Query Performance On Paritioned Views With Check Constraints

Mar 21, 2007

Hi,

I have come across this problem with SQL server both on 2000 and 2005. I am stating an example here.

I have two partitioned tables and a view on top of both tables as below:
create table [dbo].[Table_1]
(
[TableID] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED
CHECK NOT FOR REPLICATION ([TableID] BETWEEN 1 AND 999),
[AnyOtherColumn] int NOT NULL ,
) ON [Primary]
GO

create table [dbo].[Table_2]
(
[TableID] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED
CHECK NOT FOR REPLICATION ([TableID] BETWEEN 1000 AND 1999),
[AnyOtherColumn] int NOT NULL ,
) ON [Primary]
GO
create view TableView
as
select * from Table_1
union all
select * from Table_2
GO

Note the NOT FOR REPLICATION clause on the check constraint on the TableID column.

I then ran the query execution plan for the following query on both SQL server 2000 and 2005.
select * from TableView where TableID = 10

On both the versions the execution plan shows and Index seek on both the tables in the view. This means that my partitioning is not working. If I remove the primary key constraint from the TableID column, the same query on the view shows a table scan on all the underlying tables. This is even worse.

Next, create the same tables and views again, now without the NOT FOR REPLICATION clause on the check constraint as show below:
create table [dbo].[Table_1]
(
[TableID] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED
CHECK ([TableID] BETWEEN 1 AND 999),
[AnyOtherColumn] int NOT NULL ,
) ON [Primary]
GO

create table [dbo].[Table_2]
(
[TableID] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED
CHECK ([TableID] BETWEEN 1000 AND 1999),
[AnyOtherColumn] int NOT NULL ,
) ON [Primary]
GO

create view TableView
as
select * from Table_1
union all
select * from Table_2
GO



Now run the query execution plan for the same query again.




select * from TableView where TableID = 10

This time you would see that it does an index scan only on the first parititon table. This time it proves that the partitioning works.

I would like to know why does the NOT FOR REPLICATION clause in the check constraint make such a huge difference?

Is it a bug in SQL server?

Or am I missing any thing?

Any help appreciated.

Thanks

View 2 Replies


ADVERTISEMENT

Do Views Slow Down Query Performance?

Oct 22, 2004

When working with databases containing myriad of huge tables, I am very much tempted to create categorized views on those tables in order to simplify and facilitate data query programming? Some developers I talk to say such views generally slow down query performance. Is this true?
Thanks.

View 1 Replies View Related

Joining Views && Query Performance

May 1, 2006

Over the years I've read and experienced where joining more then 5 tables can lead to performance problems. This number can vary based upon the amount of data in each table, if and how indexes are used and the complexity of the query, but 5 has always been a good rule of thumb. Unfortunately I do not know what rule to apply in regards to joing views.

A developer has experienced timeout problems periodically when opening a view in EM or when running the code which makes-up the view. I decided to look at the view and noticed it references tables and views, which reference more views, which in turn reference other views. In all the initial view references 5 tables and 8 views directly and indirectly, with some of the views containing function calls. What are your thoughts on how many views and tables are too many when it comes to joins and query performance.

Thanks, Dave

View 6 Replies View Related

UNION VIEWS And CONSTRAINTS

Aug 29, 2007

I have a union view that unions 36 tables which have a date constraint set on the datetime field, the data for which is is same for all records within the respective tables. The purpose of this is to allow users to go straight to the month that they require. This works fine with raw sql queries using hardcoded dates , the query plan shows that only the required tables are accessed. However, if i create a lookup table (this is for business objects), join the union view date field to date field and use a between criteria, it ignores the constraint and scans all 36 tables in the view. Changing the between to = shows that the constaint is used. Does anyone have any ideas here , i seem to have tried everything

Mark

View 4 Replies View Related

Check Constraints

Dec 1, 2000

How do i create a check constraints on column a so it dose not accept $ character? syntax pls.

Thanks

View 2 Replies View Related

Check Constraints?

May 4, 2002

Hi,
I am developing a database for my company in SQL server 2000 and I have some
few problems.
Firstly.

I have a customers table and orders table in my DB:

Customers Orders
--------- ------
CustID (primary key) ----------------< CustID
. ^ ProductID
. | Quantity
. | .
. | .
etc. | etc.
|
relationship
(one to many)

What I want to do is:
1) to be able to delete a Customer and automaticaly SQL server delete all the
orders that this customer done from the Orders table.
2) If for some reason the CustomerID changes, SQL should be able to
automaticaly update the necessary fields with the new values in the Orders
table.
Finally, 3) I want to be able to insert a new customer that has an order
and update both the Customers table and Orders table automaticaly. e.g

CustID Name Address ProductID Quantity etc.
------ ---- ------- --------- -------- ----
10-003 John London 33-25 2 ...

Such a kind of insert should add automaticaly the following entries in the
two tables:

Customers Orders
--------- ------
CustID (10-003) CustID (10-003)
Name (John) ProductID (33-25)
Address(London) Quantity (2)
. .
. .
etc. etc.

A friend of mine told me that this can be done using Foreign Check constraints
in SQL server. But I do not know what to do.

Can anybody help me please?

Thank you very much.

Efthymios Kalyviotis
ekalyviotis@comerclub.gr

View 2 Replies View Related

Check Constraints

May 20, 2002

I have a question regarding the use of check constraints. I see how to set it up to make sure a value entered is one of a list using this syntax:

([eft_vc] = 'No' or [eft_vc] = 'Yes')

However, rather than have to hard code the allowable values, I'd like to have them read off another table. The logic would be as follows:

([eft_vc] in (select * from eft_t))

When I try to put this in, I get a message saying that constraints do not support subqueries. Does anyone know of a way around this?

thank you,
Darell

View 1 Replies View Related

Check Constraints??

Jul 4, 2004

Can someone help me with this check constraint. I'm trying to get it runned on MS SQL Server but it seems the syntax isn't correct

check((Derived_Val=0) or ((select count(*) from Stage_One where Task=U_Id and Quantity is null)=0))

Thanx

j2dizzo

View 4 Replies View Related

Check Constraints

Apr 7, 2005

I am Trying to add a check constraint that if the paymenttotal is 0 the column is allowed to have null and if its greater then 0 it is not allow to have null. Here is what I have so far but i get some syntax errors, See if you can see what im doing wrong and how to get this to be valid. Thanks
heres what I got so far


Code:

ALTER TABLE Invoices WITH CHECK
PaymentDate SMALLDATETIME NULL,
CHECK (PaymentTotal = 0)
PaymentDate SMALLDATETIME NOT NULL,
CHECK (PaymentTotal > 0)



I also had this before i changed it to that and I got syntax erros as well but i dunno which is closer.


Code:

ALTER TABLE Invoices [WITH CHECK]
ADD CHECK (PaymentTotal = 0), PaymentDate SMALLDATETIME NULL,
ADD CHECK (PaymentTotal > 0), PaymentDate SMALLDATETIME NOT NULL

View 1 Replies View Related

Check Constraints

Mar 2, 2006

Can someone give me some good examples of check constraints that I can apply to my fields.

For example can I apply a constraint on a name field, at the moment I use one for the date but would like to know many more.

So if anyone has any useful check constraints handy then please tell.

Thanks
Liz

View 4 Replies View Related

Check Constraints

Apr 11, 2007

Hi
I have a field as Releving date in which i enter employee releving date

If i enter date as 11/04/2007.
From that date employee status in master table should be inactive
So that their is no chance for employee to login

for this i don't want to call any procedure or any db object

how can i do this in back end

should i write check constraint(iam not sure of it)

Give solution to this query

Malathi Rao

View 2 Replies View Related

Check Constraints

Apr 30, 2007

What is the best way to establish constraints between two columns in a table

For example (ID1, Date is the primary Key, ID2 can be null sometimes)

ID1EffDateExpDateID2ID2_Location

11/1/200712/31/9999122ABC
21/1/200703/31/2007124XYZ
24/1/200712/31/9999124XYZ1
31/1/200712/31/9999<Null><Null>

I would like to establish a constraint that extablishes one to one relation between ID1 and ID2. Meaning in the above example ID2 =122 should not be assingned to any ID1 other than 1.
(For example, I should not be able to insert another row like
ID1EffDateExpDateID2ID2_Location
41/1/200712/31/9999122ABC)


Beacause this table is maintained in a manual way, sometimes the ID2 which has already been assigned an ID1 is being assigned to another ID1.

What kind of constraint or rule will avoid this scenerio.


Thanks
Raj

View 1 Replies View Related

Check Constraints

Nov 28, 2007

Hello all, here is my problem.

I have an Account table as well as a Bank table. The bank table has a total assets field. There is a foreign key in Account referencing Bank.

What I need is a check constraint that verifies that the total sum of the account balances for a particular bank is less than that banks total assets.

I've been thinking about this one for a while but it's just confusing me. How do I create the expression in the constraint for this? Currently I am using SQL Server Management Studio Express so I'm creating this constraint with the gui.

Any help is appreciated. Thanks!

View 4 Replies View Related

Check / Unique Constraints

Apr 18, 2001

Hello, I want to write a unique constraint that applies to more than one column. What I mean is that the uniqueness should be that if column A is 5 and column B is 3 no other row where A and B has those values can exist.

Do I write this as a check constraint ? Or how do I do it ?

Also, is there anyone who knows some good reading on how to use Link Tables (many to many relations) in MS SQL Server ?

View 1 Replies View Related

Check Constraints, Triggers

Oct 27, 2000

I have a question concerning setting up data integrity checks in SQL Server.

I have a table that lists "Groups" to which an Entity belongs. The Entity can belong to multiple Groups. Every entity has 1 and only 1 of its Groups designated as the "Primary Group". Based on this, my table contains multiple records for each Entity. Each record describes 1 Group of which the Entity is a member. In this record, there is a bit field indicating whether the Group is the "Primary Group".

In other DBMS's I have implemented a check constraint on the "Primary Group" column to enforce the business rule that "a Entity may have one and only one Primary Group". I am aware now, that in SQL Server 7, I must implement this rule as a trigger, or in the client or data services layers.

Does anyone know if SQL Server 2000 will allow me to write such a check constraint?

View 1 Replies View Related

Check Constraints Or Triggers

Aug 26, 2005

Hi, I´m facing teh following situation:This are just sample table names, but should do for discussingpurpouses.Create table Invoice(InvoiceID Integer Not Null,CustomerType Integer Not Null,CustomerCode Integer Not Null,Amount DECIMAL(10,2) Not Null,.................)Create Table Type1Customer(CustomerCode Integer Not Null,...............................)Create Table Type2Customer(CustomerCode Integer Not Null,...............................)I need to add a way to restrict the CustomerType and CustomerCode,in the Invoice table to the correct values.This means that if customerType equals 1 the customerCode should bechecked against Type1Customer and if customerType equals 2 thecustomerCode should be checked against Type2Customer.I succesfully created a check constraint. That ensures that the validvalues exists when the rows in the Invoice table are inserted orupdated, but doesn´t prevent from deleting records from tablesType1Customer and Type2Customer that are referenced from the Invoicetable.Are triggers the only way to go?Thanks in advanceSebastián streiger

View 3 Replies View Related

Problem With Check Constraints

Jul 20, 2005

I am working with an evaluation copy of SQL Server 2000 for the firsttime; my DB experience lies with MS Access.I have a simple table in SQL Server (tblCompany) that has a fieldcalled "Ticker." When new company stock tickers (i.e., MSFT forMicrosoft) are entered into the field, I'd like them in allcaps--whether the user types msft, Msft, MsFt, etc. In Access, thiswas easy--simply set the Format to ">" in table design view.In SQL Server Design Table view, I've clicked on "Manage Constraints"and put the following code in that I found elsewhere:([Ticker] = upper([Ticker]))I then checked all three boxes below: "Check existing data oncreation," "Enforce constraint for replication," and "Enforceconstraint for INSERTs and UPDATEs." The first one, "Check existingdata..." is checked as I've already entered in some data in the fieldin lowercase to see if the check constraint would go back and changeit to Upper Case--this because I'm wanting to ultimately migrate atable from Access to SQL Server and ensure that all Tickers are inUpper Case.I'm able to do this and then save the table design with changes; butevery time, I then go and look at the table data to see if the checkconstraint was applied, and each time it is not; then, I go back to"Manage Constraints" and find that the "Check existing data..." box isunchecked. I've gone through this SEVERAL times.Hoping this is something simple. Apologize for my "newbieness." I'vegot a "For Dummies" book in front of me as well as numerous Internetwindows open, trying to figure this out. Have checked books online onthe MSFT site as well to no avail.Thanks in advance--RAD

View 3 Replies View Related

Replication Of Check Constraints

Jan 5, 2007

I have tables that are replicated using transactional and merge replication. As a result I am unable to use automatic identity management as transactional replication doesn€™t seem to understand it.

Therefore I have implemented a version of the automatic mechanisms that seems to work in a hybrid environment. It is based on a central table that holds the maximum identity for each table that has been issued to date. Valid identity ranges are issued to each publisher and subscriber as needed in a similar way to the automatic mechanisms and tables are reseeded as needed.

I want to enforce the ranges in a similar way to the automatic mechanism using a check constraint similar to this:

alter table [dbo].[test1] with NOCHECK add CONSTRAINT repl_identity_range_48DF13ED_D503_4F5C_AED9_4E504D03E752 check NOT FOR REPLICATION (([id] > 10001 and [id] <= 20001) or ([id] > 50001 and [id] <= 70001))

This works OK on a client subscriber, but if the change is made on the publisher, then the alter statement itself is replicated out to all clients €“ which is not what is wanted. I have traced the automatic mechanisms using profiler and they issue an alter statement as above €“ following dropping of the constraint €“ but the check constraint isn€™t replicated. I can't see how this is achieved.

How do I stop the check constraint being replicated?

The article property schema option can be set to stop replicating check constraints, but this seems to have no effect. If the publication property replicate_ddl is set to 0 then I do see the behaviour that I want. However, I do need to be able to replicate most schema changes due to upgrades etc €“ so this doesn€™t look like a viable option €“ except possibly for the transactional publication.

Any help would be much appreciated

Thanks

aero1

View 4 Replies View Related

Check Constraints Changed In 6.5->7 Conversion

Sep 8, 2000

When our DB was converted from 6.5 to 7, the some column check constraints changed
to table constraints.

Is there a way to change them back, short of rebuilding the table? I can't find a syntax
to add a column constraint without adding a column. Some of the affected tables contain
millions of rows, so I'd rather not rebuild them.

When I create a test table with a column and a table check, I see that in sysconstraints
"colid" and "status" are different, and in sysobjects "info" and "status" are different. I
am leary of tweaking the database catalog though. Heck, this is SQL 7; I don't even
know if these are real tables or mirages.

create table zzzfoo (
myname char(30) check (myname in ('foo', 'bar')),
myfuzz char(30),
check (myfuzz in ('cotton', 'wool', 'linen'))
)

select sc.* from sysconstraints sc, sysobjects so
where sc.id = (select id from sysobjects where name = 'zzzfoo')
and sc.constid = so.id and so.type = 'C'

constid id colid spare1 status actions error
----------- ----------- ------ ------ ----------- ----------- -----------
1380915991 1364915934 1 0 133140 4096 0
1396916048 1364915934 0 0 133156 4096 0

select * from sysobjects
where id in (select constid from sysconstraints
where id = (select id from sysobjects where name = 'zzzfoo'))

name id xtype uid info status base_schema_ver replinfo parent_obj crdate ftcatid schema_ver stats_schema_ver type userstat sysstat indexdel refdate version deltrig instrig updtrig seltrig category cache
-------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ----- ------ ------ ----------- --------------- ----------- ----------- --------------------------- ------- ----------- ---------------- ---- -------- ------- -------- --------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------
CK__zzzfoo__myname__524F1B17 1380915991 C 1 1 6 0 0 1364915934 Sep 8 2000 4:29PM 0 0 0 C 0 10 0 Sep 8 2000 4:29PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CK__zzzfoo__53433F50 1396916048 C 1 0 4 0 0 1364915934 Sep 8 2000 4:29PM 0 0 0 C 0 10 0 Sep 8 2000 4:29PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TIA

View 2 Replies View Related

Altering Functions And CHECK Constraints

Jul 23, 2005

Let's say I create a multi-statement function like this:CREATE FUNCTION dbo.Test ()RETURNS @res TABLE (N int NOT NULL CHECK (N >= 0))ASBEGININSERT INTO @resSELECT 1RETURNENDThat works fine. Then I make a change in the function's body, replace theCREATE FUNCTION with ALTER FUNCTION, and execute the batch. I get an error:Server: Msg 3729, Level 16, State 3, Procedure Test, Line 9Cannot ALTER 'dbo.Test' because it is being referenced by object'CK__Test__N__5D2E32EB'.Indeed, if I look at the list of dependencies for the function in QA'sobject tree, I can see the check constraint referenced in the errormessage.ALTER FUNCTION works fine if I don't specify the CHECK constraint in thedefinition of the @res table.So it seems that the only way to modify such a function is to drop andrecreate. Is that a known behavior? Is there any particular reason for it?Thanks.--(remove a 9 to reply by email)

View 1 Replies View Related

How To Check If DB Constraints Are Enabled In A Database?

Mar 6, 2006

How to check if DB Constraints are enabled in a database?

View 6 Replies View Related

DB Design :: Unique And Check Constraints

Sep 3, 2015

I have one table like below Test table. My requirement is to create constraints to confirm <g class="gr_ gr_331 gr-alert gr_gramm Grammar only-ins replaceWithoutSep" data-gr-id="331" id="331">uniqueness</g> of STID value 101 with LN.

like 

ID - LN - STID
1 - 'ABC' - 101  ---- Valid Row
2 - 'ABC' - 202 --- Valid Row
3 - 'ABC' - 202 --Valid Row (as I want only unique when LN = 'ABC' with STID = 101)
4 - 'ABC' - 101 -- Invalid Row (As I want uniqueness base on LN and STID = 1011)

create table dbo.Test
(
ID int identity,
LN varchar(50),
STID bigint
)

Is this possible with constraints as I don't want to use <g class="gr_ gr_1041 gr-alert gr_gramm Grammar only-ins doubleReplace replaceWithoutSep" data-gr-id="1041" id="1041">trigger</g>.

View 4 Replies View Related

Adding New Columns With Check Constraints Using Same Batch

Jul 11, 2006

I'm using a stored procedure to add fields to an existing table.

These fields must have check constraints and I need to use one T-SQL batch.

In Sql2000 Ok. In Sql2005, if table exists, I get error "invalid column xxxxx" in Add Constraint statement before new column creation.

the code is

Declare @Setup bit

Set @Setup = 1

if @Setup = 1 Begin

--Alter Table MyTable Add MyField Numeric(1, 0) Not Null Default 3

Exec mySp_Add_Column 'MyTable', 'MyField', 'Numeric (1, 0) Not Null', '3'

If IsNull(ObjectProperty(Object_Id('xCK_MyTable_MyField'), 'IsConstraint'), 0) = 0

Alter Table MyTable Add Constraint xCK_MyTable_MyField Check (MyField >= 1 And MyField <= 3)

End Else Begin

-- drop column

End

GO

If MyTable does not exist and, naturally, I add it before of check constraints (using another Sp which add tables) ok.

If I add FK to new fields, ok.

Now I have to split batch in two parts as workaround...

Can anyone tell me if this is a bug or a "fix" for previous versions?

Many thanks,

Giulio

View 7 Replies View Related

SQL 2012 :: Check Constraints Have A Definition That Is Longer Than 4000 Characters

Oct 14, 2015

I'm putting a process together to run a DBCC CHECKCONSTRAINTS process against copies of client databases.The author application doesn't set the constraints as trusted, and therefore we need to check the integrity of the data.

The problem is that some of the Check constraints have a definition that is longer than 4,000 characters.When this is the case, DBCC CHECK CONSTRAINTS fails.One option is that I write a cursor to select the constraints that have a definition less than 4,000 characters and then call the DBCC command for those particular constraints. However, I'd prefer a more elegant approach - ideally a way to run DBCC CHECKCONSTRAINTS against all constraints regardless of the length of the definition

View 0 Replies View Related

How Does Adding Constraints Affect Performance?

Jul 23, 2005

I'm considering adding domain integrity checks to some of my database tableitems. How does adding such constraints affect SQL Server performance? Forexample, I have a simple constraint that restricts a couple of columns tohaving values within the values assigned in my application by anenumeration:(([Condition] >= 0 and [Condition] <=3) and ([Type] >= 0 and [Type] <=2))This enforces domain integrity for two enumerations having values 0, 1, 2, 3and 0, 1, 2 in the application. Is this an efficient way of performing suchchecks? What are the pitfalls of domain integrity checking?ThanksRobin

View 1 Replies View Related

How Can I Check Variables Comes From Data Flow In Predence Constraints And Conditional Transformation?

May 1, 2008



Hi,

I have Variable , data source and conditional transformation which checks the count(*) if the count == 0 then I connect an script component and change variable to false(initial it is True) and write into a log file...

Then I check that variable on predence constarint at workflow if variable==True then success. BUT
Whenever I run the package my dataflow gets green even the condition does not meet like count==0 . So
my variable's value is "False". Actually if the condition doesnt meet then my script shouldnt work.
Am I missing something???

View 7 Replies View Related

Performance Of Views

Nov 10, 2005

I'm currently using a system where the number of column in any given table is so great that the columns are often split into additonal tables. I know it's a wierd design but there you go. So I have to deal with tables looking like: MathResult, MathResult_2, MathResult_3, etcEach table is basically the same entity, i.e. it has the same number of rows and each row has the same key value as its peer tables. My question is that should I create a view to bring the tables together, given that a View doesn't seem to have any sort of row-size restriction? Normally I shy away from Views because I've always found them to bring performance down. Any thoughts?

View 4 Replies View Related

Views And Performance

Apr 17, 2000

Hello everyone,

I want to use VIEWS to filter records using a stored procedure to call the VIEW. Will I get a performance boost from using a VIEW, or should I just use the SQL statement that I used to create the VIEW, in my SP and forget about calling a VIEW at all?

Thanks,
Nathan

View 1 Replies View Related

Performance Tuning On Views?

Aug 27, 2014

I have a query which retrieves data from 4-5 tables. To restrict the acess directly to the tables, views have been created on all these tables. These views are just select * from the tables. Two of these 5 tables have 700 Million and 8 Million rows respectively. And all the tables are having indexes. My issue here is that my query on views take three times more then the duration it takes to retrive data directly from tables. e.g. To retrieve 1 Miliion rows, it takes just 7-10 minutes on tables but on views it takes more than 30 minutes. When I check the query plan for both the options, I can see that indexes are being picked up but still the views are very slow.

Creating indexes on views is not feasible option for me as it requires DDL changes and so much testing efforts.

View 14 Replies View Related

How To Optimize Performance In Views.

May 30, 2008

Hi guys,

I'm have a table which is filled daily by a procedure. This procedure executes for around 2 hours.
Now i also want to create a clustered index view on this table.

Now during the time data is being inserted in this table, would the performance of server get hit.?
Since it think it would continiously be updating this view during this duration.

Is there a way i can temporarily disconnect the view?


Please advice.

Thanks.

View 5 Replies View Related

EAV Performance And Clustered Indexes On Views

Jan 25, 2008

OK so I have this EAV system on a server that is old enough for kindergarten. Insanely enough, this company that makes more money than any of your gods can not buy me a new box.

Before you say "redesign", I need funding allocated for that. See my first statement.

Anywho, I have this page that touches the dreaded Value table and does a clustered index seek on it. Can't search faster than that, right? Well I am getting some funding for "performance tuning". I am wondering if maybe incorporating some clustered index views involving the value table and producing a smaller clustered index for it to seek may alleviate some of this. Any thoughts?

View 10 Replies View Related

Ways To Improve Views Performance

Jan 19, 2008

Dear All,
i've tried with indexed views, but because the view is referenceing another view, i was unable to create a clustered index on that view.
so please let me know how can i improve the performance of the view.

thank you very much

Vinod
Even you learn 1%, Learn it with 100% confidence.

View 1 Replies View Related

Performance Problem With Views And Stored Procedures..

Nov 8, 2000

Hello Everybody,

I posted this same question couple of times in the news groups but no answers. I have a 2 tables and i am doing a union query using a view. each has 250 rows. The query takes 20 seconds to return the results. no joins or anything. the create view simply looks like this:

create view myview as
select id, name from table1
union
select id,name from table2

Where as if i write a stored procedure like below, it returns the rows in 4 seconds.
create table #mytable
( id int, name varchar(30))
insert into #mytable (id, name) select id, name from table1
insert into #mytable (id, name) select id, name from table2
select id,name from #mytable.


I prefer doing in the view since both returns the same result. I tried running dbcc, update statistics. but no luck. Can anyone please help me in this issue.

Thanks
Ramesh

View 3 Replies View Related







Copyrights 2005-15 www.BigResource.com, All rights reserved