Feature Questions...

On:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evalua...s/choosing.mspx
There are lots of numbers in the chart, indicating there should be
footnotes... However the page does not have the footnotes on it!
I am trying to compare versions for a client- and one of the features,
indexed views, are important to them. EE has it clear.. but SE has a "3"
in the box with the checkmark... SO what's the exception?
Going to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...rl=/library/en-
us/architec/8_ar_ts_1cdv.asp
It says Indexed Views are "N/A".
So, which table to I believe and what are the missing footnotes on the
first page?Here is a copy of the page that has the missing footnotes:
http://www.webfirst-ltd.com/sql-server-2000.htm
Razvan|||"Razvan Socol" <rsocol@.gmail.com> wrote in news:1117126275.753779.189730
@.g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Here is a copy of the page that has the missing footnotes:
> http://www.webfirst-ltd.com/sql-server-2000.htm
> Razvan
>
Thank you!sql

Feature Questions...

On:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluat.../choosing.mspx
There are lots of numbers in the chart, indicating there should be
footnotes... However the page does not have the footnotes on it!
I am trying to compare versions for a client- and one of the features,
indexed views, are important to them. EE has it clear.. but SE has a "3"
in the box with the checkmark... SO what's the exception?
Going to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...l=/library/en-
us/architec/8_ar_ts_1cdv.asp
It says Indexed Views are "N/A".
So, which table to I believe and what are the missing footnotes on the
first page?
Here is a copy of the page that has the missing footnotes:
http://www.webfirst-ltd.com/sql-server-2000.htm
Razvan
|||"Razvan Socol" <rsocol@.gmail.com> wrote in news:1117126275.753779.189730
@.g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Here is a copy of the page that has the missing footnotes:
> http://www.webfirst-ltd.com/sql-server-2000.htm
> Razvan
>
Thank you!

Feature Questions...

On:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/features/choosing.mspx
There are lots of numbers in the chart, indicating there should be
footnotes... However the page does not have the footnotes on it!
I am trying to compare versions for a client- and one of the features,
indexed views, are important to them. EE has it clear.. but SE has a "3"
in the box with the checkmark... SO what's the exception?
Going to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-
us/architec/8_ar_ts_1cdv.asp
It says Indexed Views are "N/A".
So, which table to I believe and what are the missing footnotes on the
first page?Here is a copy of the page that has the missing footnotes:
http://www.webfirst-ltd.com/sql-server-2000.htm
Razvan|||"Razvan Socol" <rsocol@.gmail.com> wrote in news:1117126275.753779.189730
@.g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Here is a copy of the page that has the missing footnotes:
> http://www.webfirst-ltd.com/sql-server-2000.htm
> Razvan
>
Thank you!

fastest way to do large amounts of updates

I was wondering what is the fastest way to UPDATE lots of recods. I heard the fastest way to perform lots of inserts in to use SqlCeResultSet. Would this also be the fastest way to update already existing records? If so, is this the fastest way to do that:

1. Create a SqlCeCommand object.
2. Set the CommandText to select the datat I want to update
3. Call the command object's ExecuteResultSet method to create a SqlCeResultSet object
4. Call the result set object's Read method to advance to the next record
5. Use the result set object to update the values using the SqlCeResultSet.SetValue method and the Update method.
6. repeat steps 4 and 5

Also I was wondering do call the SqlCeResultSet.Update method once per row, or just once? Also would it be possible and faster to wrap all that in a transaction?

Would parameterized updates be faster?
Any help will be appreciated.
To answer some of my own questions, for an SqlCeResultSet object, you must call the Update function once per row. Also you can wrap it in a transaction, but that will probably slow the process down, although this may still be a good idea.

My main question still remains unanswerd: What is the fastest way to do large amounts of updates? I will be running some tests soon and will post my results here.
|||

Some things you can do to improve update performance:

1. make your update statement a parameterized query, prepare it, and reuse it for each update, changing only the parameter values

2. keep indexes on the table to a minimum (or even remove them in extreme cases - then readd them after the updates complete)

3. SqlCeResultSet is the fastest mechanism if ou are using CF2 and SQL Mobile - yes, you call update on each row

-Darren

Fastest way

I've got a complex view (lots of inner and outer joins from several tables) in my SQL Server 2000 Database.

In my VB program, I've connected a grid to this view via an Ado Control
but the performances are not so great (even bad).

How can I boost the execution of this view ?

ThxI would look at those joins and see if there is any non-indexed scan first. You can also run the wizard to see if there is any room for improvement. Good luck!|||Hi again Joe from Texas (is it hot there at this moment ?)

I've put indexes on all the needed columns
but I've seen somewhere that we can create indexes on views

would that help ?|||If you look up "Creating an Indexed View" in Books Online, you'll see that there are a lot of restrictions on what types of views can be indexed. In particular, you can't index your view if it contains any of these elements:
Subqueries
Outer joins
Self joins
DISTINCT keyword
SUM functions that reference nullable expressions
.
.
. etc...

If your view is as complex as you say it is, there is a good chance that it cannot be indexed. Also, when you index a view SQL Server creates a permanent virtual table with the results of that view, and which is then updated any time any of the values in the underlying tables are updates. This can slow down other processing.

I think you would be better off rewriting your statement as a stored procedure rather than as a view. Stored procedures are more efficient than views.

Also, post your code and we may be able to find ways to make it more efficient.

blindman