Re: SQL Fun

In article <Xns98B5923AD29AELifeIsGood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ThePsyko
took the hamburger meat, threw it on the grill, and I said "Oh Wow"...

On 11 Jan 2007 I stormed the castle called alt.2600 and heard
PerfectReign cry out in news:50nqjrF1glpi7U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:26:41 +0000, ThePsyko got out the hammer and
chisel and etched in the wall:

On 11 Jan 2007 I stormed the castle called alt.2600 and heard
PerfectReign cry out in news:50njmtF1grd76U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:48:33 +0000, ThePsyko got out the hammer and
chisel and etched in the wall:

On 11 Jan 2007 I stormed the castle called alt.2600 and heard
PerfectReign cry out in news:50n988F1gn6nbU6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:48:16 +0000, ThePsyko got out the hammer
and chisel and etched in the wall:

On 11 Jan 2007 I stormed the castle called alt.2600 and heard
PerfectReign cry out in
news:50n5ccF1gn6nbU2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In case anyone's curious, we just found something interesting.

SQL Server 2000 on a dual processor server with 20GB RAM.

Given a table with 138M rows, and a GUID being the PK...

If you add a clustered index to the GUID and another row
(document number being a YYYY####### format) then you search on
a range of numbers, the processor will execute between 3000 and
6000 logical reads to get the results. Time to execute takes
anywhere from 5 seconds to 30 seconds.

Now, on another identical server you change the clustered index
on the GUID to non-clustered and keep the index on the document
number, the same search will yeald results in 0.01 seconds
requiring ~200 logical reads.

Go figure!

Amazing what you find out.



Good to know.. thanks!!

np


(not that any of my tables are anywhere NEAR that large but
still....
:)


I thought that was about half the size of your pr0n collection
database.

Am I wrong?




lol.. umm... errr.... :)


heh!

Oh, and we just found out that roughly 270,000 of the 500,000 rolls
of labels we ordered from Dymo were manufactured incorrectly. The
spindle is about 1/4" too short, and the labels are not feeding
correctly.

Grrr....

...should have insisted on Zebra!




ouch... more than half????!?!


Yup!!

We're pretty damn mad right now.

Oh, and here's reason #123435 not to listen to users when developing a
system...

http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/lacrr/2007_0111_era_sql_insert.jpg

...this is what happens when ten users are modifying temporary
documents (each with a unique GUID) that are being cached locally.

Solution was - already implemented - to not cache the document numbers
so they have to pull each time from the tables. Users wanted them
cached locally to avoid network traffic at the various branch offices.

Too bad!


doh!!

Hey.. I click on OK but nothing happens?!?!?

Me too. This game sucks.


--
trippy
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM

NP: "The American Way" -- Sacred Reich

"Now, technology's getting better all the time and that's fine,
but most of the time all you need is a stick of gum, a pocketknife,
and a smile."

-- Robert Redford "Spy Game"



.