sql2k sp3a
Not really any more to ask.
TIA, ChrisR
Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
sql2k sp3a
Not really any more to ask.
TIA, ChrisR
Showing posts with label slow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label slow. Show all posts
Thursday, March 8, 2012
can dbcc showcontig slow things down/ lock tables?
sql2k sp3a
Not really any more to ask.
TIA, ChrisRYes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
sql2k sp3a
Not really any more to ask.
TIA, ChrisR
Not really any more to ask.
TIA, ChrisRYes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
sql2k sp3a
Not really any more to ask.
TIA, ChrisR
can dbcc showcontig slow things down/ lock tables?
sql2k sp3a
Not really any more to ask.
TIA, ChrisRYes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
sql2k sp3a
Not really any more to ask.
TIA, ChrisR
Not really any more to ask.
TIA, ChrisRYes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
sql2k sp3a
Not really any more to ask.
TIA, ChrisR
can dbcc showcontig slow things down/ lock tables cont'd
Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that
they will be locked for a shorter period of time?
TIA, ChrisR
Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
sql2k sp3a
Not really any more to ask.
TIA, ChrisR" A fast scan does not read the leaf or data level pages of the index. "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/tsqlref/ts_dbcc_46cn.asp
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that
> they will be locked for a shorter period of time?
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>
> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> .
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3a
> Not really any more to ask.
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>|||Thanks Adam. I saw that, and the way I read it is that it won't lock my
tables up. But before I fire this off in production during the middle of the
day, I wanted to confirm my thoughts?
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:uCIS9nMqFHA.208@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>" A fast scan does not read the leaf or data level pages of the index. "
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/tsqlref/ts_dbcc_46cn.asp
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.datamanipulation.net
> --
>
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that
>> they will be locked for a shorter period of time?
>> TIA, ChrisR
>>
>>
>> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and
>> do
>> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you
>> need.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> www.pinpub.com
>> .
>> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
>> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> sql2k sp3a
>> Not really any more to ask.
>> TIA, ChrisR
>>
>|||FAST makes the operation faster as the leaf level doesn't have to be read. As for locking FAST
doesn't make a difference (table S lock). For non-heaps, you will have table IS lock instead when
using FAST.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that they will be locked for a
> shorter period of time?
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>
> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> .
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3a
> Not really any more to ask.
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>|||It will still acquire shared locks.
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:umO5mqMqFHA.1028@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Adam. I saw that, and the way I read it is that it won't lock my
> tables up. But before I fire this off in production during the middle of
the
> day, I wanted to confirm my thoughts?
>
> "Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
> news:uCIS9nMqFHA.208@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >" A fast scan does not read the leaf or data level pages of the index. "
> >
> >
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/tsqlref/ts_dbcc_46cn.asp
> >
> >
> > --
> > Adam Machanic
> > SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.datamanipulation.net
> > --
> >
> >
> > "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> > news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> >> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or
that
> >> they will be locked for a shorter period of time?
> >>
> >> TIA, ChrisR
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and
> >> do
> >> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you
> >> need.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tom
> >>
> >> ----
> >> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> >> SQL Server MVP
> >> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> >> Toronto, ON Canada
> >> www.pinpub.com
> >> .
> >> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> >> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >> sql2k sp3a
> >>
> >> Not really any more to ask.
> >>
> >> TIA, ChrisR
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>|||Oops, a mistake in my post:
For heaps, FAST doesn't make difference (S table lock).
For non-heaps, FAST takes table IS instead of table S.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message
news:OJs0rsMqFHA.3576@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> FAST makes the operation faster as the leaf level doesn't have to be read. As for locking FAST
> doesn't make a difference (table S lock). For non-heaps, you will have table IS lock instead when
> using FAST.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that they will be locked for
>> a shorter period of time?
>> TIA, ChrisR
>>
>>
>> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
>> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> www.pinpub.com
>> .
>> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
>> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> sql2k sp3a
>> Not really any more to ask.
>> TIA, ChrisR
>>
>
they will be locked for a shorter period of time?
TIA, ChrisR
Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
sql2k sp3a
Not really any more to ask.
TIA, ChrisR" A fast scan does not read the leaf or data level pages of the index. "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/tsqlref/ts_dbcc_46cn.asp
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that
> they will be locked for a shorter period of time?
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>
> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> .
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3a
> Not really any more to ask.
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>|||Thanks Adam. I saw that, and the way I read it is that it won't lock my
tables up. But before I fire this off in production during the middle of the
day, I wanted to confirm my thoughts?
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:uCIS9nMqFHA.208@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>" A fast scan does not read the leaf or data level pages of the index. "
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/tsqlref/ts_dbcc_46cn.asp
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.datamanipulation.net
> --
>
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that
>> they will be locked for a shorter period of time?
>> TIA, ChrisR
>>
>>
>> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and
>> do
>> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you
>> need.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> www.pinpub.com
>> .
>> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
>> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> sql2k sp3a
>> Not really any more to ask.
>> TIA, ChrisR
>>
>|||FAST makes the operation faster as the leaf level doesn't have to be read. As for locking FAST
doesn't make a difference (table S lock). For non-heaps, you will have table IS lock instead when
using FAST.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that they will be locked for a
> shorter period of time?
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>
> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> .
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3a
> Not really any more to ask.
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>|||It will still acquire shared locks.
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:umO5mqMqFHA.1028@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Adam. I saw that, and the way I read it is that it won't lock my
> tables up. But before I fire this off in production during the middle of
the
> day, I wanted to confirm my thoughts?
>
> "Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
> news:uCIS9nMqFHA.208@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >" A fast scan does not read the leaf or data level pages of the index. "
> >
> >
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/tsqlref/ts_dbcc_46cn.asp
> >
> >
> > --
> > Adam Machanic
> > SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.datamanipulation.net
> > --
> >
> >
> > "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> > news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> >> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or
that
> >> they will be locked for a shorter period of time?
> >>
> >> TIA, ChrisR
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and
> >> do
> >> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you
> >> need.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tom
> >>
> >> ----
> >> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> >> SQL Server MVP
> >> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> >> Toronto, ON Canada
> >> www.pinpub.com
> >> .
> >> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> >> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >> sql2k sp3a
> >>
> >> Not really any more to ask.
> >>
> >> TIA, ChrisR
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>|||Oops, a mistake in my post:
For heaps, FAST doesn't make difference (S table lock).
For non-heaps, FAST takes table IS instead of table S.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message
news:OJs0rsMqFHA.3576@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> FAST makes the operation faster as the leaf level doesn't have to be read. As for locking FAST
> doesn't make a difference (table S lock). For non-heaps, you will have table IS lock instead when
> using FAST.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that they will be locked for
>> a shorter period of time?
>> TIA, ChrisR
>>
>>
>> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
>> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
>> --
>> Tom
>> ----
>> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
>> SQL Server MVP
>> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
>> Toronto, ON Canada
>> www.pinpub.com
>> .
>> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
>> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> sql2k sp3a
>> Not really any more to ask.
>> TIA, ChrisR
>>
>
can dbcc showcontig slow things down/ lock tables cont'd
Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that
they will be locked for a shorter period of time?
TIA, ChrisR
Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
sql2k sp3a
Not really any more to ask.
TIA, ChrisR
" A fast scan does not read the leaf or data level pages of the index. "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de..._dbcc_46cn.asp
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that
> they will be locked for a shorter period of time?
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>
> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> .
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3a
> Not really any more to ask.
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>
|||Thanks Adam. I saw that, and the way I read it is that it won't lock my
tables up. But before I fire this off in production during the middle of the
day, I wanted to confirm my thoughts?
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:uCIS9nMqFHA.208@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>" A fast scan does not read the leaf or data level pages of the index. "
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de..._dbcc_46cn.asp
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.datamanipulation.net
> --
>
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
|||FAST makes the operation faster as the leaf level doesn't have to be read. As for locking FAST
doesn't make a difference (table S lock). For non-heaps, you will have table IS lock instead when
using FAST.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that they will be locked for a
> shorter period of time?
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>
> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> .
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3a
> Not really any more to ask.
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>
|||It will still acquire shared locks.
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:umO5mqMqFHA.1028@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Adam. I saw that, and the way I read it is that it won't lock my
> tables up. But before I fire this off in production during the middle of
the[vbcol=seagreen]
> day, I wanted to confirm my thoughts?
>
> "Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
> news:uCIS9nMqFHA.208@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de..._dbcc_46cn.asp[vbcol=seagreen]
that
>
|||Oops, a mistake in my post:
For heaps, FAST doesn't make difference (S table lock).
For non-heaps, FAST takes table IS instead of table S.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message
news:OJs0rsMqFHA.3576@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> FAST makes the operation faster as the leaf level doesn't have to be read. As for locking FAST
> doesn't make a difference (table S lock). For non-heaps, you will have table IS lock instead when
> using FAST.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
they will be locked for a shorter period of time?
TIA, ChrisR
Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
sql2k sp3a
Not really any more to ask.
TIA, ChrisR
" A fast scan does not read the leaf or data level pages of the index. "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de..._dbcc_46cn.asp
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that
> they will be locked for a shorter period of time?
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>
> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> .
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3a
> Not really any more to ask.
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>
|||Thanks Adam. I saw that, and the way I read it is that it won't lock my
tables up. But before I fire this off in production during the middle of the
day, I wanted to confirm my thoughts?
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:uCIS9nMqFHA.208@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>" A fast scan does not read the leaf or data level pages of the index. "
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de..._dbcc_46cn.asp
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.datamanipulation.net
> --
>
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
|||FAST makes the operation faster as the leaf level doesn't have to be read. As for locking FAST
doesn't make a difference (table S lock). For non-heaps, you will have table IS lock instead when
using FAST.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that they will be locked for a
> shorter period of time?
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>
> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> .
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3a
> Not really any more to ask.
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>
|||It will still acquire shared locks.
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:umO5mqMqFHA.1028@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Adam. I saw that, and the way I read it is that it won't lock my
> tables up. But before I fire this off in production during the middle of
the[vbcol=seagreen]
> day, I wanted to confirm my thoughts?
>
> "Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
> news:uCIS9nMqFHA.208@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de..._dbcc_46cn.asp[vbcol=seagreen]
that
>
|||Oops, a mistake in my post:
For heaps, FAST doesn't make difference (S table lock).
For non-heaps, FAST takes table IS instead of table S.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message
news:OJs0rsMqFHA.3576@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> FAST makes the operation faster as the leaf level doesn't have to be read. As for locking FAST
> doesn't make a difference (table S lock). For non-heaps, you will have table IS lock instead when
> using FAST.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
can dbcc showcontig slow things down/ lock tables cont'd
Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that
they will be locked for a shorter period of time?
TIA, ChrisR
Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
sql2k sp3a
Not really any more to ask.
TIA, ChrisR" A fast scan does not read the leaf or data level pages of the index. "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...
6cn.asp
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that
> they will be locked for a shorter period of time?
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>
> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> .
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3a
> Not really any more to ask.
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>|||Thanks Adam. I saw that, and the way I read it is that it won't lock my
tables up. But before I fire this off in production during the middle of the
day, I wanted to confirm my thoughts?
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:uCIS9nMqFHA.208@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>" A fast scan does not read the leaf or data level pages of the index. "
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...r />
_46cn.asp
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.datamanipulation.net
> --
>
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>|||FAST makes the operation faster as the leaf level doesn't have to be read. A
s for locking FAST
doesn't make a difference (table S lock). For non-heaps, you will have table
IS lock instead when
using FAST.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbc
ol=seagreen]
> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that t
hey will be locked for a
> shorter period of time?
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>
> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> .
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3a
> Not really any more to ask.
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>[/vbcol]|||It will still acquire shared locks.
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:umO5mqMqFHA.1028@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Adam. I saw that, and the way I read it is that it won't lock my
> tables up. But before I fire this off in production during the middle of
the
> day, I wanted to confirm my thoughts?
>
> "Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
> news:uCIS9nMqFHA.208@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...s_dbcc_46cn.asp[vb
col=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||Oops, a mistake in my post:
For heaps, FAST doesn't make difference (S table lock).
For non-heaps, FAST takes table IS instead of table S.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message
news:OJs0rsMqFHA.3576@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> FAST makes the operation faster as the leaf level doesn't have to be read.
As for locking FAST
> doesn't make a difference (table S lock). For non-heaps, you will have tab
le IS lock instead when
> using FAST.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNG
P11.phx.gbl...
>
they will be locked for a shorter period of time?
TIA, ChrisR
Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
sql2k sp3a
Not really any more to ask.
TIA, ChrisR" A fast scan does not read the leaf or data level pages of the index. "
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...
6cn.asp
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that
> they will be locked for a shorter period of time?
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>
> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> .
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3a
> Not really any more to ask.
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>|||Thanks Adam. I saw that, and the way I read it is that it won't lock my
tables up. But before I fire this off in production during the middle of the
day, I wanted to confirm my thoughts?
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:uCIS9nMqFHA.208@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>" A fast scan does not read the leaf or data level pages of the index. "
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...r />
_46cn.asp
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.datamanipulation.net
> --
>
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>|||FAST makes the operation faster as the leaf level doesn't have to be read. A
s for locking FAST
doesn't make a difference (table S lock). For non-heaps, you will have table
IS lock instead when
using FAST.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbc
ol=seagreen]
> Thanks Tom. Does WITH FAST mean that the tables won't be locked, or that t
hey will be locked for a
> shorter period of time?
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>
> Yes. Shared locks are put up when you run it. Try using WITH FAST and do
> only one table at a time. You get less info, but it's the stuff you need.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> .
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:OJY7r9BqFHA.2588@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3a
> Not really any more to ask.
> TIA, ChrisR
>
>[/vbcol]|||It will still acquire shared locks.
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:umO5mqMqFHA.1028@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Adam. I saw that, and the way I read it is that it won't lock my
> tables up. But before I fire this off in production during the middle of
the
> day, I wanted to confirm my thoughts?
>
> "Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
> news:uCIS9nMqFHA.208@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...s_dbcc_46cn.asp[vb
col=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||Oops, a mistake in my post:
For heaps, FAST doesn't make difference (S table lock).
For non-heaps, FAST takes table IS instead of table S.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message
news:OJs0rsMqFHA.3576@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> FAST makes the operation faster as the leaf level doesn't have to be read.
As for locking FAST
> doesn't make a difference (table S lock). For non-heaps, you will have tab
le IS lock instead when
> using FAST.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message news:OgEFzkMqFHA.544@.TK2MSFTNG
P11.phx.gbl...
>
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Can a trace slow down a server?
Hi
I was wondering. Can a trace slow down a server? If so, is it significant?
I got a trace that catch about 300-400 event /hour with the filter on that write its result in a .trc file used later to help analyse indexes.
Could this trace slow down a server?
Any sort of monitoring is going to have a performance hit. Unfortunately it is difficult to quantify. I would guess that the more events you capture the more impact it will have.Try running performance monitor to assess the impact of your trace. Include the usual counters Processor, Memory and Hard disk counters (e.g. Memory : Available MBytes, Memory : Pages/sec, Processor : %Processor time, Process: Page Faults/sec, Hard disk : % Disk time, System : Context switches).
So stop the trace, start Performance monitor with your counters added, wait for a baseline to be established then restart your trace, then assess the impact.
You could use the "Index Tuning Wizard" or "Display Estimated Execution plan" in Query Analyser to analyse the effectiveness of your queries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)