Reputation
Top tag
Next privilege 200 Rep.
See reduced ads
Badges
8
Newest
 Tumbleweed
Impact
~996 people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 7 votes cast
Apr
6
accepted SQL Server index causing incorrect behavior on cursors
Apr
6
comment SQL Server index causing incorrect behavior on cursors
Wow.. thats bizzare that solved our issue. Time to look into what this KEYSET magic is. If you want to edit your answer, i'll accept it.
Apr
6
comment SQL Server index causing incorrect behavior on cursors
With index IX_SRCHGT produces same issue, but with index PK_SRCHGT eliminates it. However, this is still problematic because we can't possibly append every queries with a particular index we're trying to update with. Also, selecting the data with PK is very slow in our case.
Apr
6
comment SQL Server index causing incorrect behavior on cursors
@MaxVernon I am able to reproduce this issue with the sample. I've edited the question with the DDL
Apr
6
revised SQL Server index causing incorrect behavior on cursors
added 2787 characters in body
Apr
6
asked SQL Server index causing incorrect behavior on cursors
Apr
6
accepted SQL Server stored procedure causing 100% CPU usage
Apr
6
accepted SQL Server collecting SQL statements using particular index
Apr
1
asked SQL Server collecting SQL statements using particular index
Mar
3
awarded  Tumbleweed
Feb
24
asked SQL Server 2008 R2 - Capture or be notified when an sql handle is ran
Feb
17
awarded  Curious
Feb
16
asked SQL Server 2008 R2 - Should I be worried at this statistics regarding indices causing locks?
Feb
6
asked SQL Server stored procedure causing 100% CPU usage
Apr
17
revised Can comments in stored procedures cause problems
added 60 characters in body
Apr
17
comment Can comments in stored procedures cause problems
Oh woops. That was a mistake on my part. The code is supposed to be the same but I miscopied them.
Apr
16
revised Can comments in stored procedures cause problems
added 53 characters in body
Apr
16
asked Can comments in stored procedures cause problems
Feb
14
accepted DB Locks - How would one handle long transactions and maintain high concurrency?
Feb
13
comment DB Locks - How would one handle long transactions and maintain high concurrency?
One more question, I don't really follow when you say "It may be possible to open a transaction and commit after each row". Our program requirement is that should any error occur during the batch placement of orders, all of the work including previous successful ones should be rollbacked to initial state. Is there some function in SQL Server I'm not aware of that achieves this functionality while having transactions open only on individual rows?