I have written a stored procedure to list out all tables in which
rows or the table itself is locked. The only information I am
not able to get is the time when the lock occurred. The way I
want is that if I run the procedure it should show all locks
on a table which are at least 5 or x seconds old. This way I can
avoid momentary locks on a table which go away after few seconds.
Which table and column of master database has that information?
I created sqlexpress database and .net app, everything was fine on my local machine.
When I moved the app to my server, I detached the database with SMSS express, moved the MDF file over along with the app files and I attached to the database with SSMS to make sure everything went over ok but when I try to open a table I get the error,
SQL Execution Error Executed statement: Select x, x, x, x,x from tblFile Error source: .Net SqlClient Data Provider Error Message: Access to table dbl.tblFile is blocked because the signature is not valid.
I can open the stored procedures fine by choosing modify from the context menu.
HiThere is an application that runs on sql server.The application selects/updates some few tables frequentlyOnce there is even a select on this table .It blocks other userssometimes for very long.Is there anything that can be done to reduce this?The table has 18000 rows and does not seem to have an indexI thought indexing might help but 18000 rows without an index isno reason for 30 minutes of lock time.I will appreciate your help as usualVince
I'm looking for the group's collective wisdom on the following issue, I'm sure many have been confronted with it.
I'm designing a db for a website that will utilize SQL Server 7. I have few tables that I think will grow very large row wise and that will be written to an read from frequently. I sense that I might be able to get better perfomance out of the system if I split many of these large tables up (row wise) into many smaller tables.
For example, The website that I'm working on has a "MailingAddresses" db table that contains the mailing addresses for the sites users (subscribers and other misc users - 1 record per user, anticipating 70,000+ users). Each user can update their record, and there will be frequent queries to the tables to get addresses for both internal admin use and for display on public webpages.
The website has five distinct sections that are in some sense like five distinct websites. Each user belongs to only one of these sections and they won't migrate between sections. Therefore I'm considering breaking up the one large "MailingAddresses" tables into five smaller tables, one for each section, i.e., "MAddressesSectionA", ..., "MAddressesSectionE".
These tables will have the same fields and constraints. Also of course there would be the same number of reads and writes in total with the five smaller tables as compared to that for the one big table. Also the combined size of the info in the five smaller tables would be the same as that for the one large table.
Though it's going to more of a pain to manage five tables versus one, I have a hunch it might be easier for the dbms to handle reads and writes with five smaller tables than with one large table...
...Of course this is true when queries are mainly respective to users from just one or two of the sections (as might be the case) - the big table then has the overhead of the address records for users in the other sections. BUT is there any benefit with the five smaller tables route when they are all frequently accessed??? Sure each select query has fewer records to go through, but with all five tables in play the dbms has to deal on average with the same amount of info as in the one big table.
What do you folks think, to divide or not to divide the big table(s) up row wise into smaller tables?
I guess the issue is summed up in this question: In general, can a dbms better handle in memory, and more quickly write to and query access - one BIG table with a+b+...+n records, or N smaller tables with a, b,...,n records respectively?
I have a long query which I have set off and would like to stop, andrename one of the tables used.My query is due to my lack of understanding of the underlyingstructure of MSSQL-Server...So say and update updates TABLE_A and I stop it, whilst thistransaction is rolling back I attempt to rename TABLE_A to TABLE_A_OLDand rename a different table to become TABLE_A. I am assuming thatthe rollback actions will use the object reference of TABLE_A_OLD andcontinue to rollback the effects on the correct table and not corrupt'new' TABLE_A... or will it not allow me to rename TABLE_A until therollback is complete?Thanks for any help!Steve
I've got an excel file that I want to import into a database table. The longest text in a cell is 385 characters. I've made the fields in the table nvarchar(1024).
I created a data flow task for the import.
When I run this task, I get the following error:
[Excel Source [1]] Error: There was an error with output column "Line Text" (52) on output "Excel Source Output" (9). The column status returned was: "Text was truncated or one or more characters had no match in the target code page.". [Excel Source [1]] Error: The "output column "Line Text" (52)" failed because truncation occurred, and the truncation row disposition on "output column "Line Text" (52)" specifies failure on truncation. A truncation error occurred on the specified object of the specified component.
is it possible that there is a restriction on the length of the text ?
We have a web-based third-party application that has both background processes and user activity requests running in the same database (SQL Server 2005 SP2). The problem is that a background process will start a long-running transaction and hold an exclusive lock on a few rows in a given table (a small table, <100 rows). The web clients need to scan this same table, but when their "select *" statements get to those locked row(s), the web client queries stall waiting for that exclusive lock to be released. This effectively brings the entire web front end to a halt because all clients must hit this table for each user action. I realize that this is the classic lock condition that multiversioning databases like Oracle, PostgreSQL, SQL Server Compact Edition, and other databases do not suffer because they don't use shared read locks like SQL Server. But since we're on SQL Server for this app, what is the way to get around this problem? Modifying the clients to use WITH (NOLOCK) is not an option... there will be major consistency issues unless the clients run in Read Committed or higher. Any ideas? We could tweak this app if needed. Does SQL Server 2008 introduce multiversioning or at least some mechanism to get around this problem? I did not see it mentioned on the Microsoft site, but maybe I missed it. Thanks in advance.
The scenario is the data comes from various sources and its staged into staging database. From this staging database it goes into data warehouse database. Everyday this staging database is truncated and repopulated from various sources. I've a dimension table called DimCustomers which consists of around 300,000 rows and has lots of different types of SCD columns. It takes around 4-5 hours to load data from staging to this dimension table. Currently I'm using a For Loop container which uses a store proc to extract 15000 rows each time and populate my dimension tables. First couple of loops it goes off quickly but as and when the number reaches half of the count it slows down and hence it takes around 4-5 hours to load data.
What would be the best approach to populate this kind of dimension table.
i need to full-text index a table so that i can easily search the text fields of that table.. the table has about 21,000 rows, and i was wondering how long it might take to full-text index it?
We have a proc that adds some fields to a few tables of ours and normally there are no issues. For one of our client databases this process is taking anywhere from 5-10 minutes to add the fields. This causes an issue where the app will timeout waiting. After plugging around and looking at the proc and trying different items i found it to only be for this one database and ONLY when there is data in the table. If i truncate the table and run the same procedure everything is fine. Tables all have same index on 4 columns and the columns being added are not indexed because of the stupid hoops we have to jump thru to pre-pivot data for our reporting package.
I have several reports that are looking for a code within a certain set of codes or ranges. The specific list of codes to be including is determined by the end user. Currently my "IN" statement can be a hundred lines, listing several ranges, lists of specific codes, etc. I am constantly getting asked what codes does it include, is this code included, etc. Sometimes they'll give me a printed 10 page list of codes and want me to compare to what I have included in the report. Not ideal in the slightest.
What I'd like to do is have a table or a file of some kind somewhere where the end user can view the codes contained, add new ones, and delete ones they no longer want. Then I'd like to be able to just reference that file in my IN statement. Leaving the responsibility of listing the correct codes on them.
We are using SQL server 6.5 and currently have about 100 users connections at a given point in time. The application is Visual Basic 5.0 based and it allows users to create MS Word documents from the application. These documents names are stored in a table which basically acts as a reference table. Every time a document needs to be attached to a record this table is called with an insert/update query. This results in an exclusive page/table lock and ends up into a blocked process. This finally results into a major halt for all the system users.
Manual killing of these blocked processes frees up the resources and brings things back to normal although disruptive to the users.
Any clue as to why the blocked processes are not able to free themsevles up ? Are we missing something in our SQL configuration that will help us with unblocking these processes ?
I get the error message below. Books online doesn't say any more. Can anyone explain? I am the only user connected to the db at the time, no jobs are executing.
Cannot shrink log file 2 (log) because all logical log files are in use.
(1 row(s) affected)
DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your system administrator.
I'm running a heavy SELECT query using WITH (NOLOCK). This still causes other processes trying to INSERT in one of the tables to get blocked. I thought the locking hint would prevent from blocking other processes?
I am getting the following error message when I tried installing the 2005 Developer Edition from the MSDN kit. I previously installed the 2005 Express Edition, and it worked just fine, so I thought that the install failed as it was at a lower version than the Express Edition. I uninstalled the SQLExpress Edition, however, when I try to install SQL Server 2005 again, I get the following message:
Name: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Tools
Reason: Your upgrade is blocked. For more information about upgrade support, see the "Version and Edition Upgrades" and "Hardware and Software Requirements" topics in SQL Server 2005 Setup Help or SQL Server 2005 Books Online.
Build version check:
Your upgrade is blocked because the existing component is a later version than the version you are trying to upgrade to. To modify an existing SQL Server component, go to Add or Remove Programs in Control Panel, select the component you would like to modify, and then click Change/Remove.
Name: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Tools
Reason: Your upgrade is blocked. For more information about upgrade support, see the "Version and Edition Upgrades" and "Hardware and Software Requirements" topics in SQL Server 2005 Setup Help or SQL Server 2005 Books Online.
Build version check:
Your upgrade is blocked because the existing component is a later version than the version you are trying to upgrade to. To modify an existing SQL Server component, go to Add or Remove Programs in Control Panel, select the component you would like to modify, and then click Change/Remove.
I have also installed Visual Studio NET, and I wonder if some component in the Studio app is holding back the SQL Server install. I have uninstalled all SQL components several times already, and I keep on getting this message.
I have an SQL Server 2005 mirroring config with "High availability". Twice over the past four weeks, the principal server started logging to the event log:
"All schedulers on Node 0 appear deadlocked due to a large number of worker threads waiting on DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT" I checked the database activity monitor and indeed there were lots of processes in DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT.
The database was totally unresponsive to queries (all got timeouts), and no failover was done.
This are the log entries for all day:
05/04/2008 08:40:44,Server,Unknown,All schedulers on Node 0 appear deadlocked due to a large number of worker threads waiting on DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT. Process Utilization 0%. 05/04/2008 08:39:44,Server,Unknown,All schedulers on Node 0 appear deadlocked due to a large number of worker threads waiting on DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT. Process Utilization 0%. 05/04/2008 08:38:44,Server,Unknown,All schedulers on Node 0 appear deadlocked due to a large number of worker threads waiting on DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT. Process Utilization 0%. 05/04/2008 08:37:44,Server,Unknown,All schedulers on Node 0 appear deadlocked due to a large number of worker threads waiting on DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT. Process Utilization 0%. 05/04/2008 08:36:44,Server,Unknown,All schedulers on Node 0 appear deadlocked due to a large number of worker threads waiting on DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT. Process Utilization 0%. 05/04/2008 08:35:44,Server,Unknown,All schedulers on Node 0 appear deadlocked due to a large number of worker threads waiting on DBMIRROR_DBM_EVENT. Process Utilization 0%. 05/04/2008 08:33:49,Server,Unknown,The time stamp counter of CPU on scheduler id 2 is not synchronized with other CPUs. 05/04/2008 03:24:02,Backup,Unknown,Log was backed up. Database: TeleCable<c/> creation date(time): 2007/08/24(13:38:00)<c/> first LSN: 205089:18926:1<c/> last LSN: 209688:18463:1<c/> number of dump devices: 1<c/> device information: (FILE=1<c/> TYPE=DISK: {'\face01f$logbackup'}). This is an informational message only. No user action is required. 05/04/2008 00:00:14,spid24s,Unknown,This instance of SQL Server has been using a process ID of 1700 since 4/9/2008 3:18:54 AM (local) 4/9/2008 1:18:54 AM (UTC). This is an informational message only; no user action is required.
After that, the same entry once per minute.
I restarted the database and everything came to normal.
As you can imagine, the problem is really serious.
Should I forget about mirroring? Anyone has experienced something similar?
I have a stored procedure which generates the next sequence number... it uses SERIALIZABLE Option. procs look something like below..
begin SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE BEGIN TRANSACTION
Sequence generating statement...
COMMIT TRANSACTION set @NextSequenceValue = @NextSequenceValue Return @NextSequenceValue end
For some reason when i call the proc with below parameters to get next sequence number.. its hungs up..
declare @NextSequenceValue int set @NextSequenceValue = 0 exec spGetNextSequence 19, 'LotSequence', @NextSequenceValue output, Null select @NextSequenceValue as NextSequenceValue
When i queried sp_who2 it shows that my processid is blocked by some other processid.. and when i do DBCC INPUTBUFFER (blockingprocessid), the query of blocking processid and my nextsequence generation stored proc is not realted at all..
Can you help shed some light on why my nextsequence generating proc is getting hunged...?
If I kill a blocked process, why does the current activity window still show the process? Both processes, blocking and blocked, are scheduled tasks. Also, the blocked process is still listed as a running task in the manage scheduled task window.
HiShortly, I keep invoices in a table.Occasionally, someone will fire the execution of a stored procedure(SP) that performs several UPDATEs against (potentially) all invoicesOLDER than a date that is supplied to the SP as a parameter.The SP is usually a lengthy process (it takes at least 30 mins).The problem is that SQL server 2000 Dev Edition doesn't allow me toinsert new invoices that are "younger", while the SP is executing.How should I specify to SQL Server that new invoices are "harmless"?Thanks.
we have a database here and something happened which causes a database block. We tried to run the 'sp_who' 'active' command to see the spid which locked the database, and we found out that some transaction is blocking another transaction. The following is the sample data results from the sp_who 'active'
On one of my SQL servers (SQL 2000 SP4) i have a problem with spid blocked by itself (spid 54 (Blocked by 54)).
On the server it's running a verry simple UPDATE statement (from the Query Analizer)'. The query needs very long time to finalize (on SP3 it was very fast). I searched some forums regarding this issue and i found that maybe the SP4 can cause this problem.
I'm getting the following error when I try to run SQL05 SP2 on my server. When I get to the Authentication screen, I select Windows Authentication and check the box to use for all services. I am logged in using my personal admin account. I click the 'Test' button. Connection to Database Services, instance name 'MSSQLSERVER' is successful. However, connection to Reporting Services, instance name 'myserverSSRS' fails. The error message is: "Login failed: HResult 0x2, Level 16, State 1, Named pipes provider: Could not open a connection to SQL Server[2]. Sqlcmd: Error: Microsoft SQL Native Client: An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When connecting to SQL Server."
I've had problems getting Reporting Services to work. Is this message a result of SSRS not being set up properly? How can I correct this?
I have an SSIS package that is basic in nature. It imports a flat file and makes some inserts to tables via OLE destination and also updates some tables via stored procedure calls using params. Sometimes the process "locks" and never finishes. When it locks it gets locked by process "-2" or a value that is not an actual process. What does this mean? What is -2?
Message: Generating user instances in SQL Server is disabled. Use sp_configure 'user instances enabled' to generate user instances.
I am using VB2005 Express. I had, evidently, a simpler version of SQL but deleted it, as was recommended, and then downloaded SQL 2005 Express. Now when trying to open an SQL database in a project I get that Information Message.
FURTHERMORE after loading the new SQL it wiped out all of my projects in VB 2005. The back up files were wiped out also.
