Timeline for Hitting a transactional table, or copying the data to a temporary table?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 13, 2019 at 16:11 | answer | added | Randi Vertongen | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 13, 2019 at 16:05 | comment | added | John Eisbrener | Can you include the actual query or execution plan? | |
| Feb 13, 2019 at 15:42 | comment | added | Aaron Bertrand |
Well you can't expect readers to know this, you should add something to your question that indicates your DBA doesn't like adding indexes that would support your queries and you need to investigate ways to work around this obstinance. Also, NOLOCK doesn't speed up queries, those queries still aren't free, there is no reason to use both READ UNCOMMITTED and NOLOCK (they do the same thing), and it comes with some potentially really nasty side effects.
|
|
| Feb 13, 2019 at 15:38 | comment | added | hjf | It is but it's related to my previous question: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/229619/… | |
| Feb 13, 2019 at 15:36 | comment | added | Aaron Bertrand | Writing 22 days of data to a #temp table just sounds like extra work that is merely masking an ineffective or missing index on the source table. | |
| Feb 13, 2019 at 15:28 | history | asked | hjf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |