VERY Slow Generate Scripts On SQL 2005 Compared To SQL 2000
Aug 1, 2007
i was using sql 2000, the database contains 500+ tables, 3000+ sp.
i moved to sql 2005 and found problem on generating script (right click database -> tasks -> generate scripts).
i need to generate the table relations.... it is very very slow compared to sql 2000 which is done in about 30 seconds to few minutes.
i already tried many ways including set options to false which in my thought could speed up a lot...but still very slow.
average generate script time with sql 2005 (sp 2): 70-90 minutes.
average generate script time with sql 2000 (sp 4): 2-3 minutes.
i was using sql 2000, the database contains 500+ tables, 3000+ sp. i moved to sql 2005 and found problem on generating script (right click database -> tasks -> generate scripts). i need to generate the table relations.... it is very very slow compared to sql 2000 which is done in about 30 seconds to few minutes. i already tried many ways including set options to false which in my thought could speed up a lot...but still very slow.
average generate script time with sql 2005 (sp 2): 70-90 minutes. average generate script time with sql 2000 (sp 4): 2-3 minutes.
To extract data from an ODBC source, try the following:
Add an ADO.Net Connection Manager. Edit the Connection Manager editor and select the ODBC Data Provider Configure the Connection Manager to use your DSN or connection string Add a Data Flow Task to your package. Add a Data Reader Source adapter to your data flow Edit the Data Reader source adapter to use the ADO.Net connection manager that you added. Edit the Data Reader source to query for the data you wish to extract.
hth
Donald
Using the steps outlined above as described by Donald Farmer in another post on this forum, I have created an SSIS package which retrieves data from Lotus Notes 6.55. The DSN referenced by the ADO.Net Connection Manager connects to Lotus Notes via the NotesSQL ODBC driver 3.02g.
When I execute the dataflow, data is transferred from Lotus Notes, but the data transfer rate is extremely slow compared to SQL 2000 DTS. In SQL 2000 DTS, we can retrieve just under half a million records from Lotus Notes in about 13 minutes. Utilizing the same DSN on the same machine, SQL 2005 SSIS completes the transfer in about 57 minutes.
Is there anything that can be done to improve the performance in SSIS to retrieve data from Lotus Notes via ADO.Net ODBC?
I have a report in SQL Reporting Services 2005 which calls a stored proc and the report takes a very long time to run and sometimes returns zero records. But when i run the stored proc in query analyzer it takes about 4 seconds!!
I have checked the execution log on the RS using the below sql:
Code Snippet
use ReportServer
Select * from ExecutionLog with (nolock) order by TimeStart DESC
It shows that i have a large amount of time for the dataretrieval (601309ms, about 10mins) and does not return any records most likely because of a query timeout:
The weird thing is that when i run it in query analyzer, i get about 400 records in 4 seconds !!
I dont understand what RS is doing to take up so much time like this to retrieve data.
The report is very simple - it basically returns the records straight out into a table.
The only thing I somewhat suspected was a parameter data type conflict between RS and SQL, specifically dates. I have a start and end date parameter in the report - i tried specifying this as date and string to see if it made any difference but it didn't.
Recently our database has been migrated from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005 on a new server(machine) with windows 2003(previously windows 2000). If the database is retained on the same machine but with a named instance of 2005, the application(websphere 5.1) is behaving normal whereas if i configure the aplication to the new server it is running slow for some of the queries but not all.
This change will have to be implemented in production very soon. Any advise will be of great benefit
Hi,Has any one ever compared the performance of calling a DataTable'sSelect method with a stored procedure doing the same thing?My point is:dataRows = DataTable.Select(filter) is better orPassing paramters to stored procedure?The datatable holds about 500-700 rows at any given time.If I select one of the approaches the business logic will go intorespective layers.With dotnet in picture what would be a good approach- Have the data in Datatable and do a filter on the data or callstored procedures which has been the convention.Can some one pl. suggest?
I have a complex view in my sql 2005 database. The view returns a column that could be null (as the result of a left outer join). The coulmn that is returned is an integer. Everything works fine if I run the view from SQL 2005 Management Studio. My column value is always null if I use ADO.NET's SqlAdapter to return a DataTable. Has anybody seen this behaviour before? Any help appreciated. Regards, Paul.
I was wondering if someone can point out the error or the thing I shouldn't be doing in a stored procedure on SQL Server 2005. I want to switch from SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005 which all seems to work just fine, but one stored procedure is causing me headache.
I could pin the problem down to this query:
DECLARE @Package_ID bigint
DECLARE @Email varchar(80)
DECLARE @Customer_ID bigint
DECLARE @Payment_Type tinyint
DECLARE @Payment_Status tinyint
DECLARE @Booking_Type tinyint
SELECT @Package_ID = NULL
SELECT @Email = NULL
SELECT @Customer_ID = NULL
SELECT @Payment_Type = NULL
SELECT @Payment_Status = NULL
SELECT @Booking_Type = NULL
CREATE TABLE #TempTable(
PACKAGE_ID bigint,
PRIMARY KEY (PACKAGE_ID))
INSERT INTO
#TempTable
SELECT
PACKAGE.PACKAGE_ID
FROM
PACKAGE (nolock) LEFT JOIN BOOKING ON PACKAGE.PACKAGE_ID = BOOKING.PACKAGE_ID
LEFT JOIN CUSTOMER (nolock) ON PACKAGE.CUSTOMER_ID = CUSTOMER.CUSTOMER_ID
LEFT JOIN ADDRESS_LINK (nolock) ON ADDRESS_LINK.SOURCE_TYPE = 1 AND ADDRESS_LINK.SOURCE_ID = CUSTOMER.CUSTOMER_ID
LEFT JOIN ADDRESS (nolock) ON ADDRESS_LINK.ADDRESS_ID = ADDRESS.ADDRESS_ID
AND PACKAGE.CUSTOMER_ID = ISNULL(@Customer_ID,PACKAGE.CUSTOMER_ID)
AND PACKAGE.PAYMENT_TYPE = ISNULL(@Payment_Type,PACKAGE.PAYMENT_TYPE)
AND PACKAGE.PAYMENT_STATUS = ISNULL(@Payment_Status,PACKAGE.PAYMENT_STATUS)
AND BOOKING.BOOKING_TYPE = ISNULL(@Booking_Type,BOOKING.BOOKING_TYPE)
-- If this line below is included the request will take about 90 seconds whereas it takes 1 second if it is outcommented
--AND ADDRESS.EMAIl LIKE '%' + ISNULL(@Email, ADDRESS.EMAIL) + '%'
GROUP BY
PACKAGE.PACKAGE_ID
DROP TABLE #TempTable
The request is performing quite well on the SQL Server 2000 but on the SQL Server 2005 it takes much longer. I already installed the SP2 x64, I'm running the SQL Server 2005 on a x64 environment. As I stated in the comment in the query it takes 90 seconds to finish with the line included, but if I exclude the line it takes 1 second. I think there must be something wrong with the join's or something else which has maybe changed in SQL Server 2005. All the tables joined have a primary key. Maybe you folks can spot the error / mistake / wrong type of doing things easily. I would appreciate any help you can offer me to solve this problem.
On the web I saw that there is a Cumulative Update 4 for the SP2 which fixes the following:
942659 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942659/) FIX: The query performance is slower when you run the query in SQL Server 2005 than when you run the query in SQL Server 2000
Anyhow I think the problem is something else, I haven't tried out the cumulative update yet, as I think it is something different, more general why this query takes ages to process.
An SSIS package to transfer data from a DB instance on SQL Server 2005 to SQL Server 2000 is extremely slow. The package uses an OLEDB Source to OLEDB Destination for data transfer which is basically one table from sql server 2005 to sql server 2000. The job takes 5 minutes to transfer about 400 rows at night when there is very little activity on the server. During the day the job almost always times out.
On SQL Server 200 instances the job ran in minutes in the old 2000 package.
Is there an alternative to this. Tranfer Objects task does not work as there is apparently a defect according to Microsoft. Please let me know if there is any other option other than using a Execute 2000 package task or using an ActiveX Script to read records from one source and to insert them into the destination source, which I am not certain how long it might take and how viable will that be?
hi there. i'm using asp.net 2 page i'm accessing a table consists of 100 thousands rows and its slow and i'm wondering instead of accessing directly to the table how about if i access via xml ? generate xml and cache it and use the xml file rather going to sql server database? has anybody have any help on this? the steps invloved: 1) first generate a xml file from table something like this: select * from dbo.LOOK_UP FOR XML AUTO, XMLDATA ?SELECT * FROM dbo.LOOK_UP FOR XML RAW, ELEMENTS ?SELECT * FROM dbo.LOOK_UP FOR XML AUTO ? which one should i use and how do i access after i gnerate a xml file
Hi, Can we able to auto generate columns in sql server 2000? I have a tabe with two fields No and Name. I need to auto generate no for each name i am going to enter. Can any give me a solution for this? If so i will be thankful to u.
Hello.I test some query on sql server 2000 (sp2 on OS windows 2000) and iwant to know why a simple query like this :select * from Table Where Column like '%value'is more slow on 2000 than on sql 7.And this case arrive only if the % character is in the begin.If you test this :select * from Table Where Column like 'v%alue'then it's more fast on 2000.I look the execution plan, there is a difference but this differenceis the same in all the case i test (for the two query i write in thismessage for example).I don't understand why and so, if someone have an explanation, andperhaps a solution ...Excuse my poor english language.And thanks for time people spend to answer me.
I have the following statement that takes quite a long time. Longestof any of my SQL statment updates.UPDATE F_REGISTRATION_STD_SESSIONSET PREVIOUS_YEAR_SESSION_ID = (SELECT s.previous_year_session_idFROM F_REGISTRATION_STD_SESSION R,DS_V4_TARGET.dbo.D_H_Session_By_SessQtr SWHEREr.STUDENT_ID = F_REGISTRATION_STD_SESSION.STUDENT_IDand s.previous_year_SESSION_ID = r.SESSION_IDand s.session_id = F_REGISTRATION_STD_SESSION.SESSION_ID)STUDENT_ID varchar(20) and SESSION_ID char(10) and are indexedWhat I want to accomplish:I want to know if there was a student registration from the prior yearof a registration.Example, if there is a registration for Fall 2004, was there also aregistration for the same student Fall 2003?Maybe there is a better way to approach this?TIARob
Hi, I am using SQL2K for a intranet web application database. And I have several database in it. After a long periode of time (about 6 month) the the application is slowing down when accessing the data. I use full log for the database. I also set an autobackup for the database for every 15 minute, but I think this is not what cause the slow down. The database seem to slow down more and more every day. I keep only the last 3 days transaction data and every day I delete transaction data older then 4 day, so the number of records in the transaction table is just about 3000 to 5000 records only. Please help me. Thanks.
Hi, We have a server that s too slow. The tables have about between 1 million and 3 million records each. We have about 30 tables for production. The other tables are mostly look up tables (just for personnel and categories and so on, only static tables)
1/ do u guys think that s too much data, I mean about 3 millions records in a table. Because the manager said, may be if u archive some records and delete them from the tables, the system might become quick and performant?
2/ When we check the activity monitor in management in entreprise manager, we find a process Id 55 that has the value 1 in the Blocking column, and other processes having that process ID 55 in the Blocked by column. Does the fact that the blocking column for a process equals 1 mean that the process is having a problem, and how do we know what causes the problem for sure?
3/When we check Performance monitor, pls note that we have RAID5 with 5 disks, we see that Avg. Disk Queue Length counter ranging between 20 and 70 and especially if we run a query for example, although simple select query in one of the tables, the Avg. Disk Queue Length counter goes to the roof to 100 % in performance monitor.
I don t think we have a pb with the CPU, it looks good, not going to the roof.
For your info, we have the web server on that same SQL server machine as well, but the web server s working well, only sql server and the client application that accesses it is slow, the web pages are pretty fast.
Am I following the good path to diagnose what s wrong. It s my first time doing this, and I am trying to learn.
I had thought that I had posted this yesterday but since I cannot findit here we go again.I have searched the archives but either the code I want is not postedor I missed it.I have a user create role in a database that I need to reproduce inanother version of the database. Does anyone out there have the SQLor T-SQL necessary to generate all the grants to a role?-- Mark D Powell --
Hello , I'm a newbie,I programmed a store procedure,and when it runs in query analyzer, I get results very fast,but when I add it in a job,then this job run very very slow, (I add records and delete records in the SP), WHY?
I posted this in one of the VB forums but I'm starting to think itmight be more appropriate to have it here, since it really seems to bea SQL server (MSDE/Express 2005) problem:Hey, all, I have a problem with queries against a SQL server instancethat I just found and is causing me fits. I hope someone can pointmein the right direction, please. TIA.Basically, I got a Vista OS machine to test my VB6 app on it as someof my clients will be switching over in the coming months. I went toa local Circuit City during early business hours in the middle of theweek and I installed my application on each of 5 PC's on the newVistaOS (Tuesday, when it was released). I had read that MSDE 2000, whichI normally use as my DB is not supported on Vista so I had downloadedand was using SQL Express 2005. Each system had at least a 1.9 GHzdual core processor and 1 GB of RAM. One process in my program findsrecords in one table that do not match records in another table andthen reports those un-matched entries. On my development machine(laptop with 1 GB of RAM, XP Pro SP2, MSDE 2000 (current SP), 2 GHzCentrino (IIRC)) the process takes less than 30 seconds consistently.On each of those 5 systems at Circuit City the process took 5 minutes(on each of 3 HP machines, a1700n, a1720n, a1730n, and 11 minutes oneach of two Gateway systems (the model numbers of which I forget atthe moment). Each of these computers should be much faster than mylaptop, and some had twice the RAM, and all had SATA or SATA IIdrivesinstead of my piddly 5400 laptop drive, I would have thought they'dall be faster but were abysmally slow.So, seeing a huge difference in the time, and to try to keep thisshort and sweet, I fired up another computer I have, running XP SP2,on 512 MB RAM, AMD Athlon 2300+. First I loaded MSDE 2000 and myapplication and ran the process. < 30 seconds on each of multipleruns. Second, I unloaded MSDE 2000 and installed SQL Express 2005andmoved the DB to it (sp_attach_db) which caused some upgrading(messages reported in OSQL about update/upgrade). When it was done Irebooted, to be sure, and the ran the program and the process again.On the same data, on the same computer, the process took 7-9 minutesconsistently on each of several runs. This makes this part of theapplication unusable, and even the simple stuff like grabbing asinglerecord from the DB (maybe 5 columns of no more than 500 bytes total)is noticeably slower on the SQL Express 2005 than on MSDE 2000.So, the problem seems to be with my interaction with the DB. I amusing ADO 2.8 in VB 6 (SP 6). I use DSN-less connections with aconnection string like: Driver={SQL Server};server=(local)caredata;database=caredata;Uid=sa; Pwd=<password>I use the RecordsSet Object to open the data similar to this:oRS.OpenstrSQL$, oCN, adOpenKeysetafter the oCN object has had the connection string set and the objectis opened.Considering that the same computer, against the same data, with thesame program, takes about 14 times (or more) longer to run, then ithas to be either that SQL Express 2005 is slow OR that my program isinteracting with it in an incorrect manner.Can someone point me in the right direction, please?Thank you.--HCSo, the problem isn't Vista
I have two tables:T1 : Key as bigint, Data as char(20) - size: 61M recordsT2 : Key as bigint, Data as char(20) - size: 5M recordsT2 is the smaller, with 5 million records.They both have clustered indexes on Key.I want to do:update T1 set Data = T2.Datafrom T2where T2.Key = T1.KeyThe goal is to match Key values, and only update the data field of T1if they match. SQL server seems to optimize this query fairly well,doing an inner merge join on the Key fields, however, it then does aHash match to get the data fields and this is taking FOREVER. Ittakes something like 40 mins to do the above query, where it seems tome, the data could be updated much more efficiently. I would expectto see just a merge and update, like I would see in the followingquery:update T1 set Data = [someconstantdata]from T2where T2.Key = T1.Key and T2.Data = [someconstantdata]The above works VERY quickly, and if I were to perform the above query5 mil times(assuming that my data is completely unique in T2 and Iwould need to) it would finish very quickly, much sooner than theprevious query. Why won't SQL server just match these up while it ismerging the data and update in one step? Can I make it do this? If Iextracted the data in sorted order into a flat file, I could write aprogram in ten minutes to merge the two tables, and update in onestep, and it would fly through this, but I imagine that SQL server iscapable of doing it, and I am just missing it.Any advice would be GREATLY appreciated!
I'm using a SQL Server 2000 with a dozen of databases. The databases are rather small (all sizes together sum up to 10 GB).
The entire server gets extremelly slow from time to time (lasting a few days when it happens and suddently coming back to normality). A profiler trace doesn't show anything strange (besides a lot of SQL Agent entries).
I pretty much tried to isolate every single application that makes use of the databases in that server and see if it was the cause of the problem, but I couldn't find any correlation.
I know the computer where this server runs is quite fragmented. Is there anyway I could get to know if this is the cause of my performance issues?
I don't know if this happens, but once the server simply went down for some 3 hours, and I wasn't able to bring it up in anyway. It eventually started working again by itself. The only thing I did in the meantime was to run DBCC CHECKDB a few times, always getting the response "No error found on the database".
Hi everybody !!! I have a problem with database SQL server 2000, and I need anyone help me.
I have PC machine with hardware configuration following:
+ RAM : 512M
+ CPU : 2.4 GHz (intel Pentium 4)
+ System : Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprice Edition , Service Pack 1
(this is call Machine1 )
and other Server machine with hardware configuration the following :
+ RAM : 2G
+ CPU : 3.6 GHz( intel Xeon)
+System : Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprice Edition , Service Pack 2
(use RAID 5)
(this is call Machine2 )
.And SQL Server 2000 is installed in these machine.
I created one table and one script to insert several records into this table. and script for inserting:
declare @count int , @max int
set @count =1
set @max = 5000
WHILE (@count < @max or @count = @max)
BEGIN
insert into TBAT_STOCKEOD(TRDT,SEQNO,COMPID,TRANSTYPE) values('20071219',cast(@count as varchar(5)),'13215','1')
set @count = @count +1
END
I execute this script on Machine1 and Machine2 :
+ Machine1 : spent 3 seconds.
+ Machine2 : spent 30 seconds. I don't understand why Machine2 is slower than Machine1 ( while configuration of Machine2 is better than Machine1's ). I don't know what happen.
I checked resource usages in perfmon when SQL server execute script and result following :
Machine1:
Proccessor used 100%
whereas,Machine2 used physical Disk 100%
Is there the way to configurate SQL server to improve speed writting of hard disk?
I have a windows forms application that runs on my PC that populates a SQL Server Compact 2005 database and then transfers that .sdf file to my mobile device. The communication between the mobile device and PC is done using the Desktop RAPI class from OpenNetCF (http://www.opennetcf.com/FreeSoftware/DesktopCommunication/tabid/90/Default.aspx)
Anyway, I was previously using SQL Server Mobile 2005 and my populated .sdf was around 1.7 MB and I could transfer it to my mobile device in a minute. Once I switched to SQL Server Compact 2005, the transfer process began taking 3 minutes with a 1.5 MB .sdf file. The SSCE also got bloated more easily so I added in the Compact operation each time after I fully populate the SDF to keep the file size at 1.5 MB, but even then it still takes 3 minutes.
I've done a few tests where I simply switch between the two database versions and that simple switch of the version changes the transfer time. I am dumbfounded trying to figure out what the cause might be. Since it is just a file transfer, why would the version even matter unless somehow SSCE is really not compacting and lying about its actual size.
Has anyone run into anything similar to this or may have any ideas what might be going on?
We are having SQL2000 Advance Server. 4 processor with hypherthreading, Memory 4 GB and it is a high transactional OLTP server. We are also running Transaction Replication on that server.
We recently bought Double Take and implemented on the server with File Difference with block check sum option for Disaster Recovery Purpose. The Queue and the Log file folder is on local drive where the system doesn't use that folder except double take.
We are replicating from Source to Taget thru the WAN (DS3).We are replicating approx. 200 Gig of Data but just the difference. Now the CPU usage is normal,Memory utilization is normal, but the network is a major problem as the Applications connecting to the Server timesout and the applications running very slow.
We have set just like the Tech support recommended.
I would appreciate, if someone give us some recommendations to run the double take without any problem.
Hi All,I have a table that currently contains approx. 8 million records.I'm running a SELECT query against this table that in somecircumstances is either very quick (ie results returned in QueryAnalyzer almost instantaneously), or very slow (ie 30 to 40 seconds toreturn results), and I'm trying to work out how I improve performance.Essentially the query I'm running is nothing more complex than:SELECT TOP 1 * FROM Table1 WHERE tier=n ORDER BY member_id[tier] is a smallint column with a non-clustered, non-unique index onit. [member_id] is a numeric column with a clustered, unique index onit.When I supply a [tier] value of 1, it returns results instantaneously.I have no idea if this is meaningful, but the tier = 1 records wereloaded first into the table, and comprise approximately 5 millionrecords.When I supply a [tier] value of 2, the results take 30 to 40 seconds.tier =2 records were loaded second, and comprise approximately 3million records.I've tried running an execution plan, and while I'm no expert, itappears to me that the index on tier isn't being used, even if I use:tier = CAST(2 as SMALLINT)I'm wondering if anyone can give me ANY advice on how to get anybetter performance out of this SELECT statement?Also, out of curiosity, can a disk defragment have a positive impacton SELECT query performance?Any help very much appreciated!Much warmth,Murray
I have an Access2000 ADP that I want to run under Access2007. The problem I have is that some forms take up to 45 seconds to open in Access2007! These are not complicated forms--just simple navigable reference forms like setting up transaction types etc. that are based on basic select statements like:
SELECT * FROM ArReceivableType
Where ArReceivableType is a reference table (less than 10 columns, all int or nvarchar(100) max) containing about 15 or 20 rows. They open instantly in Access2000.
I put a trace on to see what is happening on the SQL Server, and I noticed heaps of nasty code like this that generates tens of thousands of reads:
select object_name(sotblfk.id), user_name(sotblfk.uid), object_name(sotblrk.id), user_name(sotblrk.uid) from sysreferences srfk, sysobjects sofk, sysobjects sotblfk, sysobjects sotblrk where srfk.constid = sofk.id and srfk.fkeyid = sotblfk.id and srfk.rkeyid = sotblrk.id and user_name(sofk.uid) = N'dbo' and object_name(sofk.id) = N'FK_FaAssetTransactionWork_ArReceivableType_ArReceivableTypeId'
It looks like Access2007 is reading all of the constraints for the underlying table, including all foreign keys. My SQL database contains 1400+ tables all with properly constructed foreign keys and other constraints.
Any suggestion on how to NOT have Access2007 do this? Right now, Access2000 works great for this enterprise app, but I really like the new Access2007 features (and I don't want to still be developing Access2000 apps in 2010).
I have had a problem with Enterprise Manager connecting to SQL Server. At first this problem was experienced with one particular network user... whichever PC he logged onto, Enterprise Manager took ages to connect to SQL Server and every operation was painfully slow. Creating a new Windows NT logon fixed the problem.
I now have this same problem but only on my PC. It doesn't matter which Windows NT logon I use, using Enterprise Manager is painfully slow. I've tried creating a new Windows NT profile, checking the hard drive for errors, defragmenting the disk, reinstalling Enterprise Manager etc but nothing works.
What is strange is that connections from VB applications on my PC are fast. It is only Enterprise Manager that is slow.
I am using the latest service pack for SQL Server.
I thought it could be a problem with the Enterprise Manager registry values but don't want to start messing with them!
Has anyone else experienced this problem? Any advice would be great as I can't find any help from microsoft other than installing the latest service pack for SQL Server.
HiWe have a SQL server 2000 SP4 on a windows 2003 2x3Ghz XEON 4 GB ram.We have a table looking like this with currently 6 rows. Total data is aprox10 kb i all row all together.CREATE TABLE [dbo].[BIOMETRICPROFILE] ([BIOMETRICPROFILEID] [bigint] IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE1] [image] NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE2] [image] NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE3] [image] NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE4] [image] NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE5] [image] NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE6] [image] NOT NULL ,[TYPE] [nvarchar] (50) COLLATE Danish_Norwegian_CI_AS NOT NULL) ON [PRIMARY] TEXTIMAGE_ON [PRIMARY]GOselect * from BIOMETRICPROFILE takes ~4 seconds (!) to execute thourgh Queryanalyzer. Alle other tables has no performance problems.We have a SQL 2005 express instalation on the same server. If we restore abackup from the sql 2000 database the query takes aprox ~ 15 ms.What isgoing on here?Has SQL 2000 problems with image fields? or how can we find the problem?RegardsAnders
I have a problem with bad perfomance with my import of data from a SQL Server 2000 database. I use an OLEDB datasource in my SSIS package to connect to the sql server 2000 database. My 2005 server runs 64bits but i dont think this is an issue. With this configuration the import is VERY slow, we are talking about 40+ minutes to get 3.5 million rows with about 20 columns. When i create a test DTS package on the SQL Server 2000 server itself and run it, its blazingly fast. Has anyone run into something similar?
I am using two almost idential laptops, one with XP and one with Vista, the only differences is that the XP laptop has 1G of RAM and running Office XP and the Vista has 2G RAM and is running Office 2007.
I have a MS Access database that has linked tables to a SQL Server 2000 database. The performance of the Access database on Vista is 5-10 times slower on the Vista machine. Just flipping through records or opening forms can take 5 - 15 seconds on the Vista machine while the XP machine takes 1 sec or less.
What gives? I looked at the CPU performance and the network performance while the Access database was busy flipping through records, the network traffic was < 2% and the CPU would spike to 40% on one of the CPUs (dual core) but would remain under 5% most of the time.
I also previously had Office XP installed on the Vista machine and it had the same performance issue so bought and install Office 2007 on the Vista machine and it did not solve the problem.
It seems that Vista is doing something that is slowing down Access with linked tables. Is this a issue between Vista and using an ODBC connection to SQL Server?
We would like to install Sql 2005 Enterprise Edition (including database engine, reporting service, integration service and analysis service) as a sepearte instance on a server which already has Sql 2000 with reporting services and analysis services. We do not want to disturb the existing sql 2000 setup.
If we do that then what will happen to my earlier sql 2000 reporting service? Will it be upgraded to sql 2005 reporting service? I heard that reporting services are instance unaware application. Where will be the default reporting service database available?
