|
noora-m wrote: tried to google about storing the images but no luck
I do wonder what you used as the serch criteria, I find pleanty of info with the following oracle 9i store images
If there are to be mode than 1 images per bird then you need a separate table for the images with a FK to the birds table.
BirdsTable
BirdID (PK)
BirdName
ImageTable
ImageID (PK)
BirdID (FK)
BlobField
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
All of a sudden we are experiencing poor performance on our DB server, something that would like 5 seconds is now taking 25 minutes are not completing the query. Checked the sql server logs, nothing.
Only difference is we have started to re-index all our indexes. We started this on Monday, and have schedules set up so that we have a few done every day. Does this hamper the performance? This is the first time the indexes are being re-indexed. Any ideas as where to look for SQL performance?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
vanikanc wrote: Any ideas as where to look for SQL performance
SQL Profiler. Look in your start menu.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
About twice a month our sql server agent stops running all the jobs, till the server has been restarted. on checking the error log we found this message, approximately every 5 seconds in the log file till the time the server was re-started.
Message
[165] ODBC Error: 0, Memory allocation failure [SQLSTATE HY001]
It fails on this job that takes about 12 hours to run.
Any ideas on this error message?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
This may be unrelated but check your maximum memory. We had a problem where sql server quit running and it was because the memory was set to the default which meant sql took all the memory and the OS had none.
|
|
|
|
|
Have a look at this[^]
As barmey as a sack of badgers
Dude, if I knew what I was doing in life, I'd be rich, retired, dating a supermodel and laughing at the rest of you from the sidelines.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I have a scheduled job set to run on server A, with 5 steps. One of the stored procs in this job, step 4 is taking a long time to complete, we moved it to another which does not take much time to execute. Now we are trying to change this step so it uses the other server B.
So on server A, I tried something like this -- exec serverB.database.dbo.sp_load_data.
This is not working. Is there a way to execute stored proc on another server?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like you're using SQL Server so setting up a linked server on Server A should be all you need.
|
|
|
|
|
I am new to Linked servers.
If you have an article or some sort handy could you please post it.
Thanks so much for your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see something set up for tables and view thru Linked servers.
I am using a stored proc. how would we do that?
|
|
|
|
|
Once the link is setup it can be called by
EXEC [linkedserver\instance].database.schema.sp I find it best to put [] around the linked part so I do not forget if I have a named instance (as shown).
|
|
|
|
|
I tried this.
Looks like RPC needs to be enabled on the remote server? is that the only way to go about?
|
|
|
|
|
I have a requirement that specifies that I need to block the access of a process to some records that are used by another process. This can be easily done by adding a Locked(bit) column and a ProcessID(int) column. The problem appears later in the specification when it says that in the case a process dies the rows locked have to be unlocked. The same must apply if the process is blocked in some way. Another problem is the fact that the login with which these processes run does not have VIEW SERVER STATE permission (nor it can be given that permission) so I can't use sysprocesses view or sp_who procedure.
Is there any way around this or another possible solution?
|
|
|
|
|
You fail to mention what db you are using.
If you use Oracle or DB2 you can Select for update...
There's a similar method for SQL server but it locks whole pages instead of records as far as I know.
"When did ignorance become a point of view" - Dilbert
|
|
|
|
|
I am sorry, I forgot to mention I use MSSQL Server.
|
|
|
|
|
Just another idea. Could you select the data and then delete it from the table. The data would then have to be persisted in memory or perhaps a different table. Once the process is complete and want's to make the data 'visible' again, it would then restore it to the original table. 
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
|
|
|
|
|
Dear All,
1st, happy new year for all of you.
I have 2 tables, X and Z.
In real life, X contains one numerical field/coloumn that is the sum of 900 numerical inputs/records from table Z.
My question is, when designing the table X, should i include a feild/coloumn that contains the sum of the inputs/records in Y, or not, little bit confused 
Regards...
0 will always beats the 1.
|
|
|
|
|
scorp_scorp wrote: My question is, when designing the table X, should i include a feild/coloumn that contains the sum of the inputs/records in Y, or not, little bit confused
There's one option available of computed column in SQL Server, That's just giving you column value by applying formula you've provided while creating that column rather then storing physical data of SUM.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the quick reply hiren, but, what i mean, is, if it is a good practice from a design point of view. Since some told me that i shoudnt, since i can get the sum in a report, query, or in a view, any time and then, i shouldnt save it in a table.
What do u think??
regards,
0 will always beats the 1.
|
|
|
|
|
Storing it physically though same data you can get that data anytime by querying isn't a good practice at all.
But What I mean is Computed column is invented for that purpose only it just computes value provided and gives you final answer in a column looks like it's physically storing data, but it isn't it's just a logical.
|
|
|
|
|
Hiren Solanki wrote: a column looks like it's physically storing data, but it isn't it's just a logical.
Got the point, thanks a lot, very helpfull.
Regards,
0 will always beats the 1.
|
|
|
|
|
Hiren Solanki wrote: Storing it physically though same data you can get that data anytime by querying isn't a good practice at all.
That isn't true - it depends on explicit and implicit business needs.
One consideration is volume and the load on the database. If summaries are common and significant in volume while being exactly the same summary (such as daily totals) then summing them once and then reserving that value can reduce load.
Another consideration is historical retention. It might not be possible or might be too complex to attempt to retain complex calculations which have inputs that vary over time. So the calculation is done at a point in time that is valid and then retained for later use to insure that reproducing reports (receipts or whatever) will still produce the same value.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
