connecting over the network? could it be sending the information to you
really slowly?
Also if you are going over the network and are using that named-pipes
stuff I have had crazy problems with that before and had the issuses
clear up by switching to a *gasp* tcp/ip connectoin :-)
Otherwise I'd look at the disk or maybe even the RAM - you can specify
how much resources SQL server uses could that be it?
On Mon, 2004-03-01 at 14:50, brobborb wrote:
> IO cost is like .0101
>
>
> UPDATE.....we installed a copy on a different server, and it works fine! So now we know the problem can't be with the database. It must be with the computer. But we dont know what it could be it's the fastest in here!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rob
> To: CF-Talk
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 4:52 PM
> Subject: Re: OT: migrating to SQL Server 2000
>
>
> When you hover over the icon does it give you any more info that is
> helpful (IO time or something)? What kind of commit are you using by
> default - bad / lame disk maybe?
>
> "Try rebooting"
> -- MCSE
>
> On Mon, 2004-03-01 at 14:27, brobborb wrote:
> > Query cost is 0.20%, for each insert!!!
> >
> > on the SQL 7 server it's 0.10%.
> >
> > WHY!!!!!!!!
> >
> > :(
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Rob
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 4:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: OT: migrating to SQL Server 2000
> >
> >
> > In query analyser what does the execution path show?
> >
> > On Mon, 2004-03-01 at 14:10, brobborb wrote:
> > > No RAID set up. it has 1 gig of RAM, vs 512 on the server with SQL 7
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > To: CF-Talk
> > > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 4:09 PM
> > > Subject: Re: OT: migrating to SQL Server 2000
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you on a RAID 5? Could cause slower inserts (write) and fast selects
> > > (read).
> > >
> > > Does your 2000 server have more RAM than the 7 server?
> > >
> > > -Kore
> > >
> > >
> > > "brobborb"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > on.rr.com> cc:
> > > Subject: Re: OT: migrating to SQL Server 2000
> > > 03/01/2004
> > > 03:45 PM
> > > Please respond
> > > to cf-talk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I just did a little test. I created a regular table, with one field. I
> > > used the Query Analyzer to insert 500 rows. took about 4 seconds.
> > >
> > > In SQL 7, i did the same thing, except with 1000 rows. The results showed
> > > up in a split second.
> > >
> > > So far i know this (i hope i'm right!)
> > >
> > > It's not a coldfusion compatibility problem
> > > It's not a crappy computer problem (the one running 2000 is 2.8ghz, the one
> > > running SQL 7 is 900mhz)
> > > It's not an indexing problem
> > > No problems with SELECT statements. Works fine, works great.
> > > PROBLEMS with INSERT statements
> > >
> > > This is how simple the insert statement is (500 times)....INSERT INTO
> > > testy(name) VALUES ("TEST000000000000000001")
> > >
> > > maybe there's something wrong with that insert thats causing SQL 2000 to
> > > act funny :(
> > >
> > > I hate it when I dont know what the problem is! You feel so helpless :(
> > > haha I am sure this is fixable because it has to be maybe we'll have
> > > torequest a different CD!
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Rob
> > > To: CF-Talk
> > > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 3:40 PM
> > > Subject: Re: OT: migrating to SQL Server 2000
> > >
> > > Did your indexes come over ok? There is a setting somewhere on 7 I
> > > believe when moving data if you do not say you want indexes to go they
> > > wont. That could impact performace (more on selects I would imagine).
> > > Anyway I have done at least 3 SQL7 -> SQL2000 and there were a few minor
> > > problems (and very obscure syntax changes) but not much to write home
> > > about.
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2004-03-01 at 13:16, brobborb wrote:
> > > > Is there a HUGE difference between SQL 7 and SQL 2000??? Because 2000
> > > is just running really slow and we can't figure out why. Is there a
> > > difference in syntax or something? On SQL 7 a multiple insert query (400
> > > inserts) finished in 400ms. in 2000, same query, but in 7 SECONDS!!!
> > > >
> > > > i've google some information and it seem others have come across this
> > > problem, but we could not fix ours to work correctly. I hope this is
> > > fixable :(
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
