Hi,
I want to eliminate duplicate entries from different tables into a single
new table and keep the reference from the original data.
Example:
Table1: toto, titi
Table2: toto, titi, tutu
Table3: tutu, tata
the new table will contain:
NewTable: toto, titi, tutu, tata
and i want to keep a reference that allows to retrieve that toto comes from
Table1 and Table2
tutu comes from Table2 and Table3...
if someone can help me it would be great.
Thanks.
Beter than a single new table, You can make a View
UNION will eliminate duplicate data.
SELECT Field FROM Table1
UNION
SELECT Field FROM Table2
UNION
SELECT Field FROM Table3
To know where 'toto' come from:
SELECT TableName FROM
(
SELECT 'Table1' AS TableName, Field FROM Table1
UNION
SELECT 'Table2' AS TableName, Field FROM Table2
UNION
SELECT 'Table3' AS TableName, Field FROM Table3
) Tmp
WHERE Field='toto'
Laurent.
<Christophe> wrote in message news:OVqTbQGLEHA.1192@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I want to eliminate duplicate entries from different tables into a single
> new table and keep the reference from the original data.
> Example:
> Table1: toto, titi
> Table2: toto, titi, tutu
> Table3: tutu, tata
> the new table will contain:
> NewTable: toto, titi, tutu, tata
> and i want to keep a reference that allows to retrieve that toto comes
from
> Table1 and Table2
> tutu comes from Table2 and Table3...
> if someone can help me it would be great.
> Thanks.
>
Showing posts with label entries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label entries. Show all posts
Friday, February 24, 2012
Eliminate duplicate data
Hi,
I want to eliminate duplicate entries from different tables into a single
new table and keep the reference from the original data.
Example:
Table1: toto, titi
Table2: toto, titi, tutu
Table3: tutu, tata
the new table will contain:
NewTable: toto, titi, tutu, tata
and i want to keep a reference that allows to retrieve that toto comes from
Table1 and Table2
tutu comes from Table2 and Table3...
if someone can help me it would be great.
Thanks.Beter than a single new table, You can make a View
UNION will eliminate duplicate data.
SELECT Field FROM Table1
UNION
SELECT Field FROM Table2
UNION
SELECT Field FROM Table3
To know where 'toto' come from:
SELECT TableName FROM
(
SELECT 'Table1' AS TableName, Field FROM Table1
UNION
SELECT 'Table2' AS TableName, Field FROM Table2
UNION
SELECT 'Table3' AS TableName, Field FROM Table3
) Tmp
WHERE Field='toto'
Laurent.
<Christophe> wrote in message news:OVqTbQGLEHA.1192@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I want to eliminate duplicate entries from different tables into a single
> new table and keep the reference from the original data.
> Example:
> Table1: toto, titi
> Table2: toto, titi, tutu
> Table3: tutu, tata
> the new table will contain:
> NewTable: toto, titi, tutu, tata
> and i want to keep a reference that allows to retrieve that toto comes
from
> Table1 and Table2
> tutu comes from Table2 and Table3...
> if someone can help me it would be great.
> Thanks.
>
I want to eliminate duplicate entries from different tables into a single
new table and keep the reference from the original data.
Example:
Table1: toto, titi
Table2: toto, titi, tutu
Table3: tutu, tata
the new table will contain:
NewTable: toto, titi, tutu, tata
and i want to keep a reference that allows to retrieve that toto comes from
Table1 and Table2
tutu comes from Table2 and Table3...
if someone can help me it would be great.
Thanks.Beter than a single new table, You can make a View
UNION will eliminate duplicate data.
SELECT Field FROM Table1
UNION
SELECT Field FROM Table2
UNION
SELECT Field FROM Table3
To know where 'toto' come from:
SELECT TableName FROM
(
SELECT 'Table1' AS TableName, Field FROM Table1
UNION
SELECT 'Table2' AS TableName, Field FROM Table2
UNION
SELECT 'Table3' AS TableName, Field FROM Table3
) Tmp
WHERE Field='toto'
Laurent.
<Christophe> wrote in message news:OVqTbQGLEHA.1192@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I want to eliminate duplicate entries from different tables into a single
> new table and keep the reference from the original data.
> Example:
> Table1: toto, titi
> Table2: toto, titi, tutu
> Table3: tutu, tata
> the new table will contain:
> NewTable: toto, titi, tutu, tata
> and i want to keep a reference that allows to retrieve that toto comes
from
> Table1 and Table2
> tutu comes from Table2 and Table3...
> if someone can help me it would be great.
> Thanks.
>
Eliminate duplicate data
Hi,
I want to eliminate duplicate entries from different tables into a single
new table and keep the reference from the original data.
Example:
Table1: toto, titi
Table2: toto, titi, tutu
Table3: tutu, tata
the new table will contain:
NewTable: toto, titi, tutu, tata
and i want to keep a reference that allows to retrieve that toto comes from
Table1 and Table2
tutu comes from Table2 and Table3...
if someone can help me it would be great.
Thanks.Beter than a single new table, You can make a View
UNION will eliminate duplicate data.
SELECT Field FROM Table1
UNION
SELECT Field FROM Table2
UNION
SELECT Field FROM Table3
To know where 'toto' come from:
SELECT TableName FROM
(
SELECT 'Table1' AS TableName, Field FROM Table1
UNION
SELECT 'Table2' AS TableName, Field FROM Table2
UNION
SELECT 'Table3' AS TableName, Field FROM Table3
) Tmp
WHERE Field='toto'
Laurent.
<Christophe> wrote in message news:OVqTbQGLEHA.1192@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I want to eliminate duplicate entries from different tables into a single
> new table and keep the reference from the original data.
> Example:
> Table1: toto, titi
> Table2: toto, titi, tutu
> Table3: tutu, tata
> the new table will contain:
> NewTable: toto, titi, tutu, tata
> and i want to keep a reference that allows to retrieve that toto comes
from
> Table1 and Table2
> tutu comes from Table2 and Table3...
> if someone can help me it would be great.
> Thanks.
>
I want to eliminate duplicate entries from different tables into a single
new table and keep the reference from the original data.
Example:
Table1: toto, titi
Table2: toto, titi, tutu
Table3: tutu, tata
the new table will contain:
NewTable: toto, titi, tutu, tata
and i want to keep a reference that allows to retrieve that toto comes from
Table1 and Table2
tutu comes from Table2 and Table3...
if someone can help me it would be great.
Thanks.Beter than a single new table, You can make a View
UNION will eliminate duplicate data.
SELECT Field FROM Table1
UNION
SELECT Field FROM Table2
UNION
SELECT Field FROM Table3
To know where 'toto' come from:
SELECT TableName FROM
(
SELECT 'Table1' AS TableName, Field FROM Table1
UNION
SELECT 'Table2' AS TableName, Field FROM Table2
UNION
SELECT 'Table3' AS TableName, Field FROM Table3
) Tmp
WHERE Field='toto'
Laurent.
<Christophe> wrote in message news:OVqTbQGLEHA.1192@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I want to eliminate duplicate entries from different tables into a single
> new table and keep the reference from the original data.
> Example:
> Table1: toto, titi
> Table2: toto, titi, tutu
> Table3: tutu, tata
> the new table will contain:
> NewTable: toto, titi, tutu, tata
> and i want to keep a reference that allows to retrieve that toto comes
from
> Table1 and Table2
> tutu comes from Table2 and Table3...
> if someone can help me it would be great.
> Thanks.
>
Friday, February 17, 2012
Efficiency problems using PRINT in CURSORs
Hi,
I'm having a CURSOR running through ~45000 entries in a table. If I, for
example, use PRINT inside the cursor, can that be a performance hit? Are
there other performance things to think about when using cursors?
Thanks,
Mats-LennartCursors in general are not recommended. If you could discuss more about why
you are using cursors there could be alternate solutions that this newsgroup
can provide you with.
--
HTH,
SriSamp
Email: srisamp@.gmail.com
Blog: http://blogs.sqlxml.org/srinivassampath
URL: http://www32.brinkster.com/srisamp
"Mats-Lennart Hansson" <ap_skallen@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ePBVg2ASGHA.5736@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I'm having a CURSOR running through ~45000 entries in a table. If I, for
> example, use PRINT inside the cursor, can that be a performance hit? Are
> there other performance things to think about when using cursors?
> Thanks,
> Mats-Lennart
>|||Thanks for your answer.
I know that it's not recommended, but in this case there is no other
(managable) solution. There is also no time for a redesign, so this is the
solution that will be used. However, I still wonder:
Can a lot of PRINTs be a performance problem? Are there other things that
can decrease performance, like user defined functions?
Thanks,
Mats-Lennart
"SriSamp" <ssampath@.sct.co.in> wrote in message
news:epxWI9ASGHA.5900@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Cursors in general are not recommended. If you could discuss more about
> why you are using cursors there could be alternate solutions that this
> newsgroup can provide you with.
> --
> HTH,
> SriSamp
> Email: srisamp@.gmail.com
> Blog: http://blogs.sqlxml.org/srinivassampath
> URL: http://www32.brinkster.com/srisamp
> "Mats-Lennart Hansson" <ap_skallen@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ePBVg2ASGHA.5736@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>|||Mats-Lennart Hansson wrote:
> Thanks for your answer.
> I know that it's not recommended, but in this case there is no other
> (managable) solution. There is also no time for a redesign, so this is the
> solution that will be used. However, I still wonder:
> Can a lot of PRINTs be a performance problem?
Of course. I don't know why you would use PRINT in a production system
however. PRINT is typically just debug code or for ad hoc stuff. Does
it matter if it's too late to change anyway? If performance is your
concern then PRINT may be insignificant next to the overhead of using a
cursor.
> Are there other things that
> can decrease performance, like user defined functions?
Generally speaking the more you do in a cursor loop the more processing
is required. One reason to prefer set-based solutions rather than
cursors is that the same isn't always true in declarative code -
performance doesn't necessarily degrade in line with complexity.
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
--|||Hi,
I have no intentions in having a lot of PRINTs in our production system, why
I'm wondering is simply because of curiosity. Can I expect a performance
boost when going into production without PRINT's compared to now, when I'm
in development? Are there other things to do to improve efficiency? These
are questions I'm interested in. I want to learn from my mistakes to improve
my future projects :)
Why I'm using CURSORs in this project is because we are converting data from
one database into another. Unfortunately, the original data is not
consistent and needs to be checked before being converted. Of course there
are other solutions than using CURSORs, but this seemed to be the most
straightforward way.
Instead of looping through 50000 entries, can it be more efficient to run
through 5000 at a time, opening and closening the cursor in between? Could
this reduce some "overhead" costs?
Thanks for replying,
Mats-Lennart
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:1142425512.174670.273740@.i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mats-Lennart Hansson wrote:
> Of course. I don't know why you would use PRINT in a production system
> however. PRINT is typically just debug code or for ad hoc stuff. Does
> it matter if it's too late to change anyway? If performance is your
> concern then PRINT may be insignificant next to the overhead of using a
> cursor.
>
> Generally speaking the more you do in a cursor loop the more processing
> is required. One reason to prefer set-based solutions rather than
> cursors is that the same isn't always true in declarative code -
> performance doesn't necessarily degrade in line with complexity.
> --
> 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
> --
>
I'm having a CURSOR running through ~45000 entries in a table. If I, for
example, use PRINT inside the cursor, can that be a performance hit? Are
there other performance things to think about when using cursors?
Thanks,
Mats-LennartCursors in general are not recommended. If you could discuss more about why
you are using cursors there could be alternate solutions that this newsgroup
can provide you with.
--
HTH,
SriSamp
Email: srisamp@.gmail.com
Blog: http://blogs.sqlxml.org/srinivassampath
URL: http://www32.brinkster.com/srisamp
"Mats-Lennart Hansson" <ap_skallen@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ePBVg2ASGHA.5736@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I'm having a CURSOR running through ~45000 entries in a table. If I, for
> example, use PRINT inside the cursor, can that be a performance hit? Are
> there other performance things to think about when using cursors?
> Thanks,
> Mats-Lennart
>|||Thanks for your answer.
I know that it's not recommended, but in this case there is no other
(managable) solution. There is also no time for a redesign, so this is the
solution that will be used. However, I still wonder:
Can a lot of PRINTs be a performance problem? Are there other things that
can decrease performance, like user defined functions?
Thanks,
Mats-Lennart
"SriSamp" <ssampath@.sct.co.in> wrote in message
news:epxWI9ASGHA.5900@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Cursors in general are not recommended. If you could discuss more about
> why you are using cursors there could be alternate solutions that this
> newsgroup can provide you with.
> --
> HTH,
> SriSamp
> Email: srisamp@.gmail.com
> Blog: http://blogs.sqlxml.org/srinivassampath
> URL: http://www32.brinkster.com/srisamp
> "Mats-Lennart Hansson" <ap_skallen@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ePBVg2ASGHA.5736@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>|||Mats-Lennart Hansson wrote:
> Thanks for your answer.
> I know that it's not recommended, but in this case there is no other
> (managable) solution. There is also no time for a redesign, so this is the
> solution that will be used. However, I still wonder:
> Can a lot of PRINTs be a performance problem?
Of course. I don't know why you would use PRINT in a production system
however. PRINT is typically just debug code or for ad hoc stuff. Does
it matter if it's too late to change anyway? If performance is your
concern then PRINT may be insignificant next to the overhead of using a
cursor.
> Are there other things that
> can decrease performance, like user defined functions?
Generally speaking the more you do in a cursor loop the more processing
is required. One reason to prefer set-based solutions rather than
cursors is that the same isn't always true in declarative code -
performance doesn't necessarily degrade in line with complexity.
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
--|||Hi,
I have no intentions in having a lot of PRINTs in our production system, why
I'm wondering is simply because of curiosity. Can I expect a performance
boost when going into production without PRINT's compared to now, when I'm
in development? Are there other things to do to improve efficiency? These
are questions I'm interested in. I want to learn from my mistakes to improve
my future projects :)
Why I'm using CURSORs in this project is because we are converting data from
one database into another. Unfortunately, the original data is not
consistent and needs to be checked before being converted. Of course there
are other solutions than using CURSORs, but this seemed to be the most
straightforward way.
Instead of looping through 50000 entries, can it be more efficient to run
through 5000 at a time, opening and closening the cursor in between? Could
this reduce some "overhead" costs?
Thanks for replying,
Mats-Lennart
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:1142425512.174670.273740@.i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mats-Lennart Hansson wrote:
> Of course. I don't know why you would use PRINT in a production system
> however. PRINT is typically just debug code or for ad hoc stuff. Does
> it matter if it's too late to change anyway? If performance is your
> concern then PRINT may be insignificant next to the overhead of using a
> cursor.
>
> Generally speaking the more you do in a cursor loop the more processing
> is required. One reason to prefer set-based solutions rather than
> cursors is that the same isn't always true in declarative code -
> performance doesn't necessarily degrade in line with complexity.
> --
> 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
> --
>
Effects of using Transaction in SP on Performance?
Hi All;
I have a web application which is being used at large scale and there are
upto 10,000 entries per day. Currently, there is no Begin Tran/Commit
Tran/Rollback Tran and b/c of that we found some data corruption. Now, I
changed all the transactional Stored Procedure and used Transaction into
them. Now, I am thinking about the performance of the application when I use
d
Transaction into Stored Procedures which are being used by each user very
frequently. Transaction Lock the objects which might hurt the application
performance. Please, comments on it and should I use Transaction now or not?
Thanks.
Essa, M. Mughal
Software Developer
CanadaYou should DEFINITELY use transactions. Performance penalty or not. There
is no choice here. Data integrity is, by far, the MOST IMPORTANT THING IN A
DATABASE. Sorry for the all caps, but I had to drive it home. Do not
sacrifice your data quality. Otherwise there is very little reason to even
be using a database.
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"Essa" <essamughal@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46BFC928-7375-47ED-AA79-73FE92A45843@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All;
> I have a web application which is being used at large scale and there are
> upto 10,000 entries per day. Currently, there is no Begin Tran/Commit
> Tran/Rollback Tran and b/c of that we found some data corruption. Now, I
> changed all the transactional Stored Procedure and used Transaction into
> them. Now, I am thinking about the performance of the application when I
used
> Transaction into Stored Procedures which are being used by each user very
> frequently. Transaction Lock the objects which might hurt the application
> performance. Please, comments on it and should I use Transaction now or
not?
> Thanks.
> --
> Essa, M. Mughal
> Software Developer
> Canada|||Hi Adam;
Thanks for your strong recommendataion. I really appreciate your way of
conveying me the importance of Data. I have already changed all the
transactional stored procedure but I was just wondering so now I'll go live
with them and then see what happens. I hope nothing will happen but it will
increase data integrity.
Thanks
"Adam Machanic" wrote:
> You should DEFINITELY use transactions. Performance penalty or not. Ther
e
> is no choice here. Data integrity is, by far, the MOST IMPORTANT THING IN
A
> DATABASE. Sorry for the all caps, but I had to drive it home. Do not
> sacrifice your data quality. Otherwise there is very little reason to eve
n
> be using a database.
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.datamanipulation.net
> --
>
> "Essa" <essamughal@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46BFC928-7375-47ED-AA79-73FE92A45843@.microsoft.com...
> used
> not?
>
>
I have a web application which is being used at large scale and there are
upto 10,000 entries per day. Currently, there is no Begin Tran/Commit
Tran/Rollback Tran and b/c of that we found some data corruption. Now, I
changed all the transactional Stored Procedure and used Transaction into
them. Now, I am thinking about the performance of the application when I use
d
Transaction into Stored Procedures which are being used by each user very
frequently. Transaction Lock the objects which might hurt the application
performance. Please, comments on it and should I use Transaction now or not?
Thanks.
Essa, M. Mughal
Software Developer
CanadaYou should DEFINITELY use transactions. Performance penalty or not. There
is no choice here. Data integrity is, by far, the MOST IMPORTANT THING IN A
DATABASE. Sorry for the all caps, but I had to drive it home. Do not
sacrifice your data quality. Otherwise there is very little reason to even
be using a database.
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"Essa" <essamughal@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46BFC928-7375-47ED-AA79-73FE92A45843@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All;
> I have a web application which is being used at large scale and there are
> upto 10,000 entries per day. Currently, there is no Begin Tran/Commit
> Tran/Rollback Tran and b/c of that we found some data corruption. Now, I
> changed all the transactional Stored Procedure and used Transaction into
> them. Now, I am thinking about the performance of the application when I
used
> Transaction into Stored Procedures which are being used by each user very
> frequently. Transaction Lock the objects which might hurt the application
> performance. Please, comments on it and should I use Transaction now or
not?
> Thanks.
> --
> Essa, M. Mughal
> Software Developer
> Canada|||Hi Adam;
Thanks for your strong recommendataion. I really appreciate your way of
conveying me the importance of Data. I have already changed all the
transactional stored procedure but I was just wondering so now I'll go live
with them and then see what happens. I hope nothing will happen but it will
increase data integrity.
Thanks
"Adam Machanic" wrote:
> You should DEFINITELY use transactions. Performance penalty or not. Ther
e
> is no choice here. Data integrity is, by far, the MOST IMPORTANT THING IN
A
> DATABASE. Sorry for the all caps, but I had to drive it home. Do not
> sacrifice your data quality. Otherwise there is very little reason to eve
n
> be using a database.
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.datamanipulation.net
> --
>
> "Essa" <essamughal@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46BFC928-7375-47ED-AA79-73FE92A45843@.microsoft.com...
> used
> not?
>
>
Effects of using Transaction in SP on Performance?
Hi All;
I have a web application which is being used at large scale and there are
upto 10,000 entries per day. Currently, there is no Begin Tran/Commit
Tran/Rollback Tran and b/c of that we found some data corruption. Now, I
changed all the transactional Stored Procedure and used Transaction into
them. Now, I am thinking about the performance of the application when I used
Transaction into Stored Procedures which are being used by each user very
frequently. Transaction Lock the objects which might hurt the application
performance. Please, comments on it and should I use Transaction now or not?
Thanks.
Essa, M. Mughal
Software Developer
Canada
You should DEFINITELY use transactions. Performance penalty or not. There
is no choice here. Data integrity is, by far, the MOST IMPORTANT THING IN A
DATABASE. Sorry for the all caps, but I had to drive it home. Do not
sacrifice your data quality. Otherwise there is very little reason to even
be using a database.
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
"Essa" <essamughal@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46BFC928-7375-47ED-AA79-73FE92A45843@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All;
> I have a web application which is being used at large scale and there are
> upto 10,000 entries per day. Currently, there is no Begin Tran/Commit
> Tran/Rollback Tran and b/c of that we found some data corruption. Now, I
> changed all the transactional Stored Procedure and used Transaction into
> them. Now, I am thinking about the performance of the application when I
used
> Transaction into Stored Procedures which are being used by each user very
> frequently. Transaction Lock the objects which might hurt the application
> performance. Please, comments on it and should I use Transaction now or
not?
> Thanks.
> --
> Essa, M. Mughal
> Software Developer
> Canada
|||Hi Adam;
Thanks for your strong recommendataion. I really appreciate your way of
conveying me the importance of Data. I have already changed all the
transactional stored procedure but I was just wondering so now I'll go live
with them and then see what happens. I hope nothing will happen but it will
increase data integrity.
Thanks
"Adam Machanic" wrote:
> You should DEFINITELY use transactions. Performance penalty or not. There
> is no choice here. Data integrity is, by far, the MOST IMPORTANT THING IN A
> DATABASE. Sorry for the all caps, but I had to drive it home. Do not
> sacrifice your data quality. Otherwise there is very little reason to even
> be using a database.
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.datamanipulation.net
> --
>
> "Essa" <essamughal@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46BFC928-7375-47ED-AA79-73FE92A45843@.microsoft.com...
> used
> not?
>
>
I have a web application which is being used at large scale and there are
upto 10,000 entries per day. Currently, there is no Begin Tran/Commit
Tran/Rollback Tran and b/c of that we found some data corruption. Now, I
changed all the transactional Stored Procedure and used Transaction into
them. Now, I am thinking about the performance of the application when I used
Transaction into Stored Procedures which are being used by each user very
frequently. Transaction Lock the objects which might hurt the application
performance. Please, comments on it and should I use Transaction now or not?
Thanks.
Essa, M. Mughal
Software Developer
Canada
You should DEFINITELY use transactions. Performance penalty or not. There
is no choice here. Data integrity is, by far, the MOST IMPORTANT THING IN A
DATABASE. Sorry for the all caps, but I had to drive it home. Do not
sacrifice your data quality. Otherwise there is very little reason to even
be using a database.
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
"Essa" <essamughal@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46BFC928-7375-47ED-AA79-73FE92A45843@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All;
> I have a web application which is being used at large scale and there are
> upto 10,000 entries per day. Currently, there is no Begin Tran/Commit
> Tran/Rollback Tran and b/c of that we found some data corruption. Now, I
> changed all the transactional Stored Procedure and used Transaction into
> them. Now, I am thinking about the performance of the application when I
used
> Transaction into Stored Procedures which are being used by each user very
> frequently. Transaction Lock the objects which might hurt the application
> performance. Please, comments on it and should I use Transaction now or
not?
> Thanks.
> --
> Essa, M. Mughal
> Software Developer
> Canada
|||Hi Adam;
Thanks for your strong recommendataion. I really appreciate your way of
conveying me the importance of Data. I have already changed all the
transactional stored procedure but I was just wondering so now I'll go live
with them and then see what happens. I hope nothing will happen but it will
increase data integrity.
Thanks
"Adam Machanic" wrote:
> You should DEFINITELY use transactions. Performance penalty or not. There
> is no choice here. Data integrity is, by far, the MOST IMPORTANT THING IN A
> DATABASE. Sorry for the all caps, but I had to drive it home. Do not
> sacrifice your data quality. Otherwise there is very little reason to even
> be using a database.
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.datamanipulation.net
> --
>
> "Essa" <essamughal@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46BFC928-7375-47ED-AA79-73FE92A45843@.microsoft.com...
> used
> not?
>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)