario. We have a production webserver server and adevelopment web server. Both are running SQL Server 2000.I encounted various performance issues with the production server witha particular query. It would take approximately 22 seconds to return100 rows, thats about 0.22 seconds per row. Note: I ran the query insingle user mode. So I tested the query on the Development server bytaking a backup (.dmp) of the database and moving it onto the devserver. I ran the same query and found that it ran in less than asecond.I took a look at the query execution plan and I found that they we'rethe exact same in both cases.Then I took a look at the various index's, and again I found nodifferences in the table indices.If both databases are identical, I'm assumeing that the issue isrelated to some external hardware issue like: disk space, memory etc.Or could it be OS software related issues, like service packs, SQLServer configuations etc.Here's what I've done to rule out some obvious hardware issues on theprod server:1. Moved all extraneous files to a secondary harddrive to free up spaceon the primary harddrive. There is 55gb's of free space on the disk.2. Applied SQL Server SP4 service packs3. Defragmented the primary harddrive4. Applied all Windows Server 2003 updatesHere is the prod servers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.67GHZTotal Physical Memory 2GB, Available Physical Memory 815MBWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1Here is the dev serers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.80GHz2GB DDR2-SDRAMWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1I'm not sure what else to do, the query performance is an order ofmagnitude difference and I can't explain it. To me its is a hardware oroperating systemrelated issue.Any Ideas would help me greatly!Thanks,Brian T
View 2 Replies View RelatedWe have the same application installed on a few different environments with similar servers and similar hardward. The only difference is the versions of SQL and the colations.
Is SQL 2005 a lot faster that SQL 2000? Could colation type make a big effect on performance?
ScAndal
HiI want to insert 1000s of records into SQL Server 2005 Database with some manipulation. So that i put into the For Loop and inserting record.Inside the loop i am opening the connection and closing after use. The sample code is belowfor(int i=0;i<1000;i++){ sqlCmd.CommandText = "ProcName"; sqlCmd.Connection = sqlCon; sqlCmd.Connection.Open(): sqlCmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); sqlCmd.Connection.Close(); } What my Question is.. How is the Performance of this Code..?? Will is take time to get the Connection and Close the Connection in every itration?Or Shall I Open the Connection in Begining of the outside loop and close the connection at end of the Loop? will it increase the Performace?Please clarify me these question.. Thanks in advance.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have a following problem with SQL performance:
this line 'select * from [viewUserLatestFee]' executes instantly (in Query Analiser)
this line 'select * from [viewUserLatestFee] where orgID = 1' takes up to 30 seconds for 1000 rows (still in Query analiser)
can anyone please help - I seem to have ran out of ideas
I have a feeling people might be curious about the view so here it is:
SELECT dbo.viewUserPosition.id, dbo.viewUserPosition.username, dbo.viewUserPosition.password, dbo.viewUserPosition.title,
dbo.viewUserPosition.firstName, dbo.viewUserPosition.lastName, dbo.viewUserPosition.email, dbo.viewUserPosition.address1,
dbo.viewUserPosition.address2, dbo.viewUserPosition.suburb, dbo.viewUserPosition.postcode, dbo.viewUserPosition.country,
dbo.viewUserPosition.state, dbo.viewUserPosition.mailAddress1, dbo.viewUserPosition.mailAddress2, dbo.viewUserPosition.mailSuburb,
dbo.viewUserPosition.mailPostcode, dbo.viewUserPosition.mailCountry, dbo.viewUserPosition.mailState, dbo.viewUserPosition.birthDate,
dbo.viewUserPosition.joinDate, dbo.viewUserPosition.lastUpdated, dbo.viewUserPosition.orgID, dbo.viewUserPosition.positionID,
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.feeID, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.mshipID, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.name, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.[desc],
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.terms, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.period, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.periodType, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.fee,
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.startDate, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.endDate, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.deleted, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.feePaidID,
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.paidDate, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.effectiveDate, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.approved, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.optionID,
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.paidAmount, dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.feePaidEndDate
FROM dbo.viewUserPosition LEFT OUTER JOIN
dbo.viewLatestPaidFee ON dbo.viewUserPosition.id = dbo.viewLatestPaidFee.userID
Here is viewUserPosition:
SELECT dbo.tblUser.id, dbo.tblUser.username, dbo.tblUser.password, dbo.tblUser.title, dbo.tblUser.firstName, dbo.tblUser.lastName, dbo.tblUser.email,
dbo.tblUser.address1, dbo.tblUser.address2, dbo.tblUser.suburb, dbo.tblUser.postcode, dbo.tblUser.country, dbo.tblUser.state,
dbo.tblUser.mailAddress1, dbo.tblUser.mailAddress2, dbo.tblUser.mailSuburb, dbo.tblUser.mailPostcode, dbo.tblUser.mailCountry,
dbo.tblUser.mailState, dbo.tblUser.birthDate, dbo.tblUser.joinDate, dbo.tblUser.lastUpdated, dbo.tblRelPosition.orgID,
dbo.tblRelPosition.positionID
FROM dbo.tblUser INNER JOIN
dbo.tblRelPosition ON dbo.tblUser.id = dbo.tblRelPosition.userID
and viewLatestPaidFee:
SELECT dbo.tblMshipFee.id AS feeID, dbo.tblMshipFee.mshipID, dbo.tblMshipFee.name, dbo.tblMshipFee.[desc], dbo.tblMshipFee.terms,
dbo.tblMshipFee.period, dbo.tblMshipFee.periodType, dbo.tblMshipFee.fee, dbo.tblMshipFee.startDate, dbo.tblMshipFee.endDate,
dbo.tblMshipFee.deleted, fp.id AS feePaidID, fp.paidDate, fp.effectiveDate, fp.approved, fp.optionID, fp.paidAmount, fp.endDate AS feePaidEndDate,
fp.userID
FROM dbo.tblRelMshipFeePaid fp INNER JOIN
dbo.tblMshipFee ON dbo.tblMshipFee.id = fp.feeID AND fp.endDate =
(SELECT MAX(fp2.[endDate])
FROM [dbo].[tblRelMshipFeePaid] fp2
WHERE fp2.[userID] = fp.[userID])
We used a stored proc to pull totals from a database. Everything was fine until the table grew and started to time out. So we created a temp table to populate with a range of data and then pull the totals from there. Everything was fine until the table grew and started to time out. Any suggestion?
View 3 Replies View RelatedHi,
I am newly joined as SQL DBA. I want to check the Physical disk Performance. we have RAID 5 with 5+1 disks. I calculated NO Of IO's Per Disk. But how do we know what is actual limit of IO's per disk.
Thanks
Praveen
What's my best bet in getting better performance out of one of my database servers? Currently we have 1 set of Raid5 disks partitioned into 2 drives. This houses everything (system, database, and logs) If that server has 2 slots left for drives I was thinking of putting 2 mirrored drives and getting the logs off the main database space? (Make sense?) This is a vendored application so working with new indexes etc. isn't something I should do wo/ the vendor's interaction. Will what I describe above help?
Thanks
hi,
i am using to move data from oracle to oracle.
i have used stored procedure in oracle for the update/insert .
the dts calls the stored procedure for each record, due to this the performance has gone down. how do i increase the speed of data xfer.
has any one done any thing similar ?
Tushar
We have SQL Server running on a dual processor Pentium 500mhz server. Our database is hit by about 300 users. 200 of those users are doing constant searches though a client table of about 250,000 records, which in turn is linked to a history table containing over 5,000,000 records. This is only the tip of the iceberg, we have many triggers, procedures, updates, etc. going in the background. The database has over 500 tables.
Keep in mind, these searches that are taking place can involve all kinds of fields: phone number, company name, fax number, first name, last name, status, wildcard searches, etc. So as you can imagine, the database is being hit with all kinds of funky requests to find records. I will be the first to admit that our developers (vendor) are not the best code writers, and we have a tough time getting them to optimize something they do not even understand themselves.
As I speak, our processor utilization is maxing out between 95 to 100 percent. I've done a lot of performance tuning and all of the problems lie in the searching. We've built, tested, rebuilt, re-tested each and every index. I even used the Profiler to filter what I could. It has improved, but our database is growing at a rate of 10 megs a day (already close to 3 gigs, not that huge). I think I've optimized my indexes as best as I can considering all the fields and possibilities available to users to search for records.
For a database that requires all of these different search criteria, what would be a more optimal server? We are looking to purchase something ASAP. I could really use help from someone in a similar situation. It seems odd, in mind, that a company of 300 people would need to rely on a quad server (four processor capability.).
Thanks. JT
HI
I have 700 to 900 mb of production database , 2 gb of ram , 30 gb hard disk,
My production machine is runnng very slow , i have check everything memory,
page/sec, catch hit ratin , dbcc dbreindex but still it performance is not up to the mark.
If i stop SQL SERVER & restart for few days machine works fine but after that
again same thing it work very slow, what could be the reason
if any one had any solution please suggest.
Thanks
Nil
Hi friends,
My company has aution web site, it is written in Java and all sql statements generated dynamically. No stored procedures used. If 30 users uses this site it is OK but if around 300 users uses then the site becomes very slow(almost dead) and developers saying that database is the bottle neck. Please help me in this problem how can I check and overcome this problem.
Thanks
dindu
I am running a SQL 7.0 server on a two processor machine. We are having some performance issues.
one of the processor is always above 90% utilization but the second is barely at 50%.
Will adding another processor help or are the processes locked to one processor.
The server is a dedicated sql server. nothing else is running on it.
Thanks for any info you can provide.
Pierre
Hi,
What I have to do to determine which is the capacity (transactions / sec) of MS SQL Server 7.0 on a specific hardware configuration?
Thank you,
Sebastian Bologescu
We have recently upgraded to SQL 7.0 on NT 4.0/sp6 box which has got 4 PIII 700 processors, 1GB RAM, and 70GB HDD on RAID 1 and RAID 5. We feel that the application performance is not great as expected in SS7. (The application was running in 6.5 smoothly and performance was good)
Is there any option needs to set to improve performance? Now, SS 7 using all the 4 processors and dynamically allocated memory, etc. Any thoughts greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance
Jaya
I'm running MS SQL Server on a 1.4 GHz AMD Athlon Processor with 750 MB or RAM and ample disk space. I have a table with 14 columns; 2 datetime, 8 int and the rest are varchar of various sizes less than 13.
I run a java process on another machine that connects to the database and insert records. It takes about 6 minutes to insert 100,000 records.
I run the xp performance monitor and only about 25% of the SQL Server machine's cpu is being used. I run top on the Linux box running java and I see about the same results. Neither machine is kept busy processing. Why don't I get better performance? Could my local area network be that slow? How many inserts per minutes is good performance?
Thanks for your input.
Does anyone know the performance differences between returning data from SQL Server as XML vs. as a record set? We are about to dive into the For XML world full force, but we wanted to make sure that we are not heading for a performance nightmare.
Thanks for any insight on this. I'll try to look for white papers and do some testing in the meantime.
I ave the following Code in my Stored procedure.
Declare Cursor for table A
WHILE @@FETCH_STATUS = 0
Get values from other function based on some business logic.
INSERT Into another table B
(or)
UPDATE to another table B
END
I have to insert/update values to table B, one by one row. So, it is taking more time.
Is there any way to collect the values into a temporary storage and Insert/update or Move the values to table B.
1. where do we see the buffer cache hit ratio. can we set the buffer catche hit ratio manually.
2.In query execution plan we execute the query for performance issue.which parameters we check to take an action?
I have a small doubt. If we keep our data files and log files on sepertate disks how this can improve the database performance.
View 2 Replies View Related