Showing posts with label multiple. Show all posts
Showing posts with label multiple. Show all posts

Thursday, March 22, 2012

A Common Query Question!

Hi Guys,

I have a query that gives me multiple rows for every customer, where as my requirement is to have one row for each customer. Below are the details:

Customers Table

Cust_ID int (PK)

Cust_Name varchar(255)

Subscription_Status int

Cust_Subscription_Audit Table

ID Identity(PK)

Cust_ID int

Old_Subscription_Status int

New_Subscription_Status int

Audit_Date DateTime

Logins Table (one customer may have multiple logins )

ID Identity (PK)

Cust_ID int

login name varchar(256)

email_ID varchar(256)

F_Name varchar(50)

L_name varchar(50)

role int

Last_Modified DateTime

INDEXES

Logins Table

PK__Clustered Ascending

No Index on Audit Table

Customers Table

PK__Clustered_ Ascending

Below is the query that is being used to extract the data

Code Snippet

SELECT C.Cust_Name, C.Cust_ID, L.F_Name +' '+ L.L_Name AS [CustName], L.Email_ID,MAX(CSA.Audit_Date)

FROM Customers C

INNERJOIN Cust_Subscription_Audit CSA ON C.Cust_ID= CSA.Cust_ID

INNERJOIN Logins L ON L.Cust_ID= C.Cust_ID

WHERE C.Subscription_Status >=1 AND L.Role= 1

GROUPBY C.Cust_Name, C.Cust_ID, L.F_Name +' '+ L.L_Name, L.Email_ID

This gives me multiple rows for a customer. What I am looking for is

1) One row for each customer.(Query 1)

2) If possible can pick the row of my choice Like log in that was added first or last based on login or Modified date in login table.(Query 2)

3) If possible can pick the row by row number i.e. if there are multiple logins for a customer then the 2nd login. (Query 3)

Your help will be appreciated.

Thanks

-Leo

Can you post some DDL, including constraints and indexes, sample data and expected result, please?

AMB

|||

Hi ,

Thanks for your prompt reply. Here is the Sample Data

Customers Table

Cust_ID Cust_Name SubsStatus

1 abc corp. 7

2 Adventure Works Inc 1

3 MicroCorn Inc 2

4 Fabrikam 7

5 Goleeeee Inc 5

Logins Table

ID Cust ID Login Email f_Name l_Name Role Date_Modified

1 1 rob1 rob1@.hotmail.com Rob Haany 1 2006-02-28 13:24
2 2 scot1 scot1@.yahoo.com Scot claudia 1 2006-05-24 12:30
3 3 scot2 scot2@.hotmail.com Scot Roy 1 2006-05-24 12:30
4 4 rob NULL RON HARTON 1 2006-08-22 15:26
5 4 qsir qsir@.hotmail.com Q Sir 1 2006-09-17 12:23
6 5 nzaar nzaar@.hotmail.com nad zaar 3 2006-09-17 12:23
7 5 jluk jluk@.hotmail.com Ron Richard 1 2006-09-17 12:23
8 2 drase draze@.hotmail.com Dino Mosoli 1 2006-08-22 15:26
9 2 dlins David Lin 3 2006-12-28 13:24
10 4 dmay NULL David May 1 2006-05-24 12:30

Role 1 = admin

Role 3 = Primary Contact

ID Cust_ID Old_Subscription_Status New_Subscription_Status Audit_Date

1 1 3 7 2006-09-24 12:30

2 2 0 1 2006-03-24 02:30

3 3 1 2 2006-08-24 10:30

4 4 1 7 2006-11-24 12:30

5 5 3 5 2006-09-24 12:30

6 4 3 1 2006-10-24 12:30

7 3 0 1 2006-06-24 12:30

8 1 0 1 2006-02-24 12:30

9 1 1 3 2006-07-24 12:30

10 5 1 3 2006-07-24 12:30

The required result is

Cust_ID Cust_Name F_name L_Name Email Audit Date

1 abc Corp Rob Haany rob1@.hotmail.com 2006-09-24 12:30

2 Adventure Works Inc Scot claudia scot1@.yahoo.com 2006-03-24 02:18

3 MicroCorn Inc Scot Roy scot2@.hotmail.com 2006-08-24 10:28

4 Fabrikam Q Sir qsir@.hotmail.com 2006-11-24 12:30

5 Goleeee Inc Ron Richard jluk@.hotmail.com 2006-09-24 12:30

Right now what is happening is threre are more than one records for Cust_ID = 2. The basic question is (Query 1) is how can we restrict the result set to only one row per Cust_ID. So my other questions (Query 2, Query3) were how can we choose one of these records based on some criteria e.g. since more than one records are there for Cust_ID = 2, and I wana choose the one that is with earliest Date_Modified or 2nd earliest Modified date.

Thanks,

-Leo.

|||

hi Leo,

If you are using SQL server 2005 Try this:

Code Snippet

SELECT C.Cust_Name, C.Cust_ID, L.F_Name +' '+ L.L_Name AS [CustName], L.Email_ID, MAX(CSA.Audit_Date)

FROM Customers C

INNER JOIN Cust_Subscription_Audit CSA ON C.Cust_ID = CSA.Cust_ID

CROSS APPLY (select top 1 * from Logins where Cust_ID=CSA.Cust_ID ) L

WHERE C.Subscription_Status >=1 AND L.Role= 1

GROUP BY C.Cust_Name, C.Cust_ID, L.F_Name +' '+ L.L_Name, L.Email_ID

|||

Thank you very much for this nice hint. I tweeked the query little bit and it woked for me here is the modified query.

Code Snippet

SELECT C.Cust_Name, C.Cust_ID, L.F_Name +' '+ L.L_Name AS [CustName], L.Email_ID, MAX(CSA.Audit_Date)

FROM Customers C

INNER JOIN Cust_Subscription_Audit CSA ON C.Cust_ID = CSA.Cust_ID

OUTER APPLY (select top 1 * from Logins where Cust_ID=CSA.Cust_ID And [Role] = 1 ) L

WHERE C.Subscription_Status >=1

GROUP BY C.Cust_Name, C.Cust_ID, L.F_Name +' '+ L.L_Name, L.Email_ID

|||do you need OUTER APPLU here? OUTER APPLY returns both rows that produce a result set, and rows that do not, with NULL values in the columns produced by the table-valued function (pretty much like OUTER JOIN in case of normal table). So if there is no match in table 'Logins' the value of L.F_Name +' '+ L.L_Name AS [CustName], L.Email_ID will be NULL.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

64-bit Reporting Services 2005 single-threading?

We're running on an AMD 8-core Opteron, with Enterprise RS 2005 64-bit.
It seems that when we have multiple users running reports at the same time,
the mdx queries get executed in parallel to the AS database, but the
processing of the data by reporting services is done in a single-thread mode.
E.g. a report run by itself takes 15 seconds. Same report run by 5 people can
take 3:30 to return (with the w3wp taking up the equivalent of only 1 core).
My laptop running RS 2005 processes these simultaneous report faster than our
Opteron!!!
We played with setting the # of workers on the IIS Appl Pool, and it does
seem to cause multiple reports to be processed simultaneously, but I don't
think this is the best solution. I think we are running the equivalent of 8
copies of reporting services on the box in this configuration -- I see 8 RS
logs being generated.
Is there a setting in either IIS or RS 2005 to make it process requests in
parallel?
SteveHi Steve,
Me too, interested to know the answer to your question. If you find out -
please update.
Thanks,
Al
"SteveIrwin" wrote:
...
> Is there a setting in either IIS or RS 2005 to make it process requests in
> parallel?
> Steve|||It looks like the App Pool that gets created for RS has CPUAffinity assign to
it, I think. When you create another App Pool in IIS, and switch the
Reporting Services vdir to use the new pool, then it behaves like a regular
website -- one worker process that answers all requests that come to it,
spawning multiple threads if necessary.
So it comes down to how you want to have RS to work: do you want one worker
that spawns threads to handle requests, or have multiple workers that will
each take up only one cpu/core for each request, then move on to the next
request. It would be interested to see any whitepapers on this subject.
Steve
"TheTechie" wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> Me too, interested to know the answer to your question. If you find out -
> please update.
> Thanks,
> Al
> "SteveIrwin" wrote:
> ...
> > Is there a setting in either IIS or RS 2005 to make it process requests in
> > parallel?
> >
> > Steve

Thursday, February 9, 2012

3GB Switch question

I am using the following:
Windows 2003 Enterprise
SQL 2000 Std SP3
6GB Ram
4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
I will be running multiple instances of DB.
What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
Thanks.
Leon
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
"Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I am using the following:
> Windows 2003 Enterprise
> SQL 2000 Std SP3
> 6GB Ram
> 4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
> I will be running multiple instances of DB.
> What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
>
> Thanks.
>
|||Thanks
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Leon
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
>
> "Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>

3GB Switch question

I am using the following:
Windows 2003 Enterprise
SQL 2000 Std SP3
6GB Ram
4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
I will be running multiple instances of DB.
What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
Thanks.Leon
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
"Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I am using the following:
> Windows 2003 Enterprise
> SQL 2000 Std SP3
> 6GB Ram
> 4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
> I will be running multiple instances of DB.
> What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
>
> Thanks.
>|||Thanks
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Leon
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
>
> "Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||To add on URI; if it is 64 bit system and SQL Server standard edition 64 bit
; then there is no need to change the memory addreesss space. This is
because 64 bit
can address more memory with out changing the BOOT.INI.
Thanks
Hari
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Leon
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
>
> "Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||Guys,
Is this the same for SQL 2005 Enterprise on 2003 Standard R2 server? Do I
need to make any changes to boot.ini? The document in KB is for 2000 SQL and
I can not find anything for 2005 SQL. Please help.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:

> To add on URI; if it is 64 bit system and SQL Server standard edition 64 b
it
> ; then there is no need to change the memory addreesss space. This is
> because 64 bit
> can address more memory with out changing the BOOT.INI.
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>|||If it is 32 bit and you want the app (in this case SQL Server) to use 3GB
instead of 2GB of directly addressable memory you need to set the /3GB
switch. But I don't believe Windows2003 Std edition uses more than 2 GB to
begin with. I could be wrong on that part though. But the bottom line is the
OS needs to support the memory before SQL Server can. And starting with
SQL2005 Std Edition and up can use all the memory that the OS can access
given the correct configuration.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F8306B35-4D7A-498E-AE05-7C58442A233B@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Guys,
> Is this the same for SQL 2005 Enterprise on 2003 Standard R2 server? Do I
> need to make any changes to boot.ini? The document in KB is for 2000 SQL
> and
> I can not find anything for 2005 SQL. Please help.
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>|||Thank you. Anyone knows how to set this correctly on 2003 Standard Server?
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> If it is 32 bit and you want the app (in this case SQL Server) to use 3GB
> instead of 2GB of directly addressable memory you need to set the /3GB
> switch. But I don't believe Windows2003 Std edition uses more than 2 GB to
> begin with. I could be wrong on that part though. But the bottom line is t
he
> OS needs to support the memory before SQL Server can. And starting with
> SQL2005 Std Edition and up can use all the memory that the OS can access
> given the correct configuration.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F8306B35-4D7A-498E-AE05-7C58442A233B@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||You might want to have a look at these. The concepts are the same.
http://sqljunkies.com/Tutorial/0D4F...F2FE2D58F6.scuk
Memory
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp Using AWE Memory
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363 SQL Server 7 & 2000 memory
usage
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=274750 Memory config
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=283037 Large Memory Support Is
Available in Windows 2000 (AWE)
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=811891 Can not use more than 2GB of
memory
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:602610CF-D97C-4E87-81F0-1B9E6BC615C3@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you. Anyone knows how to set this correctly on 2003 Standard Server?
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>

3GB Switch question

I am using the following:
Windows 2003 Enterprise
SQL 2000 Std SP3
6GB Ram
4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
I will be running multiple instances of DB.
What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
Thanks.Leon
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
"Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I am using the following:
> Windows 2003 Enterprise
> SQL 2000 Std SP3
> 6GB Ram
> 4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
> I will be running multiple instances of DB.
> What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
>
> Thanks.
>|||Thanks
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Leon
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
>
> "Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I am using the following:
>> Windows 2003 Enterprise
>> SQL 2000 Std SP3
>> 6GB Ram
>> 4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
>> I will be running multiple instances of DB.
>> What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
>>
>> Thanks.
>|||To add on URI; if it is 64 bit system and SQL Server standard edition 64 bit
; then there is no need to change the memory addreesss space. This is
because 64 bit
can address more memory with out changing the BOOT.INI.
Thanks
Hari
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Leon
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
>
> "Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I am using the following:
>> Windows 2003 Enterprise
>> SQL 2000 Std SP3
>> 6GB Ram
>> 4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
>> I will be running multiple instances of DB.
>> What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
>>
>> Thanks.
>|||Guys,
Is this the same for SQL 2005 Enterprise on 2003 Standard R2 server? Do I
need to make any changes to boot.ini? The document in KB is for 2000 SQL and
I can not find anything for 2005 SQL. Please help.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> To add on URI; if it is 64 bit system and SQL Server standard edition 64 bit
> ; then there is no need to change the memory addreesss space. This is
> because 64 bit
> can address more memory with out changing the BOOT.INI.
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > Leon
> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
> >
> >
> >
> > "Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >>I am using the following:
> >>
> >> Windows 2003 Enterprise
> >> SQL 2000 Std SP3
> >> 6GB Ram
> >> 4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
> >>
> >> I will be running multiple instances of DB.
> >>
> >> What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>|||If it is 32 bit and you want the app (in this case SQL Server) to use 3GB
instead of 2GB of directly addressable memory you need to set the /3GB
switch. But I don't believe Windows2003 Std edition uses more than 2 GB to
begin with. I could be wrong on that part though. But the bottom line is the
OS needs to support the memory before SQL Server can. And starting with
SQL2005 Std Edition and up can use all the memory that the OS can access
given the correct configuration.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F8306B35-4D7A-498E-AE05-7C58442A233B@.microsoft.com...
> Guys,
> Is this the same for SQL 2005 Enterprise on 2003 Standard R2 server? Do I
> need to make any changes to boot.ini? The document in KB is for 2000 SQL
> and
> I can not find anything for 2005 SQL. Please help.
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> To add on URI; if it is 64 bit system and SQL Server standard edition 64
>> bit
>> ; then there is no need to change the memory addreesss space. This is
>> because 64 bit
>> can address more memory with out changing the BOOT.INI.
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>>
>> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
>> news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> > Leon
>> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> >>I am using the following:
>> >>
>> >> Windows 2003 Enterprise
>> >> SQL 2000 Std SP3
>> >> 6GB Ram
>> >> 4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
>> >>
>> >> I will be running multiple instances of DB.
>> >>
>> >> What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>|||Thank you. Anyone knows how to set this correctly on 2003 Standard Server?
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> If it is 32 bit and you want the app (in this case SQL Server) to use 3GB
> instead of 2GB of directly addressable memory you need to set the /3GB
> switch. But I don't believe Windows2003 Std edition uses more than 2 GB to
> begin with. I could be wrong on that part though. But the bottom line is the
> OS needs to support the memory before SQL Server can. And starting with
> SQL2005 Std Edition and up can use all the memory that the OS can access
> given the correct configuration.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F8306B35-4D7A-498E-AE05-7C58442A233B@.microsoft.com...
> > Guys,
> >
> > Is this the same for SQL 2005 Enterprise on 2003 Standard R2 server? Do I
> > need to make any changes to boot.ini? The document in KB is for 2000 SQL
> > and
> > I can not find anything for 2005 SQL. Please help.
> >
> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
> >
> >> To add on URI; if it is 64 bit system and SQL Server standard edition 64
> >> bit
> >> ; then there is no need to change the memory addreesss space. This is
> >> because 64 bit
> >> can address more memory with out changing the BOOT.INI.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Hari
> >>
> >>
> >> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> >> news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >> > Leon
> >> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >> >>I am using the following:
> >> >>
> >> >> Windows 2003 Enterprise
> >> >> SQL 2000 Std SP3
> >> >> 6GB Ram
> >> >> 4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
> >> >>
> >> >> I will be running multiple instances of DB.
> >> >>
> >> >> What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||You might want to have a look at these. The concepts are the same.
http://sqljunkies.com/Tutorial/0D4FF40A-695C-4327-A41B-F9F2FE2D58F6.scuk
Memory
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/awe_memory.asp Using AWE Memory
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=321363 SQL Server 7 & 2000 memory
usage
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=274750 Memory config
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=283037 Large Memory Support Is
Available in Windows 2000 (AWE)
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=811891 Can not use more than 2GB of
memory
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:602610CF-D97C-4E87-81F0-1B9E6BC615C3@.microsoft.com...
> Thank you. Anyone knows how to set this correctly on 2003 Standard Server?
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> If it is 32 bit and you want the app (in this case SQL Server) to use 3GB
>> instead of 2GB of directly addressable memory you need to set the /3GB
>> switch. But I don't believe Windows2003 Std edition uses more than 2 GB
>> to
>> begin with. I could be wrong on that part though. But the bottom line is
>> the
>> OS needs to support the memory before SQL Server can. And starting with
>> SQL2005 Std Edition and up can use all the memory that the OS can access
>> given the correct configuration.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "George" <George@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:F8306B35-4D7A-498E-AE05-7C58442A233B@.microsoft.com...
>> > Guys,
>> >
>> > Is this the same for SQL 2005 Enterprise on 2003 Standard R2 server? Do
>> > I
>> > need to make any changes to boot.ini? The document in KB is for 2000
>> > SQL
>> > and
>> > I can not find anything for 2005 SQL. Please help.
>> >
>> > "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> >
>> >> To add on URI; if it is 64 bit system and SQL Server standard edition
>> >> 64
>> >> bit
>> >> ; then there is no need to change the memory addreesss space. This is
>> >> because 64 bit
>> >> can address more memory with out changing the BOOT.INI.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Hari
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
>> >> news:OL1Fg0CTHHA.2212@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Leon
>> >> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/274750
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Leon" <Lion@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:%23$czIrCTHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> >> >>I am using the following:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Windows 2003 Enterprise
>> >> >> SQL 2000 Std SP3
>> >> >> 6GB Ram
>> >> >> 4 CPU's with HT turned on (3.2)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I will be running multiple instances of DB.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What should the entry in boot.ini be to best utilise the resources.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>