Does Service Pack 2 affect Client Tools?

Hello,

Does Service Pack 2 affect client tools? In other words, if you have a client machine with just the tools installed (management studio, BIDS, etc) do I need to run the SP2 package on this client as well?

Regards, Jeroen

YES. Always update ALL clients to the same SP as the servers.

|||thnx Tom...sql

Does NEWID() affect my insert performance?

I have a SQL script, which is run during installation, as I want a
particular table to be populated initially. For this particular table I
have around 4000 recs that need to be populated. The script first
deletes all the rows in the table by the following statement:
Delete from [dbo].[Table1]
GO
Then there are 4000 following insert statement is as follows:
INSERT INTO [dbo].[Table1]
(Field1, Field2,Field3,Field4,Field5,Field6,Field7)
VALUES
(NEWID(),'0', '0', 'Test text','User1',GETDATE(),'Test Text')
GO
Since I have started using this script, my installer takes considerably
more time ....I cannot do a bulk insert using CSV because I am using
NEWID().
Is there a workaround?
Thanks.
"Pratham" <pratham17@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144101429.666024.8280@.z34g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com...
>I have a SQL script, which is run during installation, as I want a
> particular table to be populated initially. For this particular table I
> have around 4000 recs that need to be populated. The script first
> deletes all the rows in the table by the following statement:
> Delete from [dbo].[Table1]
> GO
> Then there are 4000 following insert statement is as follows:
> INSERT INTO [dbo].[Table1]
> (Field1, Field2,Field3,Field4,Field5,Field6,Field7)
> VALUES
> (NEWID(),'0', '0', 'Test text','User1',GETDATE(),'Test Text')
> GO
> Since I have started using this script, my installer takes considerably
> more time ....I cannot do a bulk insert using CSV because I am using
> NEWID().
> Is there a workaround?
>
The problem with using NEWID() like this is that the values are very
unordered, and so the index inserts get scattered all over. SQL Server 2005
introduces NEWSEQUENTIALID() to address this problem.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189786.aspx
But 4000 isn't a ton of rows in any case, and should take less than 10
seconds either way.
David
|||Thanks David, But I am using SQL 2000. Does anyone know, a way to do
this without changing the schema of the table?
Thanks
|||I agree with David that there should be no noticeable difference using
NEWID() with only 4000 rows. You mentioned that your installer takes
considerably longer but are you certain that it is this script that is the
cause?
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Pratham" <pratham17@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144101429.666024.8280@.z34g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com...
>I have a SQL script, which is run during installation, as I want a
> particular table to be populated initially. For this particular table I
> have around 4000 recs that need to be populated. The script first
> deletes all the rows in the table by the following statement:
> Delete from [dbo].[Table1]
> GO
> Then there are 4000 following insert statement is as follows:
> INSERT INTO [dbo].[Table1]
> (Field1, Field2,Field3,Field4,Field5,Field6,Field7)
> VALUES
> (NEWID(),'0', '0', 'Test text','User1',GETDATE(),'Test Text')
> GO
> Since I have started using this script, my installer takes considerably
> more time ....I cannot do a bulk insert using CSV because I am using
> NEWID().
> Is there a workaround?
> Thanks.
>
|||You're change is probably because you are doing single inserts instead of
bulk insert. You might see if doing a truncate instead of delete buys you
enough to get your performance back.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Pratham" <pratham17@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144101429.666024.8280@.z34g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com...
>I have a SQL script, which is run during installation, as I want a
> particular table to be populated initially. For this particular table I
> have around 4000 recs that need to be populated. The script first
> deletes all the rows in the table by the following statement:
> Delete from [dbo].[Table1]
> GO
> Then there are 4000 following insert statement is as follows:
> INSERT INTO [dbo].[Table1]
> (Field1, Field2,Field3,Field4,Field5,Field6,Field7)
> VALUES
> (NEWID(),'0', '0', 'Test text','User1',GETDATE(),'Test Text')
> GO
> Since I have started using this script, my installer takes considerably
> more time ....I cannot do a bulk insert using CSV because I am using
> NEWID().
> Is there a workaround?
> Thanks.
>

Does NEWID() affect my insert performance?

I have a SQL script, which is run during installation, as I want a
particular table to be populated initially. For this particular table I
have around 4000 recs that need to be populated. The script first
deletes all the rows in the table by the following statement:
Delete from [dbo].[Table1]
GO
Then there are 4000 following insert statement is as follows:
INSERT INTO [dbo].[Table1]
(Field1, Field2,Field3,Field4,Field5,Field6,Field
7)
VALUES
(NEWID(),'0', '0', 'Test text','User1',GETDATE(),'Test Text')
GO
Since I have started using this script, my installer takes considerably
more time ....I cannot do a bulk insert using CSV because I am using
NEWID().
Is there a workaround?
Thanks."Pratham" <pratham17@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144101429.666024.8280@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I have a SQL script, which is run during installation, as I want a
> particular table to be populated initially. For this particular table I
> have around 4000 recs that need to be populated. The script first
> deletes all the rows in the table by the following statement:
> Delete from [dbo].[Table1]
> GO
> Then there are 4000 following insert statement is as follows:
> INSERT INTO [dbo].[Table1]
> (Field1, Field2,Field3,Field4,Field5,Field6,Field
7)
> VALUES
> (NEWID(),'0', '0', 'Test text','User1',GETDATE(),'Test Text')
> GO
> Since I have started using this script, my installer takes considerably
> more time ....I cannot do a bulk insert using CSV because I am using
> NEWID().
> Is there a workaround?
>
The problem with using NEWID() like this is that the values are very
unordered, and so the index inserts get scattered all over. SQL Server 2005
introduces NEWSEQUENTIALID() to address this problem.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189786.aspx
But 4000 isn't a ton of rows in any case, and should take less than 10
seconds either way.
David|||Thanks David, But I am using SQL 2000. Does anyone know, a way to do
this without changing the schema of the table?
Thanks|||I agree with David that there should be no noticeable difference using
NEWID() with only 4000 rows. You mentioned that your installer takes
considerably longer but are you certain that it is this script that is the
cause?
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Pratham" <pratham17@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144101429.666024.8280@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I have a SQL script, which is run during installation, as I want a
> particular table to be populated initially. For this particular table I
> have around 4000 recs that need to be populated. The script first
> deletes all the rows in the table by the following statement:
> Delete from [dbo].[Table1]
> GO
> Then there are 4000 following insert statement is as follows:
> INSERT INTO [dbo].[Table1]
> (Field1, Field2,Field3,Field4,Field5,Field6,Field
7)
> VALUES
> (NEWID(),'0', '0', 'Test text','User1',GETDATE(),'Test Text')
> GO
> Since I have started using this script, my installer takes considerably
> more time ....I cannot do a bulk insert using CSV because I am using
> NEWID().
> Is there a workaround?
> Thanks.
>|||You're change is probably because you are doing single inserts instead of
bulk insert. You might see if doing a truncate instead of delete buys you
enough to get your performance back.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Pratham" <pratham17@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144101429.666024.8280@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I have a SQL script, which is run during installation, as I want a
> particular table to be populated initially. For this particular table I
> have around 4000 recs that need to be populated. The script first
> deletes all the rows in the table by the following statement:
> Delete from [dbo].[Table1]
> GO
> Then there are 4000 following insert statement is as follows:
> INSERT INTO [dbo].[Table1]
> (Field1, Field2,Field3,Field4,Field5,Field6,Field
7)
> VALUES
> (NEWID(),'0', '0', 'Test text','User1',GETDATE(),'Test Text')
> GO
> Since I have started using this script, my installer takes considerably
> more time ....I cannot do a bulk insert using CSV because I am using
> NEWID().
> Is there a workaround?
> Thanks.
>

Does NEWID() affect my insert performance?

I have a SQL script, which is run during installation, as I want a
particular table to be populated initially. For this particular table I
have around 4000 recs that need to be populated. The script first
deletes all the rows in the table by the following statement:
Delete from [dbo].[Table1]
GO
Then there are 4000 following insert statement is as follows:
INSERT INTO [dbo].[Table1]
(Field1, Field2,Field3,Field4,Field5,Field6,Field7)
VALUES
(NEWID(),'0', '0', 'Test text','User1',GETDATE(),'Test Text')
GO
Since I have started using this script, my installer takes considerably
more time ....I cannot do a bulk insert using CSV because I am using
NEWID().
Is there a workaround?
Thanks."Pratham" <pratham17@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144101429.666024.8280@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I have a SQL script, which is run during installation, as I want a
> particular table to be populated initially. For this particular table I
> have around 4000 recs that need to be populated. The script first
> deletes all the rows in the table by the following statement:
> Delete from [dbo].[Table1]
> GO
> Then there are 4000 following insert statement is as follows:
> INSERT INTO [dbo].[Table1]
> (Field1, Field2,Field3,Field4,Field5,Field6,Field7)
> VALUES
> (NEWID(),'0', '0', 'Test text','User1',GETDATE(),'Test Text')
> GO
> Since I have started using this script, my installer takes considerably
> more time ....I cannot do a bulk insert using CSV because I am using
> NEWID().
> Is there a workaround?
>
The problem with using NEWID() like this is that the values are very
unordered, and so the index inserts get scattered all over. SQL Server 2005
introduces NEWSEQUENTIALID() to address this problem.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189786.aspx
But 4000 isn't a ton of rows in any case, and should take less than 10
seconds either way.
David|||Thanks David, But I am using SQL 2000. Does anyone know, a way to do
this without changing the schema of the table?
Thanks|||I agree with David that there should be no noticeable difference using
NEWID() with only 4000 rows. You mentioned that your installer takes
considerably longer but are you certain that it is this script that is the
cause?
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Pratham" <pratham17@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144101429.666024.8280@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I have a SQL script, which is run during installation, as I want a
> particular table to be populated initially. For this particular table I
> have around 4000 recs that need to be populated. The script first
> deletes all the rows in the table by the following statement:
> Delete from [dbo].[Table1]
> GO
> Then there are 4000 following insert statement is as follows:
> INSERT INTO [dbo].[Table1]
> (Field1, Field2,Field3,Field4,Field5,Field6,Field7)
> VALUES
> (NEWID(),'0', '0', 'Test text','User1',GETDATE(),'Test Text')
> GO
> Since I have started using this script, my installer takes considerably
> more time ....I cannot do a bulk insert using CSV because I am using
> NEWID().
> Is there a workaround?
> Thanks.
>|||You're change is probably because you are doing single inserts instead of
bulk insert. You might see if doing a truncate instead of delete buys you
enough to get your performance back.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Pratham" <pratham17@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144101429.666024.8280@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I have a SQL script, which is run during installation, as I want a
> particular table to be populated initially. For this particular table I
> have around 4000 recs that need to be populated. The script first
> deletes all the rows in the table by the following statement:
> Delete from [dbo].[Table1]
> GO
> Then there are 4000 following insert statement is as follows:
> INSERT INTO [dbo].[Table1]
> (Field1, Field2,Field3,Field4,Field5,Field6,Field7)
> VALUES
> (NEWID(),'0', '0', 'Test text','User1',GETDATE(),'Test Text')
> GO
> Since I have started using this script, my installer takes considerably
> more time ....I cannot do a bulk insert using CSV because I am using
> NEWID().
> Is there a workaround?
> Thanks.
>

Does 'Group By' affect the query speed?

i have a table such sa below:

Name1, Name2, Name3, Nam4, C1, C2,.., C100

and in this table, i have found index for Name1-Nam4,

i don't why sql below is very slow?

select
Name1, sum(C1), ...., Sum(C100)
from
(
select
Name1, Name2, sum(C1) as C1, ...., Sum(C100) as C100
from
(
select
Name1, Name2, Name3, sum(C1) as C1, ...., Sum(C100) as C100
from
(
select
Name1, Name2, Name3, Name4, C1, ...., C100
from
My_Table
group by Name1, Name2, Name3, Name4
) as T
group by Name1, Name2, Nam3
) as T
group by Name1, Name2
) as T
group by Name1

Does 'Group By' affect the speed of query?

Yes... It depends with your number of data...

I found your query is strange...

Why not, can you try the following query..

select
Name1, sum(C1), ...., Sum(C100)
from
My_Table
group by Name1

Bcs.. finally you are going to get only the Name1 data...

If you need kind of Rolling up data... use ROLLUP instead of multiple Subqueries...

Does Graphics Card affect preformance of rendering?

I have a feeling that this is an urban legend, but I'd to verify:

Will the graphics card installed in the RS machine affect performance of any of the rendering laternatives? If so, significantlly?

An RS machine is typically a server, and such tend to have low-end graphics cards.

Two of my customers insists that they have "heard this somewhere"...

RS uses GDI internally for some rendering operations. In theory, a video driver can hook GDI and perform some of the operations more efficiently. In practice, I don't think we have seen anyone report any performance boost because of this though.

Does Disk space affect Database performance

We have aroud 12 databases running on a live production server which is
segmented
into 3 physical drives.
The E drive is where data and logs are stored.
We have implemented a back up strategy over the past week. As a result , the
E
drive has shrunk in size.
Its a total of 135 GB but has 125 MB free.
Consequently we have noticed that various VB6 and MS Access applications are
suffering from slow performance.
But..the apps are merely querying data and bringing it back to the client.
My question is the lack of disk space affecting performance?
The lack of disk space will cause performance problems, iirc the MS
recommendation is to not exceed about 80% capacity on a disk/disk set.
Not sure what you mean by backing up causing the disk to shrink in
size? Also not a good idea to have log and data files on the same
physical drive.
ALI

Does Disk space affect Database performance

We have aroud 12 databases running on a live production server which is
segmented
into 3 physical drives.
The E drive is where data and logs are stored.
We have implemented a back up strategy over the past week. As a result , the
E
drive has shrunk in size.
Its a total of 135 GB but has 125 MB free.
Consequently we have noticed that various VB6 and MS Access applications are
suffering from slow performance.
But..the apps are merely querying data and bringing it back to the client.
My question is the lack of disk space affecting performance?The lack of disk space will cause performance problems, iirc the MS
recommendation is to not exceed about 80% capacity on a disk/disk set.
Not sure what you mean by backing up causing the disk to shrink in
size? Also not a good idea to have log and data files on the same
physical drive.
ALI

Does Disk space affect Database performance

We have aroud 12 databases running on a live production server which is
segmented
into 3 physical drives.
The E drive is where data and logs are stored.
We have implemented a back up strategy over the past week. As a result , the
E
drive has shrunk in size.
Its a total of 135 GB but has 125 MB free.
Consequently we have noticed that various VB6 and MS Access applications are
suffering from slow performance.
But..the apps are merely querying data and bringing it back to the client.
My question is the lack of disk space affecting performance?The lack of disk space will cause performance problems, iirc the MS
recommendation is to not exceed about 80% capacity on a disk/disk set.
Not sure what you mean by backing up causing the disk to shrink in
size? Also not a good idea to have log and data files on the same
physical drive.
ALI

Does Column Order Affect Clustered Index Performance?

In a table definition, does the physical location of the columns that make up the clustered index affect the performance of a clustered index?

Table A
Name varchar(30) Not NULL
Home_Phone char(10) NULL
Other_Phone char(10) NULL
Company_ID char(9) NOT NULL <--PRIMARY KEY
Location_# int NOT NULL <--PRIMARY KEY
Sex char(1) NOT NULL
Age int NOT NULL

Table B
Company_ID char(9) NOT NULL <--PRIMARY KEY
Location_# int NOT NULL <--PRIMARY KEY
Name varchar(30) Not NULL
Home_Phone char(10) NULL
Other_Phone char(10) NULL
Sex char(1) NOT NULL
Age int NOT NULL

I always thought it did, but I can't find any documentation to back this up. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

Thanks, DaveI don't believe the order of the columns make a difference. You just want to know that the clustered indexes is stored in sorted order at the leaf level, on inserts, updates, the clustered index is taken into consideration.

HTH

Does Alocating Database files affect Table size?

I am having an issue with allocated sizes verse actual
data and index sizes in some of my large fact tables.
These tables are recreated once a week with a default fill
factor size of 95%. These tables never receive any
insert, update, or delete transactions running against
them.
I have several different RAID arrays that I am using for
performance and maintenance issues. On my data and index
arrays, through enterprise manager, I have allocated 80%
of the disk space to my databases. This was done so that
fields would not have to grow.
My question is because I have allocated a fix size to my
database files does this mean the my tables will receive
this allocated space? In other words does this allocated
space get distributed amongst existing tables in a
database or is it pooled in some way?
Thanks,
Jonathan Lacefield
MCDBAWhen you allocated a fix size of your db or log file, the file grows with
empty space to that size, you shall also disable automatically file grow
since you have allocated all the space that will be ever needed or set it to
0.
Yes as data is added to the table they will be place on the empty space
allocated to the file, Once the the file is full no more data will be able
to be added.
Yovan Fernandez
P.S
If you have 2 dbs on the same disk and yor disk zise is 40GB
you have to remember you cannot allocate 80% of 40GB to each DB.
"Jonathan Lacefield" <jonathan.lacefield@.solutionbuilders.com> wrote in
message news:00fe01c376e4$97c929f0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I am having an issue with allocated sizes verse actual
> data and index sizes in some of my large fact tables.
> These tables are recreated once a week with a default fill
> factor size of 95%. These tables never receive any
> insert, update, or delete transactions running against
> them.
> I have several different RAID arrays that I am using for
> performance and maintenance issues. On my data and index
> arrays, through enterprise manager, I have allocated 80%
> of the disk space to my databases. This was done so that
> fields would not have to grow.
> My question is because I have allocated a fix size to my
> database files does this mean the my tables will receive
> this allocated space? In other words does this allocated
> space get distributed amongst existing tables in a
> database or is it pooled in some way?
> Thanks,
> Jonathan Lacefield
> MCDBA

Does adding indexes affect how an Access/Jet application functions?

We have an Access application using Jet. I added some new indexes yesterday and now they are being blamed for poor Access application performance. I then dropped the new indexes. The poor performance continued until the Access application was re-linked to the SS2000 database. Then things returned to normal.

Question, does Access/Jet persist SqlServer schema info in its MDB (or elsewhere?) I am told that the MDB is copied from a share to the local PC where it grows during its use. Some people are saying the MDB persists schema info about the SS2000 schema which influences how Jet accesses the SS2000 database. Is that true? Is there a link where I can read about this? I am a dba and am not an Access developer . . .

Thanks!

Michael

For linked tables in a JET database, I believe the schema is cached locally but it's not clear to me how that could result in a performance issue. You might want to post this to a Jet/Access newsgroup.

Regards,

Uwa.

|||

Thanks for your response. Can you suggest an appropriate newsgroup?

Michael

|||access.tablesdbdesign
All Office forums & newsgroups

Does a large amount 'image' data affect overall SQL performance?

Recently we added a new table into our SQL2000 database specifically to store scanned in images of documents. This new table contains a PK field, a couple of datetime fields, a couple of char(1) fields and one 'image' field.

Before adding this table, the database size was approx 6GB. Six months after adding this new table, the database has grown to 18GB - 11GB of this is due to the scanned in images.

Would this new table affect the SQL performance with regards to accessing other data in the database that has nothing related to the new table?

If so, would moving this new table into it's own database be recommended?

Thanks

Rod

In order to determine the 'best' response to your question, you may find this article useful.

Images –Store in Database or Store in File System
http://research.microsoft.com/research/pubs/view.aspx?msr_tr_id=MSR-TR-2006-45