40 reputation
6
bio website
location Blacksburg, VA
age
visits member for 2 years, 8 months
seen Oct 19 at 23:22

Jan
27
comment Partition : understanding files and file groups
So this should mean that third option will have more locking issues for highly concurrent systems. Thus not recommended for a table handling concurrent queries. Will there be issue during maintenance (backup, drop/delete a partition) as queries will be on the only available file group ?
Jan
27
asked Partition : understanding files and file groups
Nov
29
awarded  Popular Question
Jul
16
comment Deadlock : Behaviour of NOLOCK
@NickChammas : Basically, our design is dealing with high a very degree of concurrency with numerous insert/updates to Table1. NOLOCK was introduced to minimize blocking. However, I do understand that it would be a bad choice here. Using UPDLOCK has resolved the issue.
Apr
30
awarded  Commentator
Apr
30
comment Deadlock : Behaviour of NOLOCK
@JonSeigel : my bad for posting misleading comment. What I meant is ... for two concurrent transaction NOLOCK table level lock are trying get XCLUSIVE table level lock for INSERT at the same time. But then.. how is it different from SELECT without any NOLOCK hint ?
Apr
30
comment Deadlock : Behaviour of NOLOCK
Looks like UPDLOCK is better. Will post the deadlock graph as soon as I get it. Will help me understand the situation.
Apr
30
comment Deadlock : Behaviour of NOLOCK
@JonSeigel : Came across such solutions.. Was just wondering if NOLOCK table level lock is getting converted to XCLUSIVE table level lock for INSERT considering the table size.. and thus the deadlock.
Apr
30
asked Deadlock : Behaviour of NOLOCK
Feb
18
accepted Execution of sequential delete and uncommitted read
Feb
17
comment Execution of sequential delete and uncommitted read
@MartinSmith So.. SELECT (NOLOCK) will not ignore the locks caused by DELETE and will begin execution only after DELETE is committed ? Then probably error is because of some other query as we are not running more than one instance of DELETE ... SELECT parallely acting on same rows.
Feb
17
awarded  Supporter
Feb
17
asked Execution of sequential delete and uncommitted read
Jun
22
accepted Cannot fetch the rowset from OLE DB provider “SQLNCLI” for linked server X
Jun
22
awarded  Editor
Jun
22
revised Cannot fetch the rowset from OLE DB provider “SQLNCLI” for linked server X
added 247 characters in body
Jun
22
comment Cannot fetch the rowset from OLE DB provider “SQLNCLI” for linked server X
The query fetches rows from linked servers to another server. There are many reads which are happening on the linked at the same time. My concern is that could concurrent reads be an on linked server ?
Jun
22
comment Cannot fetch the rowset from OLE DB provider “SQLNCLI” for linked server X
I understand that there is a deadlocked resource. However, this deadlock problem happens only after I get the linked server error.
Jun
22
asked Cannot fetch the rowset from OLE DB provider “SQLNCLI” for linked server X
Feb
14
awarded  Student