Hello all,
I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
logs but the results remain the same.
I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
JohnnyYou probably created the file small and had bunch of autogrowths. Here's a r
eply to similar Q I
posted earlier today:
Log is emptied (2 to 0) then you backup log. Backup log, check if 2 at the e
nd. 2 at the end sets
limit of shrink. What you do is alternate backup log and shrink a few times.
Then you alter database
and pre-allocate a much as you probably need.
In addition, read about the virtual logfile concept in Books Online.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Johnny" <Johnny@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CC046CC3-867B-4CB7-AEF7-B81B3F622151@.microsoft.com...
> Hello all,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21G
B.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get ba
ck
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> logs but the results remain the same.
> I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation
of
> this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> Johnny|||Johnny,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21G
B.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get ba
ck
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
The active part of the transaction log (uncommitted transactions). This can
be caused by long running transactions and can be a problem even if the
databse is using simple recovery model. See "Checkpoints and the Active
Portion of the Log" in BOL.
Try executing "dbcc opentran" to check all active transactions.
AMB
"Johnny" wrote:
> Hello all,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21G
B.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get ba
ck
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> logs but the results remain the same.
> I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation
of
> this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> Johnny|||Sorry, forgot to mention that the active part of the transaction log should
be at the begining, if not sql server can not shrink the transaction log.
AMB
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Johnny,
>
> The active part of the transaction log (uncommitted transactions). This ca
n
> be caused by long running transactions and can be a problem even if the
> databse is using simple recovery model. See "Checkpoints and the Active
> Portion of the Log" in BOL.
> Try executing "dbcc opentran" to check all active transactions.
>
> AMB
> "Johnny" wrote:
>
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Sunday, March 11, 2012
80k active rows when I run DBCC LOGINFO(XXX). Why?
Hello all,
I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
logs but the results remain the same.
I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
JohnnyYou probably created the file small and had bunch of autogrowths. Here's a reply to similar Q I
posted earlier today:
Log is emptied (2 to 0) then you backup log. Backup log, check if 2 at the end. 2 at the end sets
limit of shrink. What you do is alternate backup log and shrink a few times. Then you alter database
and pre-allocate a much as you probably need.
In addition, read about the virtual logfile concept in Books Online.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Johnny" <Johnny@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CC046CC3-867B-4CB7-AEF7-B81B3F622151@.microsoft.com...
> Hello all,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> logs but the results remain the same.
> I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
> this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> Johnny|||Johnny,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
The active part of the transaction log (uncommitted transactions). This can
be caused by long running transactions and can be a problem even if the
databse is using simple recovery model. See "Checkpoints and the Active
Portion of the Log" in BOL.
Try executing "dbcc opentran" to check all active transactions.
AMB
"Johnny" wrote:
> Hello all,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> logs but the results remain the same.
> I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
> this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> Johnny|||Sorry, forgot to mention that the active part of the transaction log should
be at the begining, if not sql server can not shrink the transaction log.
AMB
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
> Johnny,
> > I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> > I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> > status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> > approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> The active part of the transaction log (uncommitted transactions). This can
> be caused by long running transactions and can be a problem even if the
> databse is using simple recovery model. See "Checkpoints and the Active
> Portion of the Log" in BOL.
> Try executing "dbcc opentran" to check all active transactions.
>
> AMB
> "Johnny" wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> > I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> > status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> > approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> >
> > I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> > logs but the results remain the same.
> >
> > I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> > about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
> > this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> >
> > Johnny
I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
logs but the results remain the same.
I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
JohnnyYou probably created the file small and had bunch of autogrowths. Here's a reply to similar Q I
posted earlier today:
Log is emptied (2 to 0) then you backup log. Backup log, check if 2 at the end. 2 at the end sets
limit of shrink. What you do is alternate backup log and shrink a few times. Then you alter database
and pre-allocate a much as you probably need.
In addition, read about the virtual logfile concept in Books Online.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Johnny" <Johnny@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CC046CC3-867B-4CB7-AEF7-B81B3F622151@.microsoft.com...
> Hello all,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> logs but the results remain the same.
> I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
> this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> Johnny|||Johnny,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
The active part of the transaction log (uncommitted transactions). This can
be caused by long running transactions and can be a problem even if the
databse is using simple recovery model. See "Checkpoints and the Active
Portion of the Log" in BOL.
Try executing "dbcc opentran" to check all active transactions.
AMB
"Johnny" wrote:
> Hello all,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> logs but the results remain the same.
> I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
> this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> Johnny|||Sorry, forgot to mention that the active part of the transaction log should
be at the begining, if not sql server can not shrink the transaction log.
AMB
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
> Johnny,
> > I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> > I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> > status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> > approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> The active part of the transaction log (uncommitted transactions). This can
> be caused by long running transactions and can be a problem even if the
> databse is using simple recovery model. See "Checkpoints and the Active
> Portion of the Log" in BOL.
> Try executing "dbcc opentran" to check all active transactions.
>
> AMB
> "Johnny" wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> > I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> > status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> > approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> >
> > I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> > logs but the results remain the same.
> >
> > I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> > about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
> > this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> >
> > Johnny
80k active rows when I run DBCC LOGINFO(XXX). Why?
Hello all,
I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
logs but the results remain the same.
I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
Johnny
You probably created the file small and had bunch of autogrowths. Here's a reply to similar Q I
posted earlier today:
Log is emptied (2 to 0) then you backup log. Backup log, check if 2 at the end. 2 at the end sets
limit of shrink. What you do is alternate backup log and shrink a few times. Then you alter database
and pre-allocate a much as you probably need.
In addition, read about the virtual logfile concept in Books Online.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Johnny" <Johnny@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CC046CC3-867B-4CB7-AEF7-B81B3F622151@.microsoft.com...
> Hello all,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> logs but the results remain the same.
> I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
> this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> Johnny
|||Johnny,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
The active part of the transaction log (uncommitted transactions). This can
be caused by long running transactions and can be a problem even if the
databse is using simple recovery model. See "Checkpoints and the Active
Portion of the Log" in BOL.
Try executing "dbcc opentran" to check all active transactions.
AMB
"Johnny" wrote:
> Hello all,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> logs but the results remain the same.
> I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
> this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> Johnny
|||Sorry, forgot to mention that the active part of the transaction log should
be at the begining, if not sql server can not shrink the transaction log.
AMB
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Johnny,
>
> The active part of the transaction log (uncommitted transactions). This can
> be caused by long running transactions and can be a problem even if the
> databse is using simple recovery model. See "Checkpoints and the Active
> Portion of the Log" in BOL.
> Try executing "dbcc opentran" to check all active transactions.
>
> AMB
> "Johnny" wrote:
I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
logs but the results remain the same.
I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
Johnny
You probably created the file small and had bunch of autogrowths. Here's a reply to similar Q I
posted earlier today:
Log is emptied (2 to 0) then you backup log. Backup log, check if 2 at the end. 2 at the end sets
limit of shrink. What you do is alternate backup log and shrink a few times. Then you alter database
and pre-allocate a much as you probably need.
In addition, read about the virtual logfile concept in Books Online.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Johnny" <Johnny@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CC046CC3-867B-4CB7-AEF7-B81B3F622151@.microsoft.com...
> Hello all,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> logs but the results remain the same.
> I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
> this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> Johnny
|||Johnny,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
The active part of the transaction log (uncommitted transactions). This can
be caused by long running transactions and can be a problem even if the
databse is using simple recovery model. See "Checkpoints and the Active
Portion of the Log" in BOL.
Try executing "dbcc opentran" to check all active transactions.
AMB
"Johnny" wrote:
> Hello all,
> I am having some trouble shrinking my logs which are currently approx. 21GB.
> I did some research and found some pages that say the rows should have a
> status of 0, not 2. When I run the "DBCC LOGINFO(XXX)" statement, I get back
> approx 80k rows which all have a status of 2. What does this mean?
> I already made a full backup of the database, and a separate backup of the
> logs but the results remain the same.
> I would appreciate if someone can explain what this means, what can I do
> about, and why do I have 80k active rows. Where can I find an explanation of
> this so I can learn about it? Thanks!
> Johnny
|||Sorry, forgot to mention that the active part of the transaction log should
be at the begining, if not sql server can not shrink the transaction log.
AMB
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Johnny,
>
> The active part of the transaction log (uncommitted transactions). This can
> be caused by long running transactions and can be a problem even if the
> databse is using simple recovery model. See "Checkpoints and the Active
> Portion of the Log" in BOL.
> Try executing "dbcc opentran" to check all active transactions.
>
> AMB
> "Johnny" wrote:
Saturday, February 25, 2012
64-bit linked server to Sybase
Hi,
From my research, it appears that it is not possible to have a linked server
created in SQL Server 2005 x64 use a 32-bit DSN (i.e. created with a 32 bit
driver). The answer is that I need to create a 64-bit DSN in order to
create a linked server in SQL Server 2005 x64. The problem is that many
vendors (i.e. Sybase) do not have a 64-bit driver.
Looks like our migration is SQL Server 2005 x64 will have to wait unless we
can get this to work with perhaps a third party vendore such as Data Direct.
Any one using Data Direct to connect to Sybase from SQL Server 2005 x64?
Thanks,
Rocco M.
(posted in microsoft.public.sqlserver.odbc,
microsoft.public.sqlserver.clients and microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect)Hi,
I've just ran into the same problem linking to Oracle 8i.
MSDAORA, OraOLEDB.Oracle and ODBC drivers do not work.
64 bit drivers have not been released yet... Any workaround except returning
to sqlserver 32bit?
Davide
"Rocco M" <rocco.mastrangelo@.hp.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:AHYeg.1209$cY3.584@.news.cpqcorp.net...
> Hi,
> From my research, it appears that it is not possible to have a linked
> server created in SQL Server 2005 x64 use a 32-bit DSN (i.e. created with
> a 32 bit driver). The answer is that I need to create a 64-bit DSN in
> order to create a linked server in SQL Server 2005 x64. The problem is
> that many vendors (i.e. Sybase) do not have a 64-bit driver.
> Looks like our migration is SQL Server 2005 x64 will have to wait unless
> we can get this to work with perhaps a third party vendore such as Data
> Direct. Any one using Data Direct to connect to Sybase from SQL Server
> 2005 x64?
> Thanks,
> Rocco M.
> (posted in microsoft.public.sqlserver.odbc,
> microsoft.public.sqlserver.clients and microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect)
>
From my research, it appears that it is not possible to have a linked server
created in SQL Server 2005 x64 use a 32-bit DSN (i.e. created with a 32 bit
driver). The answer is that I need to create a 64-bit DSN in order to
create a linked server in SQL Server 2005 x64. The problem is that many
vendors (i.e. Sybase) do not have a 64-bit driver.
Looks like our migration is SQL Server 2005 x64 will have to wait unless we
can get this to work with perhaps a third party vendore such as Data Direct.
Any one using Data Direct to connect to Sybase from SQL Server 2005 x64?
Thanks,
Rocco M.
(posted in microsoft.public.sqlserver.odbc,
microsoft.public.sqlserver.clients and microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect)Hi,
I've just ran into the same problem linking to Oracle 8i.
MSDAORA, OraOLEDB.Oracle and ODBC drivers do not work.
64 bit drivers have not been released yet... Any workaround except returning
to sqlserver 32bit?
Davide
"Rocco M" <rocco.mastrangelo@.hp.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:AHYeg.1209$cY3.584@.news.cpqcorp.net...
> Hi,
> From my research, it appears that it is not possible to have a linked
> server created in SQL Server 2005 x64 use a 32-bit DSN (i.e. created with
> a 32 bit driver). The answer is that I need to create a 64-bit DSN in
> order to create a linked server in SQL Server 2005 x64. The problem is
> that many vendors (i.e. Sybase) do not have a 64-bit driver.
> Looks like our migration is SQL Server 2005 x64 will have to wait unless
> we can get this to work with perhaps a third party vendore such as Data
> Direct. Any one using Data Direct to connect to Sybase from SQL Server
> 2005 x64?
> Thanks,
> Rocco M.
> (posted in microsoft.public.sqlserver.odbc,
> microsoft.public.sqlserver.clients and microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect)
>
Thursday, February 9, 2012
3rd party performance tuning monitor/software?
Hi all, My boss has asked me to research and recommend a product that our developers (not database developers, but front-end developers that *cringe* get into the database to make the occasional stored procedure) can use to determine the relative efficiency of thier code and/or the database structure and keys.
We currently have a few licensed versions of Quest's Coefficient software, which I think is very usable for such things (I do on a regular basis), but he doesn't think that is "friendly" enough for a GUI developer that is not a database expert.
Any thought and/or suggestions for a 3rd party software package that y'all have used or are using that might fit the bill? I don't mind doing the footwork and research, just thought I would "seek the advice of my peers" to get started.
Yeah, I know the design should drive the database, but we are in various stages of "getting there", so any help in the interim is a good thing.
Thanks for the thoughts and waste of brain cells on my behalf.I'm still not understanding exactly what you want to analyze. Are you trying to get at the design of the database, the implementation, the performance of specific queries... There are too many moving parts for me to figure out how to start to answer your question.
-PatP|||Pat, this request is coming from a manager. :rolleyes: The target, therefore, is a moving one. Assuming (big leap here) that the basic design of the database is sound, then what I am looking for is something that will suggest where an index would be valuable, Probably by examining specific queries, or tables, or views.
Probably Enterprise Manager has such tools, such as SQL Profiler, and I will also look into that, but someone has gotten my manager's ear, I think, about getting a tool that makes the detection of problem access methods/code apparent.
The basic trouble is that the developers are NOT SQL Server experts, as I am the closest to that in the group (yep, scary, eh?) and there is only so many of me.
The ultimate solution is to educate the masses, but that ain't gonna happen soon, so I am just looking for a tool or suggestions (or both) regarding some ways to keep 'em out of too much trouble in the meantime.|||I have been beating the drum of sql quality control around my shop since I got here.
The only effective method of improving the sql going into the application that I have found is education and mentoring. A developer will come to me and say "sql server sucks, why is my code so slow. QA says the page performs like crap". I will make them sit there while I go over their sql, execution plan and table design and indexes and I will explain stuff to them. Then I will offer to lend them a book on writing sql.
In my 16 months here I think I have helped the quality of the overall output of 3 or 4 of the developers.
We currently have a few licensed versions of Quest's Coefficient software, which I think is very usable for such things (I do on a regular basis), but he doesn't think that is "friendly" enough for a GUI developer that is not a database expert.
Any thought and/or suggestions for a 3rd party software package that y'all have used or are using that might fit the bill? I don't mind doing the footwork and research, just thought I would "seek the advice of my peers" to get started.
Yeah, I know the design should drive the database, but we are in various stages of "getting there", so any help in the interim is a good thing.
Thanks for the thoughts and waste of brain cells on my behalf.I'm still not understanding exactly what you want to analyze. Are you trying to get at the design of the database, the implementation, the performance of specific queries... There are too many moving parts for me to figure out how to start to answer your question.
-PatP|||Pat, this request is coming from a manager. :rolleyes: The target, therefore, is a moving one. Assuming (big leap here) that the basic design of the database is sound, then what I am looking for is something that will suggest where an index would be valuable, Probably by examining specific queries, or tables, or views.
Probably Enterprise Manager has such tools, such as SQL Profiler, and I will also look into that, but someone has gotten my manager's ear, I think, about getting a tool that makes the detection of problem access methods/code apparent.
The basic trouble is that the developers are NOT SQL Server experts, as I am the closest to that in the group (yep, scary, eh?) and there is only so many of me.
The ultimate solution is to educate the masses, but that ain't gonna happen soon, so I am just looking for a tool or suggestions (or both) regarding some ways to keep 'em out of too much trouble in the meantime.|||I have been beating the drum of sql quality control around my shop since I got here.
The only effective method of improving the sql going into the application that I have found is education and mentoring. A developer will come to me and say "sql server sucks, why is my code so slow. QA says the page performs like crap". I will make them sit there while I go over their sql, execution plan and table design and indexes and I will explain stuff to them. Then I will offer to lend them a book on writing sql.
In my 16 months here I think I have helped the quality of the overall output of 3 or 4 of the developers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)