Wrox Programmer Forums
| Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read
SQL Server 2000 General discussion of Microsoft SQL Server -- for topics that don't fit in one of the more specific SQL Server forums. version 2000 only. There's a new forum for SQL Server 2005.
Welcome to the p2p.wrox.com Forums.

You are currently viewing the SQL Server 2000 section of the Wrox Programmer to Programmer discussions. This is a community of software programmers and website developers including Wrox book authors and readers. New member registration was closed in 2019. New posts were shut off and the site was archived into this static format as of October 1, 2020. If you require technical support for a Wrox book please contact http://hub.wiley.com
 
Old December 4th, 2006, 04:27 AM
Authorized User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Posts: 63
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Performance

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

 
Old December 4th, 2006, 09:42 AM
Friend of Wrox
Points: 1,536, Level: 15
Points: 1,536, Level: 15 Points: 1,536, Level: 15 Points: 1,536, Level: 15
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: , MI, USA.
Posts: 475
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Default

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
 
Old December 5th, 2006, 03:40 PM
Friend of Wrox
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orange County, CA, USA.
Posts: 385
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

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.

 
Old December 6th, 2006, 03:36 AM
Friend of Wrox
Points: 1,536, Level: 15
Points: 1,536, Level: 15 Points: 1,536, Level: 15 Points: 1,536, Level: 15
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: , MI, USA.
Posts: 475
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Default

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

--Jeff Moden
 
Old December 14th, 2006, 03:26 PM
Friend of Wrox
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orange County, CA, USA.
Posts: 385
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

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.

 
Old December 14th, 2006, 11:13 PM
Friend of Wrox
Points: 1,536, Level: 15
Points: 1,536, Level: 15 Points: 1,536, Level: 15 Points: 1,536, Level: 15
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: , MI, USA.
Posts: 475
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Default

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

--Jeff Moden
 
Old December 15th, 2006, 10:38 PM
Friend of Wrox
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orange County, CA, USA.
Posts: 385
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

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.





Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Performance prasanta2expert ASP.NET 1.0 and 1.1 Basics 0 December 4th, 2006 04:24 AM
Query Performance pilmart Access ASP 0 April 22nd, 2004 07:16 AM
Table Performance mikericc Access 10 February 17th, 2004 02:39 PM
what is the best to do, better performance alyeng2000 ASP.NET 1.0 and 1.1 Basics 1 December 13th, 2003 07:56 AM





Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.