I have a access database, the data store in another server. This noon, one of our user is runing the access database too slow. Open the database and search the data, etc. It took a long time to come out, Any body has experience on it, why, we had etrust install on each user machine, is that cause this too slow? Thanks in advance.
View 1 RepliesI've noticed that after the database have been idle for some time, it takes up to 10 seconds to get it started when something needs to access it. In the event viewer it says that the database <name> have been started.
Obviously, there is some idle timeout setting.
I saw an option in the database properties that is called "Auto Close" which is set to true. I assume this is what i'm looking for. Can someone confirm that? (it could take some time to test myself...)
But what i'm actually wondering is:
1. Is it possible to adjust how long it would wait before timing out?
2. What advantages does closing the database bring? Does it free up (a noticeable amount of) ressources? Or is it only that it's unlocking the files, so that it's possible to copy the database source files?
I am experiencing VERY slow connectivity between client and server SQL 2000. I have checked the network activity and it is low. It also takes Enterprise manager ages to load, and then browsing tables and trees is impossible!
HELP!!
Has anyone else exported data to Access? If so, is it a slow process in SQL Server 2005?
I am exporting 3,000 records to an Access database using a view and it has taken 20 minutes. I am using the Export Data wizard. Any tips on how to speed it up would be appreciated.
I have 25+ WinXP SP2 workstations on a Novell file server (Novell login) and also have a W2K SQL 2000 Server for our database. We are usint Win NT authentication to the SQL Server.
One AND ONLY ONE user is having trouble with this setup. Her workstation is PAINFULLY slow accessing the SQL server through my Delphi programs, through our third party programs, and through ODBC connections.
I thought it was her workstation until I configured a clean workstation for her, and it too had the same problem. I then took a brand new Dell 9200 workstation with 2gb memory, gigabit NIC, etc. and configured it to use our servers. It too had the same slowness connecting to the SQL server. Everything else is fast.
I deleted her entry in the NT domain users table, and re-entered her. No help.
Can anyone shed any light on this?
Hii,
A bit new to SQL 2k5 but here goes, I recently installed SQL 2k5 on a preety decent box with about 4GB Ram and created a database called PointOfSale. As probably obvious by now, the application that accesses the Database is a PointOfSale application.
The store sells ladies clothing items, of which each is barcoded.
When an item is scanned via the barcode reader into the application, it takes like about 10-15 seconds for the item information to appear. Of course the item information resides on the database.
There are three registers and the same thing happens on all. I am running sp 2 for sql2k5 already.
Any thing I can do that would reduce the 15 sec delay significantly?
Any help at all would be appreciated immensley.
Regards,
Burt.
I have one aspx page that is very slow loading it is connected to SQL 2005 database. I am looking for any preformance tips out there
View 3 Replies View RelatedWe have several people accessing the SQL server 7.0 data thru' MS Access Server has been slow on queries etc.Everything looks good,other than this one finding of MS Access being used for update/select. Is MS Access a potential problem? How to solve the problem of slow response time?
Note: MS Access is running on the client desktops retrieving data from SQL Server and joining data from MS Access to SQL Server.
I have a stored procedure which creates 3 temporary tables. Every table is about ten rows and 25 columns. The inserts in the tables goes fast (< 30 ms). The selects from them is also that fast. BUT the first select takes about 3200 ms one each of the temptables. (I first do insert, then select from them.) So the SP executes at about 13 seconds instead of 3.
Any suggestions, anyone, please?
Hi,
I have migrated my app from VB to VB.Net. A 3-tier app with remoting and COM+.
I am experiencing a long wait time of about 3 times higher than what it would take in the VB App.
I am using DataAdapter.FiLL method to fill the datatable.
I have tried.
Using DataReader ( Made the things worse )
Using BeginLoadData and EndLoadData
Creating a Dataset and calling fill with the dataset so that the round trip to the middletier is saved to bring the SQL.
But i feel now that whatever is done. the problem is with the fill method only?
Is there any alternative?
Please suggest. It is one of the most important thing which if not possible may lead to scrapping up idea of upgrading to .Net.
Shri
We have an issue with accessing SQL Server 2000 where the access of data from the database is slow unless the user is logged in as an administrator to their computer.
The system is as follows: SQL Server 2000 on a W2K server. Users logging into a Win 2003 domain server. Users using W2K on their workstations. Application is VB.NET using the Enterprise Library Data Block, connection pooling ON, and windows authentication.
We are assuming that the issue is down to one of authentication and that when a user is set as an administrator then they have instant access. We have been able to replicate the issue using just SQL server on a W2K workstation and accessing from another W2K workstation. Again data access is way slow unless the account is an administrator.
Glad of any ideas folks!
Kind Regards
Ian Logan
I have a table that has appx 3.2 million rows. see sp_help
Name Owner Type Created_datetime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TB_SAAI014_BPD dbo user table 2005-08-10 11:33:23.893
Column_name Type Comp Lngth Prec Scale Nullable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RowID int no 4 10 0 no
SPHInstID int no 4 10 0 no
BPDInstID int no 4 10 0 no
BMUID varchar no 11 no
InfoImblCfw numeric no 9 12 2 no
BMUPrdNonDel numeric no 9 12 2 no
PrdFPN numeric no 9 13 3 no
PrdBMUBalSrvVol numeric no 9 13 3 no
PrdInfoImblVol numeric no 9 13 3 no
PrdExpdMtrVol numeric no 9 13 3 no
BMUMtrVol numeric no 9 13 3 no
PrdBMUNonDelBidVol numeric no 9 13 3 no
PrdBMUNonDelOfrVol numeric no 9 13 3 no
TranLossFctr numeric no 9 15 7 no
TranLossMtpl numeric no 9 15 7 no
TradUnitName varchar no 30 no
TotTrdUnitMtrVol numeric no 9 13 3 no
BMUAppBalSrvVol numeric no 9 13 3 no
DTCreated datetime no 8 yes
DTUpdated datetime no 8 yes
Identity Seed Inc Not Repl
-----------------------------------------
RowID 0 1 0
RowGUIDcol
-----------------------------
No rowguidcol column defined.
Data Located on File Group
==========================
PRIMARY
Index Name Decsription Keys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
idx_SPH_BPD clustered, unique located on PRIMARY SPHInstID, BPDInstID
This table has 1 clustered index based on its own unique record ID and that of its parent table record
I have an import process that adds appx 980 rows of data to this table and numerous rows to several other tables as part of a transaction and it ran in about 15 seconds.
However we suffered a server failure and it had to be rebuilt (Svr2k3), SQL 2000 re-installed (with default options) and the data base restored.
The same transaction is now taking 8 to 9 minutes.
I tracked it down to this particular table. Just doing a count(*) takes over 5 minutes. Select * where ID = 1 takes over 5 mins. Also, whenever the table is accessed you can hear the server thrashing the disks. Other tables, although smaller do not seem to be suffering from this masive performance drop..
I've tried droping and recreating the index. I have even created a copy of the table, with index, and still get the same issue with speed.
DBCC CHECKTABLE returns the following but takes 6 and a half minutes
DBCC results for 'TB_SAAI014_BPD'.
There are 3168460 rows in 72011 pages for object 'TB_SAAI014_BPD'.
DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your system administrator.
No errors are shown
A DBCC CHECKTABLE on another table with 230 thousand rows, run at the same time only took 10 seconds
Can anyone please point me in the direction of things to check, try or repair.
Any help greatfully recieved.
Jinx1966
Hi
Here is the brief to my problemWe had our database on SQL Server 2000 and Windows 2000.This machine
had 2gb of RAM and dual Penitum 3 processors and about 25-30 users were
connected all the time. The size of database is around 2 gb. Even on this setup
rate of data retrival was good, never had any issues. We moved to SQL Server 2005 and Windows 2003. This machines has
2 Pentium Xeon 3.4 processors and 2 stick of KINGSTON 1024 MB 333
MHZ DDR DIMM ECC CL2.5 DUAL RANK X4 INTEL. The rate of data
retrival is awful and its very slow. It using about 1.7 to 1.9 gb of RAM all the
time. Page File usage is about 2.07 gb and Virtual Usage is about 1.7gb.I dont quiet understand why is it so slow to get data. We use bespoke software,
so nothing has changed there. Hardware specification of our server is far more better then the recommended
system requirement for SQL Server 2005.Am i missing something out or i havent set up the SQL Server properly? Any help would really be appreciated.Mits
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).
Hi,
first time poster/newbie here.
I've
got a football (soccer for the yanks!) predictions league website that
is driven by and Access database. It basically calculates points
scored for a user getting certain predictions correct. This is the URL:
http://www.pool-predictions.co.uk/home/index.asp
There
are two sections of the site however that have almost ground to halt
now that more users have registered throught the season. The players
section and league table section have gone progressively slower to load
throughout the year and almost taking 2 minutes to load.
http://www.pool-predictions.co.uk/home/players.asp?tab=a_d
http://www.pool-predictions.co.uk/home/table.asp
All
the calculations are performed in the Access database Ive written and
there are Access SQL queries to get the data out.
My
question is, is how can I speed the bloody thing up! ! Somone has
alos suggested to me that I use stored procedures and SQL Server to
speed things up? Ive never used SQL Server before so I am bit scared
about using it (Im only a hobbyist), and I dont even know what a SP is
or does. How easy will it be upgrading the whole thing to SQL Server
and will it be worth the hassle, bearing in mind I expect my userbase
to keep growing? Do SP help speed things up significantly? Would
appreciate some advice!
Thanks in advance,
John.
One of our developers has a Microsoft Access 2000 database that runs queries that compare the Access db data to a SQL Server database. He uses pass through queries to get the data from SQL Server.
We're finding that the Access query runs quickly against our test server, even with copies of production data, but when we try the same query against our production server, the CPU on the local computer running Access is pegged and the query takes up to 10 minutes to run.
First I verified that the SQL Server structures between test and production were identical, including indexes. I checked index fragmentation, and productions indexes are less fragmented than tests. Again, test and production currently have the identical data.
I've run a profiler trace on our production SQL Server 2000 server, and I see the RPC for the query from Access running almost instantaneously.
Any ideas on what might be the cause of the difference in speed between test and production SQL Server servers, or any suggestions on other things I could look at/tools I could use to troubleshoot this issue further?
I have an application built with Access 2003 (MDB). It is running under Windows XP without any problems. If I run it under Vista, it works technically well but I get the data very slow from the server.
Server:
Windows Server 2003 R2, SP2
SQL Server 2005, version 9.00.3054.00
Firewall: off
Client:
Access 2003, SP3
Connection strings:
ODBC;DRIVER={SQL Native Client};UID=SD_Admin;DATABASE=SDX;SERVER=MARS;PWD=xxx;
or
ODBC;DRIVER={SQL Native Client};DATABASE=SDX;Trusted_Connection=Yes;SERVER=MARS;
Windows Firewall on client: off
Onecare Firewall on client: off
How can i Fix this issue?
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?
Thanks in advance for any help on this
Hello,
In a Data Flow Task, I have an insert that occurs into a SQL Server 2000 table from a fixed width flat file. The SQL Server table that the data goes into is accessed through an OLE DB connection manager that uses the Native OLE DBMicrosoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server.
In the OLE DB Destination, I changed the access mode from Table or View - fast load to Table or View because I needed to implement OLE DB Destination Error Output. The Error output goes to a SQL Server 2000 table that uses the same connection manager.
The OLE DB Destination Editor Error Output 'Error' option is configured to 'Redirect' the row. 'Set this value to selected cells' is set to 'Fail component'.
Was changing the access mode the simple reason why the insert from the flat file takes so much longer, or could there be other problems?
Thank you for your help!
cdun2
We have been asked to look into using stored procedures with SQL Server 7.0 as a way to speed up a clients site. 99% of all the articles I have read along with all the books all say Stored Procedure should be used whenever possible as opposed to putting the SQL in your ASP script. However one of my colleagues has been speaking to Microsoft and they said that that they were surprised that our client wanted to use Stored Procedures as this was the old method of database access and that now he should really consider using COM objects for data access as itis much faster. Has anyone got any views on this or know of any good aticles regarding this matter ?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have a database that's 2.5GB but only has about 17MB of actual data. I've setup a standby server that I load my dumps into. The load takes about 10 miuntes. The dump takes about a minute and a half (which also seems slow to me for that small amount of data). I don't expect that it should take that long to load 8800 pages into a database. The standby server is the same hardware as the production server (sinlge 500MHz Xeon, 2GB RAM, RAID 5). The server has only a single RAID 5 array to store all the OS, and all the SQL data however, I still don't thinkit should take thta long to load. Let me know what you think.
--Buddy
dear friends,
i have dropped many objects and recreated in a database.suddenly my database became very slow. so please any one of friends give solution.
HI Friends,
My database performing slow.
In which area i will take care.
Can u any body plz explaine me step by step plz
Thsx
siva
Meti BEST OF THE BEST
I have designed a 22 table database in sql server that is to act as a backup/alternate access to the data we have stored in an ADABAS database. I've also written a vb.net console program that will take data from ADABAS through a broker connection (one row at a time), checks the sql server database to see if that information is already stored, and then either performs an insert or an update.
I can write the rows from ADABAS to a text file (not using the broker), at the rate of about 1.3 million rows in 1.3 hours. Data can be imported (I'm not sure how this import is done, possibly via a CSV file. SELECTS/UPDATES are not done, just INSERTS) at about 1 million or so an hour. But when I do the update, receiving information via the broker from ADABAS to the VB program (with it's SELECT, then UPDATE/INSERT), I'm only doing about 20-25 thousand rows an hour.
I ran a trace using the SQL Server Analyzer on the database while running the update program, and then ran Profiler using the generated workload. It created a few indices, but I just restarted the update program (I'm still developing, so I delete all rows from all tables each time I rerun the update), but I haven't seen that it's really any faster.
I have a rather large set of data to transfer over, and this 20-25 thousand row time is not nearly fast enough.
Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks,
We just installed SQL Server version 800.194 on a dual processorserver equipped with a gigabyte of RAM, running Windows 2000 Serveroperating system. We set up a few databases with (so far) very tinytables.When I am working locally (i.e. on the server itself) with QueryAnalyzer, even the simplest operation is incredibly slow. If I bringup Windows Task Manager looking at the Processes pane (Query Analyzershows up as "isqlw.exe"), and use "View/Select Columns..." to choose"I/O Writes" and "I/O Write Bytes", then I observe that doing aselect* on a table with a single row results in over 500 "I/O Writes"and 170,000 "I/O Write Bytes" of data written. It requires 15 secondsto return the single row of information.Even clicking on the Change Database Listbox results in hundreds ofwrite operations!However, when I am working remotely with Query Analyzer, the select*works perfectly normally. Neither "I/O Writes" nor "I/O Write Bytes"are recorded.I figure maybe there is some sort of security logging turned on thatrecords everything you do...Whatever is going on here, how do you turn it off?Tom
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have a database that had worked under msde 1.0 until reached the 2GBof dimension and the dB was blocked. To make possible the work i haddeleted old data from some table. The database restart, but theanswers from server become very slow. So i decided to pass to SqlServer 2000 without success. May i perform a check of this database?if is a indexs problem there is a way to rebuild them?Thanks in advanceAndy Wet
View 1 Replies View RelatedI just found out the response time of open a connection or execute a SQL command over VPN is very slow. It takes around 150ms for each round trip. If the same program run on LAN, it takes less than 1ms. I understand that VPN may have encryption and thus have a bit delay. However, if the delay happens whethever I make a SQL call, it will be unacceptable. Is there anything that I have missed out? If the delay occurs once only, it will be still great. (I think this is the point of connection pooling. Right?) However, it's really bad if the delay occurs each time I call SQL. Please help!
View 5 Replies View RelatedHas anyone else experienced this?
Database Restore takes much longer on Windows 2003 64-bit than on 32-bit...
Is this simply the Service Pack level or does it have to do with the 64-bit/32-bit issue?
We have a Development/QA/Production environment setup in this manner:
DEV - fast restores - (about 2 hours)
OS: Windows Server 2003 R2 Service Pack 2
DB: SQL 2000 Service Pack 4 (32-bit)
QA - slow restores - (about 10 hours)
OS: Windows Server 2003 x64 Service Pack 1
DB: SQL 2000 Service Pack 4 (32-bit)
Production - slow restores - (about 10 hours)OS: Windows Server 2003 x64 Service Pack 1
DB: SQL 2000 Service Pack 4 (32-bit)
Thank you for your time in advance!!!
Adminicrater
I have a portal site that has many iframes loading various pages. One of the iframes requires data from a database that has a slow connection and right now there is nothing we can do about the slow connection and is something we have to live with.
What seems to be happening though is that even though each page is loading seperatly in an iframe, when the page loads with the slow connection, it seems to hold up processing on the server for the other frames until the connection has been established with the server. It can be something like 10 seconds. I am guessing trying to establish the connection is holding up the worker process on IIS???
So I am trying to find a workaround bearing in mind there is nothing we can do about the slow connection for the time being? Does anyone have any suggestions? One I am thinking of is forcing this frame to load last so at least the other frames are not being held up. Another is maybe to use a seperate thread, but does anyone have any idea on this?
Thanks in advance
I'm querying a small SQL2005 database and finding that the query can sometimes complete in under a second and then 5 minutes later the same query can take 15 minutes to complete.
The query I'm running is very simple as follows:
select TOP 26 * from vSearchListOpportunityItem WHERE OpIt_OpportunityId=2495 ORDER BY Prod_Name, OpIt_OpportunityItemId
The view it is pulling data from only contains only 1890 lines, which in turn pulls data from 3 tables with 821, 2560, and 1957 lines of data. In other words it's small. I have noticed that if I try and open the smallest of these tables while on a 'go slow' period it also takes around 15 minutes to return the data.
The database was originally on SQL 2000. It is the only database on this powerful quad core server.
The SQL Server CPU usage never goes above 40%, and always has free memory.
No sign of locks.
I can't figure out why such a small database is going so slow with such a simple query. Any ideas?
I am developing a mobile 5.0 application. I use mobile Sql as the database in the pda.
In the program, i use dataset.xsd to create the table and tableAdapter, but the performance is very slow for just access the data from the database. It takes about 4200ms for just
this.userAdapter = new PDA_USERTableAdapter();
MBDB2DataSet.PDA_USERDataTable ut = userAdapter.GetUser();
the "new PDA_USERTableAdapter()" is very fast.But...
The userAdapter.GetUser() will only return about 20 rows, each rows only contains 5 field .But it cost 4200 ms for this line.
The sql statement in userAdapter.GetUser() is
SELECT User, PASSWORD, TYPE, USER_ID, Supervisor_ID
FROM PDA_USER
WHERE (TYPE = 5)
ORDER BY User
Please Help, Urgent!!!!!
p.s (The total rows in the PDA_USER table is only 30 rows)
Thank you very much
Hi i have a sql server instance on my system and it is linking into an oracle database on another server. When i run queries against this other server...it takes forever...
However, when i use access, and link the table and run the same query against the oracle database...it runs immediatly.
I am very confused as to why there would be such a performance difference and why sql server would run so slow.
I am wondering if it has something to do with the way i configured the linked server. there are several options that I didn't know what they meant.
collation compatible (not selected)
Data access (selected)
RPC (not selected)
RPC Out (not selected)
collation name
connection timeout
query timeout
I upgraded from 6.5 to 7.0 SP3. Now when I save (write) an invoice it takes about 10-12 seconds, at 6.5 it was 1-3 seconds. SQL Server and my Materials App are the only thing running on this box. This is the only area that has gotten slower everything else works great. I have 3 users saving invoices and about 15 people total using the system at one time. It's a compaq DL580 loaded with memory, database is 2,195MB in size. Same 6.5 client to access system as before. Should I rebuild/reindex the database? Is there something from the old 6.5 version I need to remove?? Thanks in advance!!!
View 1 Replies View Related