Hi Frnds,

           I have developed one application using ASP.NET 1.1 and MS SQL Server 2000.This application will be used by 100 end-users. My presumption is that when 100 end users will attempt to access(for save or retrieve data)same database(table) at a time, performance of the application will get slow. Is there any way out to avoid this situation??

Thanks & Regards

Doing selects and inserts will not cause a problem... doing updates will. If you use declared transactions, keep them as short as possible and avoid SELECT/UPDATE in the same transaction at all cost of you will have deadlocks.

Make sure you have good intelligent indexes on the table for the type of queries the users will be firing. Make sure that, no matter what, you have a primary key (even if it's just an IDENTITY column) on the table.

--Jeff Moden

also remember MS-SQL does not have row level locking so you want to shrink the transactions as much as possible and commit as frequently as possible on the shortest transactions possible. This will reduce the chance of getting transactions rejected by the SQL server because of page locking contentions.

Ummmmm.... if that's true, what does the optimizer hint WITH (ROWLOCK) do during an UPDATE?

--Jeff Moden

One of a number of tools to get you to think that the MS tools do more than they do. Try that hint in a large test where your really hitting the database and notice that you still get commands rejected by the server when collisions happen. (implying it don't work). Also there is a check box that MS provides to suggest that thier enterprise version of SQL allows parallel processing between two nodes. But it doesn't do that but the check box is there to make you think that it does. MS is big on creating things to cuase you false conclusions. They claimed the fixed row level locking with SQL 6.5, then again with 7.0, then again with 2000, and now yet again with their latest version. Reality is test it out and find out the truth. All my tests have shown the same thing, nothing changed but the form of the Fluff.

Agreed... MS is really, really good at distraction fluff.

--Jeff Moden

I would call it intentional sabatage more than distraction.
Look at their history of sabatage....
DR.Dos
Word Perfect
Linux
The list is long and distinguished.

Also the history predicts the future. Who ever benefited long term working with MS and not getting destroyed by them within a few years of when they contracted with them.