Hi,
I've an UDF which inside has two query joined by union and it 's similar to this
select * from Table1 ... (several conditions)
union
select * from Table2 ... (several conditions) (this could takes long time to run)
Since i can't write dynamic sql into UDF , i can't avoid to insert Table2 into the query but to improve permormance I've seen how costant can help me.
For Example if I change my UDF in
select * from Table1 ... (several conditions)
union
select * from Table2 Where 1=2 AND (several conditions)
Optimazer is able to skip completely the second execution, so i need to transform 1=2 into a dynamic condition for example test a field table existence.
select * from Table2 Where Exist (select * from Table3 where Field1=1)
That is why i try to write a single UDF can adapt itself to several situations using second condition only where is necessary and not always.
The problem is the dynamic condition for simple could be, wasn't recognize as costant.
For Example
select top 1 * from MyTable where (select 1)=2
select top 1 * from MyTable where 1=2
If you see the execution plan of these 2 queries you could see that the first takes more than 80% of execution time and in the second less than 20%.
Moreover the second plan use a costant scan unlike the first doesn't it.
Do anyone know a way to tell to optimizer to use a simple condition as constant ? This improve drastically my UDF performance.... :( :(
Thanks.1) why is it essential to make it a function and not procedure or view.
2) how do u find
..you could see that the first takes more than 80% of execution time and in the second less than 20%...
if u r referring to execution-plan these % values relative to the batch and does not represent an absolute value. and practically both are taking 0 sec in my machine.
3) if u use "select" in a "where" it is evaluated once for each row of the outer query hence is inefficient.
Showing posts with label conditions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conditions. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
Optimalization - SELECT tatement
Hello everyone.
I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
And I wonder, what is faster:
One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
OR
Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
I didnt think it will make so big problem.
I will not do it again|||Thanks for your consideration.
I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
And I wonder, what is faster:
One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
OR
Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
table is around 22098165 records.
Thanks a lot for help... marianowicPlease don't post the same question independently to different groups. This
has been answered in microsoft,public.sqlserver.programming and
microsoft,public.sqlserver.server.
If you have a question appropriate for multiple groups, post the question
once and specify all relevant groups (crosspost). This will allow all
parties to follow the complete thread and avoid duplication of effort.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"marianowic" <marianowic@.gmail.comwrote in message
news:1179399001.473679.200900@.w5g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hello everyone.
I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
And I wonder, what is faster:
One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
OR
Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
>
The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
table is around 22098165 records.
>
Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
>
I didnt think it will make so big problem.
I will not do it again|||Thanks for your consideration.
--
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"marianowic" <marianowic@.gmail.comwrote in message
news:1179485229.418766.101720@.p77g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sorry!
I didnt think it will make so big problem.
I will not do it again
>
>
>
Optimalization - 3 SELECTs with one condition OR one SELECT with three conditions
Hello everyone.
I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
And I wonder, what is faster:
One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
OR
Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
table is around 22098165 records.
Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
to try a believable answer, i would like to have some example:
could you post the tables design (just the create script), an example of
your queries and some information about indexes on that tables?
Gilberto Zampatti
"marianowic" wrote:
> Hello everyone.
> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
> I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
> The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
> table is around 22098165 records.
> Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
>
|||> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
How will 3 independent SELECT statements to provide the desired results with
AND conditions? I would expect the single statement approach to be best.
Performance largely depends on available indexes.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"marianowic" <marianowic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179398916.316799.118410@.h2g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
> Hello everyone.
> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
> I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
> The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
> table is around 22098165 records.
> Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
>
|||If you (due to lack of indexes or the nature of the queries) have to read in
the full table for any of the three, then I would bet it is more efficient
to combine everything into one query since it is ALWAYS more efficient to
read data once than multiple times. I/O is the biggest reason for
performance issues.
However, if your 3 queries each use different indexes and hit different
sections of the tables, then a multi-statement approach may be best.
I will agree with other posters that we can't help you very much with such
limited information.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"marianowic" <marianowic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179398916.316799.118410@.h2g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
> Hello everyone.
> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
> I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
> The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
> table is around 22098165 records.
> Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
>
|||> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
ok
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
If you have 3 selects, do you use them all in one report? If yes, then
it does not matter if you use 1 or 3 selects, you will end up with lot
of records.
I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
And I wonder, what is faster:
One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
OR
Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
table is around 22098165 records.
Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
to try a believable answer, i would like to have some example:
could you post the tables design (just the create script), an example of
your queries and some information about indexes on that tables?
Gilberto Zampatti
"marianowic" wrote:
> Hello everyone.
> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
> I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
> The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
> table is around 22098165 records.
> Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
>
|||> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
How will 3 independent SELECT statements to provide the desired results with
AND conditions? I would expect the single statement approach to be best.
Performance largely depends on available indexes.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"marianowic" <marianowic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179398916.316799.118410@.h2g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
> Hello everyone.
> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
> I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
> The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
> table is around 22098165 records.
> Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
>
|||If you (due to lack of indexes or the nature of the queries) have to read in
the full table for any of the three, then I would bet it is more efficient
to combine everything into one query since it is ALWAYS more efficient to
read data once than multiple times. I/O is the biggest reason for
performance issues.
However, if your 3 queries each use different indexes and hit different
sections of the tables, then a multi-statement approach may be best.
I will agree with other posters that we can't help you very much with such
limited information.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"marianowic" <marianowic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179398916.316799.118410@.h2g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
> Hello everyone.
> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
> I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
> The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
> table is around 22098165 records.
> Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
>
|||> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
ok
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
If you have 3 selects, do you use them all in one report? If yes, then
it does not matter if you use 1 or 3 selects, you will end up with lot
of records.
Optimalization - 3 SELECTs with one condition OR one SELECT with three conditions
Hello everyone.
I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
And I wonder, what is faster:
One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
OR
Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
table is around 22098165 records.
Thanks a lot for help... marianowicto try a believable answer, i would like to have some example:
could you post the tables design (just the create script), an example of
your queries and some information about indexes on that tables?
Gilberto Zampatti
"marianowic" wrote:
> Hello everyone.
> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
> I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
> The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
> table is around 22098165 records.
> Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
>|||> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
How will 3 independent SELECT statements to provide the desired results with
AND conditions? I would expect the single statement approach to be best.
Performance largely depends on available indexes.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"marianowic" <marianowic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179398916.316799.118410@.h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Hello everyone.
> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
> I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
> The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
> table is around 22098165 records.
> Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
>|||If you (due to lack of indexes or the nature of the queries) have to read in
the full table for any of the three, then I would bet it is more efficient
to combine everything into one query since it is ALWAYS more efficient to
read data once than multiple times. I/O is the biggest reason for
performance issues.
However, if your 3 queries each use different indexes and hit different
sections of the tables, then a multi-statement approach may be best.
I will agree with other posters that we can't help you very much with such
limited information.
--
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"marianowic" <marianowic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179398916.316799.118410@.h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Hello everyone.
> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
> I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
> The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
> table is around 22098165 records.
> Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
>|||> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
ok
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
If you have 3 selects, do you use them all in one report? If yes, then
it does not matter if you use 1 or 3 selects, you will end up with lot
of records.
I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
And I wonder, what is faster:
One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
OR
Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
table is around 22098165 records.
Thanks a lot for help... marianowicto try a believable answer, i would like to have some example:
could you post the tables design (just the create script), an example of
your queries and some information about indexes on that tables?
Gilberto Zampatti
"marianowic" wrote:
> Hello everyone.
> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
> I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
> The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
> table is around 22098165 records.
> Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
>|||> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
How will 3 independent SELECT statements to provide the desired results with
AND conditions? I would expect the single statement approach to be best.
Performance largely depends on available indexes.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"marianowic" <marianowic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179398916.316799.118410@.h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Hello everyone.
> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
> I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
> The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
> table is around 22098165 records.
> Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
>|||If you (due to lack of indexes or the nature of the queries) have to read in
the full table for any of the three, then I would bet it is more efficient
to combine everything into one query since it is ALWAYS more efficient to
read data once than multiple times. I/O is the biggest reason for
performance issues.
However, if your 3 queries each use different indexes and hit different
sections of the tables, then a multi-statement approach may be best.
I will agree with other posters that we can't help you very much with such
limited information.
--
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"marianowic" <marianowic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179398916.316799.118410@.h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Hello everyone.
> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
> I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
> The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
> table is around 22098165 records.
> Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
>|||> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
ok
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
If you have 3 selects, do you use them all in one report? If yes, then
it does not matter if you use 1 or 3 selects, you will end up with lot
of records.
Optimalization - 3 SELECTs with one condition OR one SELECT with three conditions
Hello everyone.
I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
And I wonder, what is faster:
One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
OR
Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
table is around 22098165 records.
Thanks a lot for help... marianowic> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
How will 3 independent SELECT statements to provide the desired results with
AND conditions? I would expect the single statement approach to be best.
Performance largely depends on available indexes.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"marianowic" <marianowic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179398916.316799.118410@.h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Hello everyone.
> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
> I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
> The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
> table is around 22098165 records.
> Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
>|||If you (due to lack of indexes or the nature of the queries) have to read in
the full table for any of the three, then I would bet it is more efficient
to combine everything into one query since it is ALWAYS more efficient to
read data once than multiple times. I/O is the biggest reason for
performance issues.
However, if your 3 queries each use different indexes and hit different
sections of the tables, then a multi-statement approach may be best.
I will agree with other posters that we can't help you very much with such
limited information.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"marianowic" <marianowic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179398916.316799.118410@.h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Hello everyone.
> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
> I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
> The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
> table is around 22098165 records.
> Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
>|||> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
ok
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
If you have 3 selects, do you use them all in one report? If yes, then
it does not matter if you use 1 or 3 selects, you will end up with lot
of records.
I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
And I wonder, what is faster:
One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
OR
Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
table is around 22098165 records.
Thanks a lot for help... marianowic> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
How will 3 independent SELECT statements to provide the desired results with
AND conditions? I would expect the single statement approach to be best.
Performance largely depends on available indexes.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"marianowic" <marianowic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179398916.316799.118410@.h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Hello everyone.
> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
> I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
> The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
> table is around 22098165 records.
> Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
>|||If you (due to lack of indexes or the nature of the queries) have to read in
the full table for any of the three, then I would bet it is more efficient
to combine everything into one query since it is ALWAYS more efficient to
read data once than multiple times. I/O is the biggest reason for
performance issues.
However, if your 3 queries each use different indexes and hit different
sections of the tables, then a multi-statement approach may be best.
I will agree with other posters that we can't help you very much with such
limited information.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"marianowic" <marianowic@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179398916.316799.118410@.h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Hello everyone.
> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
> I making a quite big report and I have a lot of conditions to compare.
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
> All the conditions are separated by AND condition.
> The Store Procedure is being made on MS SQL SERVER 2000, the size of
> table is around 22098165 records.
> Thanks a lot for help... marianowic
>|||> I have got a simple question, but very important for me.
ok
> And I wonder, what is faster:
> One SELECT statement with three comparing conditions
> OR
> Three SELECTS, each with one comparing condition
If you have 3 selects, do you use them all in one report? If yes, then
it does not matter if you use 1 or 3 selects, you will end up with lot
of records.
Optimal disk configuration for SQL
I think that RAID5 is still sort of the default for the main database
for average conditions, because it is more efficient in the use of
disk, when you get up to four or more drives, and it may be better for
reads, and average tables in average databases do 99% reads.
But, most apps may have a few more actively written tables, which
might be best on a filegroup and/or database on a RAID10 drive
instead.
I'm having my conscious raised on a number of hardware and
configurations issues these days myself.
Josh
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:05:52 +0100, sp <kofa@.noemail.noemail> wrote:
>sp napisa?(a):
>
>what do you think about this configuration?
Hello KoFa,
The default Stripe Element Size for your hardware configuration is
recommanded. For example, in the Dell EMC white paper, it recommanded to
use the default size 128 blocks or 64 KB
Here are some article for you to refer:
http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/solutions/dell_emc_sap_bestpractice.pdf
http://forums.dantz.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Number=93175&page=0
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
|||Hi ,
How is everything going? Please feel free to let me know if you need any
assistance.
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
for average conditions, because it is more efficient in the use of
disk, when you get up to four or more drives, and it may be better for
reads, and average tables in average databases do 99% reads.
But, most apps may have a few more actively written tables, which
might be best on a filegroup and/or database on a RAID10 drive
instead.
I'm having my conscious raised on a number of hardware and
configurations issues these days myself.
Josh
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:05:52 +0100, sp <kofa@.noemail.noemail> wrote:
>sp napisa?(a):
>
>what do you think about this configuration?
Hello KoFa,
The default Stripe Element Size for your hardware configuration is
recommanded. For example, in the Dell EMC white paper, it recommanded to
use the default size 128 blocks or 64 KB
Here are some article for you to refer:
http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/solutions/dell_emc_sap_bestpractice.pdf
http://forums.dantz.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Number=93175&page=0
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
|||Hi ,
How is everything going? Please feel free to let me know if you need any
assistance.
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Operating conditions after mirroring.
Are there any restrictions in the restored database after database mirroring?
I mean, Is it full mirror of my primary database?
What I want to do:
If my machine A(with primary database) will down I will redirect my clients to a real-time copied database - mirror server. I don't want to create cluster, but I want to use database mirroring function in ms sql 2005.
Can I use DB Mirroring to solve my problem?
p.s. sorry for my english
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)