Reputation
28,835
Next tag badge:
96/100 score
25/20 answers
Badges
5 56 98
Newest
 Revival
Impact
~1.6m people reached

Apr
26
revised Total Memory capped far below available memory
added 34 characters in body; edited title
Apr
25
revised Transactional Replication Concerns
deleted 11 characters in body
Apr
25
comment Transactional Replication Concerns
@user23025 Glad to help. If you have any other questions regarding this, please feel free to ask. But if I've answered your question to your satisfaction, please mark this answer as correct.
Apr
25
awarded  Notable Question
Apr
25
answered Transactional Replication Concerns
Apr
25
revised Transactional Replication Concerns
edited tags
Apr
25
comment Troubleshoot Microsoft SQL Server Reporting Services unexpected error
Check the logs for specific details on the error(s).
Apr
24
revised How best to maintain SQL log file sizes
added 3 characters in body
Apr
24
answered How best to maintain SQL log file sizes
Apr
24
comment Rebuilding, truncating etc SQL Server 2008 maintenance
Let the DBA do these DBA tasks... (just my opinion)
Apr
23
comment Can I drop and recreate a system extended stored procedure?
+1 wish I could +10 this answer.
Apr
22
comment Does SQL Server place shared locks on scanned records when using REPEATABLE READ
If what you're asking is if SQL Server places shared locks (S) on the data to be updated during an UPDATE, then the answer to that is no. SQL Server utilizes update locks (U) in order to read the data, and those are converted to exclusive locks (X) to modify the data. If a shared lock (S) was used, and wasn't relinquished for the duration of the transaction, the data modification part of the UPDATE would never happen.
Apr
22
comment Does SQL Server place shared locks on scanned records when using REPEATABLE READ
If you have an UPDATE statement, the exclusive locks (X) should be held for the duration of that transaction. Therefore, no, other transactions shouldn't be able to update any rows that have the exclusive lock.
Apr
22
awarded  Enlightened
Apr
22
awarded  Nice Answer
Apr
22
comment Can I shrink the transaction log file on a mirror database?
You can't connect to the mirrored database, therefore you can't run the DBCC SHRINKFILE on it. As for if you can fix your mirror session without removing mirroring on that database, there's a little more investigation that would have to take place there. It seems like it was suspended because of the file size. Have you tried resuming the partner?
Apr
22
answered Can I shrink the transaction log file on a mirror database?
Apr
22
comment How do I shrink the physical Transaction Log file when it's the principal in a mirror?
What does the secondary server have in the SQL Server error log? You should have a few error log messages dictating what happened to cause the mirroring session to be suspended.
Apr
19
revised Clustered vs Nonclustered Index
added 5 characters in body; edited title
Apr
19
comment Why use separate databases for high traffic/volume tables?
Also, the concurrency gains from separating reporting workloads vs. OLTP workloads can be significant. Not to mention the handful of points that @AaronBertrand brought up. In order to know they "why" of that database design, you need to talk to the developers that designed it.