----- Original Message -----
From: Rob
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: OT: migrating to SQL Server 2000
On Mon, 2004-03-01 at 14:52, Rob wrote:
> What kind of commit are you using by
That should be transaction level sorry -
>
> "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]
