Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.
There is no row limit - period. The individual is just making it up.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.
|||> Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
Total crap. SQL Server is capable of processing billions of rows and
multiple terabytes of data.
For examples, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...alability.mspx
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||You base your business on wild claims such as that? I have used single
tables with over 2 billion rows in them. One database has over 5 billion
total rows in it. This is on a 4 processor SQL 2000 machine.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
> Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
> Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
> I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
> from.
> I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
> of this online.
> Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
> I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
> of having the biggest and the best.
>
|||My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
so I can relay that back up.
Thank you all for your responses...
|||TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
was more normal), but not impossible.
But it has been gone a long time.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Mnemonic" wrote:
> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
> so I can relay that back up.
> Thank you all for your responses...
>
|||No, that wouldn't be it. SQL Server has never had such a limit for number of rows in a table (this
going back to MS SQL Server 1.0). At least not from an architectural viewpoint. :-)
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A05FBDB-F1ED-44B4-AD2D-CA7782810A24@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
> limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
> Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
> entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
> have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
> was more normal), but not impossible.
> But it has been gone a long time.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "Mnemonic" wrote:
Showing posts with label processor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label processor. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Limitations of SQL Server 2000?
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.There is no row limit - period. The individual is just making it up.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.|||> Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
Total crap. SQL Server is capable of processing billions of rows and
multiple terabytes of data.
For examples, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/administration/2000/scalability.mspx
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||You base your business on wild claims such as that? I have used single
tables with over 2 billion rows in them. One database has over 5 billion
total rows in it. This is on a 4 processor SQL 2000 machine.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
> Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
> Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
> I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
> from.
> I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
> of this online.
> Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
> I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
> of having the biggest and the best.
>|||My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
so I can relay that back up.
Thank you all for your responses...|||TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
was more normal), but not impossible.
But it has been gone a long time.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Mnemonic" wrote:
> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
> so I can relay that back up.
> Thank you all for your responses...
>|||No, that wouldn't be it. SQL Server has never had such a limit for number of rows in a table (this
going back to MS SQL Server 1.0). At least not from an architectural viewpoint. :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A05FBDB-F1ED-44B4-AD2D-CA7782810A24@.microsoft.com...
> TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
> limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
> Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
> entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
> have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
> was more normal), but not impossible.
> But it has been gone a long time.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "Mnemonic" wrote:
>> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
>> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
>> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
>> so I can relay that back up.
>> Thank you all for your responses...
>>
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.There is no row limit - period. The individual is just making it up.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.|||> Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
Total crap. SQL Server is capable of processing billions of rows and
multiple terabytes of data.
For examples, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/administration/2000/scalability.mspx
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||You base your business on wild claims such as that? I have used single
tables with over 2 billion rows in them. One database has over 5 billion
total rows in it. This is on a 4 processor SQL 2000 machine.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
> Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
> Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
> I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
> from.
> I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
> of this online.
> Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
> I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
> of having the biggest and the best.
>|||My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
so I can relay that back up.
Thank you all for your responses...|||TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
was more normal), but not impossible.
But it has been gone a long time.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Mnemonic" wrote:
> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
> so I can relay that back up.
> Thank you all for your responses...
>|||No, that wouldn't be it. SQL Server has never had such a limit for number of rows in a table (this
going back to MS SQL Server 1.0). At least not from an architectural viewpoint. :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A05FBDB-F1ED-44B4-AD2D-CA7782810A24@.microsoft.com...
> TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
> limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
> Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
> entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
> have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
> was more normal), but not impossible.
> But it has been gone a long time.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "Mnemonic" wrote:
>> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
>> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
>> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
>> so I can relay that back up.
>> Thank you all for your responses...
>>
Limitations of SQL Server 2000?
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.There is no row limit - period. The individual is just making it up.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.|||> Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
Total crap. SQL Server is capable of processing billions of rows and
multiple terabytes of data.
For examples, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...calability.mspx
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||You base your business on wild claims such as that? I have used single
tables with over 2 billion rows in them. One database has over 5 billion
total rows in it. This is on a 4 processor SQL 2000 machine.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
> Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
> Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
> I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
> from.
> I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
> of this online.
> Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
> I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
> of having the biggest and the best.
>|||My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
so I can relay that back up.
Thank you all for your responses...|||TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25
M
limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
was more normal), but not impossible.
But it has been gone a long time.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Mnemonic" wrote:
> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
> so I can relay that back up.
> Thank you all for your responses...
>|||No, that wouldn't be it. SQL Server has never had such a limit for number of
rows in a table (this
going back to MS SQL Server 1.0). At least not from an architectural viewpoi
nt. :-)
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A05FBDB-F1ED-44B4-AD2D-CA7782810A24@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the
25M
> limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
> Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
> entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
> have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
> was more normal), but not impossible.
> But it has been gone a long time.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "Mnemonic" wrote:
>
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.There is no row limit - period. The individual is just making it up.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.|||> Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
Total crap. SQL Server is capable of processing billions of rows and
multiple terabytes of data.
For examples, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...calability.mspx
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||You base your business on wild claims such as that? I have used single
tables with over 2 billion rows in them. One database has over 5 billion
total rows in it. This is on a 4 processor SQL 2000 machine.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
> Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
> Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
> I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
> from.
> I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
> of this online.
> Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
> I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
> of having the biggest and the best.
>|||My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
so I can relay that back up.
Thank you all for your responses...|||TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25
M
limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
was more normal), but not impossible.
But it has been gone a long time.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Mnemonic" wrote:
> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
> so I can relay that back up.
> Thank you all for your responses...
>|||No, that wouldn't be it. SQL Server has never had such a limit for number of
rows in a table (this
going back to MS SQL Server 1.0). At least not from an architectural viewpoi
nt. :-)
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A05FBDB-F1ED-44B4-AD2D-CA7782810A24@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the
25M
> limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
> Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
> entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
> have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
> was more normal), but not impossible.
> But it has been gone a long time.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "Mnemonic" wrote:
>
Friday, February 24, 2012
limit the resources of a job
hi
we develop a stored procedure that run a dll, the dll consumes all the
processor, and take a long of time (2 days) processing data.
its posible limit the amount of cpu uses by a single stored procedure?
i know that using the windows system resource manager its posible limit
the amount of cpu uses by all sql server, but it's possible for only a
stored procedure?
thanksSQL Server can't control what your external process does. You said it
is the DLL and not the proc that consumes your resources.
Two days is an extremely long time to execute a proc. Why not invoke
your code from outside SQL Server using .NET or VB or something else?
That way you may be able to add some code to monitor and control what
happens during processing.
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||Alternatively, you may try to relax the grip on the processor (e.g. by not
using tight loops) in the code of the DLL if that doesn't lead to
unacceptable performance.
Linchi
"hongo32" wrote:
> hi
> we develop a stored procedure that run a dll, the dll consumes all the
> processor, and take a long of time (2 days) processing data.
> its posible limit the amount of cpu uses by a single stored procedure?
> i know that using the windows system resource manager its posible limit
> the amount of cpu uses by all sql server, but it's possible for only a
> stored procedure?
> thanks
>
we develop a stored procedure that run a dll, the dll consumes all the
processor, and take a long of time (2 days) processing data.
its posible limit the amount of cpu uses by a single stored procedure?
i know that using the windows system resource manager its posible limit
the amount of cpu uses by all sql server, but it's possible for only a
stored procedure?
thanksSQL Server can't control what your external process does. You said it
is the DLL and not the proc that consumes your resources.
Two days is an extremely long time to execute a proc. Why not invoke
your code from outside SQL Server using .NET or VB or something else?
That way you may be able to add some code to monitor and control what
happens during processing.
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||Alternatively, you may try to relax the grip on the processor (e.g. by not
using tight loops) in the code of the DLL if that doesn't lead to
unacceptable performance.
Linchi
"hongo32" wrote:
> hi
> we develop a stored procedure that run a dll, the dll consumes all the
> processor, and take a long of time (2 days) processing data.
> its posible limit the amount of cpu uses by a single stored procedure?
> i know that using the windows system resource manager its posible limit
> the amount of cpu uses by all sql server, but it's possible for only a
> stored procedure?
> thanks
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)