multithreading = sqlserver deadlocks

I created a .net program which uses multithreading. The threads
concurrently access the same db resources. This has generated no end
of sql server deadlocks, which our dba is struggling to resolve.
I am very close to giving up and going ahead and serializing all
database access for the application. This will reduce performance
quite a bit, although it will eliminate all the deadlocks.
Maybe it's our dba's fault, maybe it's sql server's fault, maybe it's
mine for building an app that hits the db so hard, but we are unable
to solve all the deadlocking issues using the errorlog and profiling
combo that has been suggested. We solve one deadlock issue, only to
see another one revealed later, perhaps on different resources,
perhaps not.
I have heard there are many applications that use the Singleton
pattern to serialize db access accross the board, just to avoid
situations like this.
Any feedback welcome.Deadlocks are usually caused by 2 or more users attempting to update the
same set of tables in opposite orders. If you have one sp that updates
Orders and then Details while another updates details first and then orders
this will eventually cause a dead lock. If they are both in the same order
you most likely get only blocking which is normal and can be controlled. Do
you have an example of 2 procedures that deadlock on each other and the
associated DDL for those tables? Deadlocking is almost always a result of a
poor schema or more likely poor data access methods. Serialization is not
the way to go, you should do it right and find the cause so you can fix it.
Maybe these will help:
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=224453 Blocking Problems
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=271509 How to monitor SQL 2000
Blocking
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000W86FY/qid=1077039326//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0688407-7232719?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"n_o_s_p_a__m" <n_o_s_p_a__m@.mail.com> wrote in message
news:1faa8782.0402170756.4a53601f@.posting.google.com...
> I created a .net program which uses multithreading. The threads
> concurrently access the same db resources. This has generated no end
> of sql server deadlocks, which our dba is struggling to resolve.
> I am very close to giving up and going ahead and serializing all
> database access for the application. This will reduce performance
> quite a bit, although it will eliminate all the deadlocks.
> Maybe it's our dba's fault, maybe it's sql server's fault, maybe it's
> mine for building an app that hits the db so hard, but we are unable
> to solve all the deadlocking issues using the errorlog and profiling
> combo that has been suggested. We solve one deadlock issue, only to
> see another one revealed later, perhaps on different resources,
> perhaps not.
> I have heard there are many applications that use the Singleton
> pattern to serialize db access accross the board, just to avoid
> situations like this.
> Any feedback welcome.|||Can't deadlocking also happen for locks other than tables? It can happen
for RID or KEY locks as well within the same table, can't it?
Christian Smith
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OkcJl6X9DHA.548@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Deadlocks are usually caused by 2 or more users attempting to update the
> same set of tables in opposite orders. If you have one sp that updates
> Orders and then Details while another updates details first and then
orders
> this will eventually cause a dead lock. If they are both in the same
order
> you most likely get only blocking which is normal and can be controlled.
Do
> you have an example of 2 procedures that deadlock on each other and the
> associated DDL for those tables? Deadlocking is almost always a result of
a
> poor schema or more likely poor data access methods. Serialization is not
> the way to go, you should do it right and find the cause so you can fix
it.
> Maybe these will help:
>
> http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=224453 Blocking Problems
> http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=271509 How to monitor SQL 2000
> Blocking
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000W86FY/qid=1077039326//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0688407-7232719?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "n_o_s_p_a__m" <n_o_s_p_a__m@.mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1faa8782.0402170756.4a53601f@.posting.google.com...
> > I created a .net program which uses multithreading. The threads
> > concurrently access the same db resources. This has generated no end
> > of sql server deadlocks, which our dba is struggling to resolve.
> >
> > I am very close to giving up and going ahead and serializing all
> > database access for the application. This will reduce performance
> > quite a bit, although it will eliminate all the deadlocks.
> >
> > Maybe it's our dba's fault, maybe it's sql server's fault, maybe it's
> > mine for building an app that hits the db so hard, but we are unable
> > to solve all the deadlocking issues using the errorlog and profiling
> > combo that has been suggested. We solve one deadlock issue, only to
> > see another one revealed later, perhaps on different resources,
> > perhaps not.
> >
> > I have heard there are many applications that use the Singleton
> > pattern to serialize db access accross the board, just to avoid
> > situations like this.
> >
> > Any feedback welcome.
>|||Yes there are other reasons why dead locks occur but the main reason is as I
posted. Without more details it's all a guess so the most logical or common
reason is what I posted.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Christian Smith" <csmith@.digex.com> wrote in message
news:uxC%23TGY9DHA.3404@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Can't deadlocking also happen for locks other than tables? It can happen
> for RID or KEY locks as well within the same table, can't it?
> Christian Smith
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OkcJl6X9DHA.548@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Deadlocks are usually caused by 2 or more users attempting to update the
> > same set of tables in opposite orders. If you have one sp that updates
> > Orders and then Details while another updates details first and then
> orders
> > this will eventually cause a dead lock. If they are both in the same
> order
> > you most likely get only blocking which is normal and can be controlled.
> Do
> > you have an example of 2 procedures that deadlock on each other and the
> > associated DDL for those tables? Deadlocking is almost always a result
of
> a
> > poor schema or more likely poor data access methods. Serialization is
not
> > the way to go, you should do it right and find the cause so you can fix
> it.
> > Maybe these will help:
> >
> >
> > http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=224453 Blocking Problems
> > http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=271509 How to monitor SQL 2000
> > Blocking
> >
> >
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000W86FY/qid=1077039326//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0688407-7232719?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
> >
> > --
> >
> > Andrew J. Kelly
> > SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> > "n_o_s_p_a__m" <n_o_s_p_a__m@.mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1faa8782.0402170756.4a53601f@.posting.google.com...
> > > I created a .net program which uses multithreading. The threads
> > > concurrently access the same db resources. This has generated no end
> > > of sql server deadlocks, which our dba is struggling to resolve.
> > >
> > > I am very close to giving up and going ahead and serializing all
> > > database access for the application. This will reduce performance
> > > quite a bit, although it will eliminate all the deadlocks.
> > >
> > > Maybe it's our dba's fault, maybe it's sql server's fault, maybe it's
> > > mine for building an app that hits the db so hard, but we are unable
> > > to solve all the deadlocking issues using the errorlog and profiling
> > > combo that has been suggested. We solve one deadlock issue, only to
> > > see another one revealed later, perhaps on different resources,
> > > perhaps not.
> > >
> > > I have heard there are many applications that use the Singleton
> > > pattern to serialize db access accross the board, just to avoid
> > > situations like this.
> > >
> > > Any feedback welcome.
> >
> >
>|||One deadlocking situation is fairly simple:
node 1: Select from some_table where rownum = 42
node 2: update some_table with (TABLOCKX) where rownum = 42
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message news:<O4PueDZ9DHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>...
> Yes there are other reasons why dead locks occur but the main reason is as I
> posted. Without more details it's all a guess so the most logical or common
> reason is what I posted.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "Christian Smith" <csmith@.digex.com> wrote in message
> news:uxC%23TGY9DHA.3404@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Can't deadlocking also happen for locks other than tables? It can happen
> > for RID or KEY locks as well within the same table, can't it?
> >
> > Christian Smith
> >
> > "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> > news:OkcJl6X9DHA.548@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > Deadlocks are usually caused by 2 or more users attempting to update the
> > > same set of tables in opposite orders. If you have one sp that updates
> > > Orders and then Details while another updates details first and then
> orders
> > > this will eventually cause a dead lock. If they are both in the same
> order
> > > you most likely get only blocking which is normal and can be controlled.
> Do
> > > you have an example of 2 procedures that deadlock on each other and the
> > > associated DDL for those tables? Deadlocking is almost always a result
> of
> a
> > > poor schema or more likely poor data access methods. Serialization is
> not
> > > the way to go, you should do it right and find the cause so you can fix
> it.
> > > Maybe these will help:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=224453 Blocking Problems
> > > http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=271509 How to monitor SQL 2000
> > > Blocking
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000W86FY/qid=1077039326//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0688407-7232719?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Andrew J. Kelly
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > >
> > >
> > > "n_o_s_p_a__m" <n_o_s_p_a__m@.mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1faa8782.0402170756.4a53601f@.posting.google.com...
> > > > I created a .net program which uses multithreading. The threads
> > > > concurrently access the same db resources. This has generated no end
> > > > of sql server deadlocks, which our dba is struggling to resolve.
> > > >
> > > > I am very close to giving up and going ahead and serializing all
> > > > database access for the application. This will reduce performance
> > > > quite a bit, although it will eliminate all the deadlocks.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe it's our dba's fault, maybe it's sql server's fault, maybe it's
> > > > mine for building an app that hits the db so hard, but we are unable
> > > > to solve all the deadlocking issues using the errorlog and profiling
> > > > combo that has been suggested. We solve one deadlock issue, only to
> > > > see another one revealed later, perhaps on different resources,
> > > > perhaps not.
> > > >
> > > > I have heard there are many applications that use the Singleton
> > > > pattern to serialize db access accross the board, just to avoid
> > > > situations like this.
> > > >
> > > > Any feedback welcome.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >|||Here is the deadlock graph of the previous post:
Wait-for graph
2004-02-18 12:06:37.50 spid4
2004-02-18 12:06:37.50 spid4 Node:1
2004-02-18 12:06:37.51 spid4 KEY: 26:1124251110:2 (130092d8179c)
CleanCnt:1 Mode: U Flags: 0x0
2004-02-18 12:06:37.51 spid4 Grant List 0::
2004-02-18 12:06:37.51 spid4 Owner:0x4fce9ac0 Mode: S
Flg:0x0 Ref:1 Life:00000000 SPID:73 ECID:0
2004-02-18 12:06:37.51 spid4 SPID: 73 ECID: 0 Statement Type:
SELECT Line #: 46
2004-02-18 12:06:37.51 spid4 Input Buf: RPC Event:
S_BPI_BY_BPIID_XML;1
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 Requested By:
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 ResType:LockOwner Stype:'OR' Mode:
X SPID:57 ECID:0 Ec:(0x53915568) Value:0x558fa140 Cost:(0/3C)
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 Node:2
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 KEY: 26:1124251110:1 (4a004cee256c)
CleanCnt:1 Mode: X Flags: 0x0
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 Grant List 0::
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 Owner:0x4edb17a0 Mode: X
Flg:0x0 Ref:1 Life:02000000 SPID:57 ECID:0
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 SPID: 57 ECID: 0 Statement Type:
UPDATE Line #: 347
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 Input Buf: RPC Event:
U_FAILED_ELI_CT;1
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 Requested By:
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 ResType:LockOwner Stype:'OR' Mode:
S SPID:73 ECID:0 Ec:(0x4872B568) Value:0x48b1e3e0 Cost:(0/0)
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 Victim Resource Owner:
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 ResType:LockOwner Stype:'OR' Mode: S
SPID:73 ECID:0 Ec:(0x4872B568) Value:0x48b1e3e0 Cost:(0/0)
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message news:<O4PueDZ9DHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>...
> Yes there are other reasons why dead locks occur but the main reason is as I
> posted. Without more details it's all a guess so the most logical or common
> reason is what I posted.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "Christian Smith" <csmith@.digex.com> wrote in message
> news:uxC%23TGY9DHA.3404@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Can't deadlocking also happen for locks other than tables? It can happen
> > for RID or KEY locks as well within the same table, can't it?
> >
> > Christian Smith
> >
> > "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> > news:OkcJl6X9DHA.548@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > Deadlocks are usually caused by 2 or more users attempting to update the
> > > same set of tables in opposite orders. If you have one sp that updates
> > > Orders and then Details while another updates details first and then
> orders
> > > this will eventually cause a dead lock. If they are both in the same
> order
> > > you most likely get only blocking which is normal and can be controlled.
> Do
> > > you have an example of 2 procedures that deadlock on each other and the
> > > associated DDL for those tables? Deadlocking is almost always a result
> of
> a
> > > poor schema or more likely poor data access methods. Serialization is
> not
> > > the way to go, you should do it right and find the cause so you can fix
> it.
> > > Maybe these will help:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=224453 Blocking Problems
> > > http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=271509 How to monitor SQL 2000
> > > Blocking
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000W86FY/qid=1077039326//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0688407-7232719?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Andrew J. Kelly
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > >
> > >
> > > "n_o_s_p_a__m" <n_o_s_p_a__m@.mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1faa8782.0402170756.4a53601f@.posting.google.com...
> > > > I created a .net program which uses multithreading. The threads
> > > > concurrently access the same db resources. This has generated no end
> > > > of sql server deadlocks, which our dba is struggling to resolve.
> > > >
> > > > I am very close to giving up and going ahead and serializing all
> > > > database access for the application. This will reduce performance
> > > > quite a bit, although it will eliminate all the deadlocks.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe it's our dba's fault, maybe it's sql server's fault, maybe it's
> > > > mine for building an app that hits the db so hard, but we are unable
> > > > to solve all the deadlocking issues using the errorlog and profiling
> > > > combo that has been suggested. We solve one deadlock issue, only to
> > > > see another one revealed later, perhaps on different resources,
> > > > perhaps not.
> > > >
> > > > I have heard there are many applications that use the Singleton
> > > > pattern to serialize db access accross the board, just to avoid
> > > > situations like this.
> > > >
> > > > Any feedback welcome.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >|||Not sure I follow what Node1 & 2 are. Are they 2 different users? Do they
both issue a select and an update? Sometimes it can be more confusing to
only give partial details. There must be more to it than what you show.
Are they wrapped in a transaction and what other statements are between the
begin and commit? But the real question is why on earth are you using a
TABLOCKX?
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"n_o_s_p_a__m" <n_o_s_p_a__m@.mail.com> wrote in message
news:1faa8782.0402201155.64b1af2@.posting.google.com...
> One deadlocking situation is fairly simple:
> node 1: Select from some_table where rownum = 42
> node 2: update some_table with (TABLOCKX) where rownum = 42
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:<O4PueDZ9DHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>...
> > Yes there are other reasons why dead locks occur but the main reason is
as I
> > posted. Without more details it's all a guess so the most logical or
common
> > reason is what I posted.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Andrew J. Kelly
> > SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> > "Christian Smith" <csmith@.digex.com> wrote in message
> > news:uxC%23TGY9DHA.3404@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > Can't deadlocking also happen for locks other than tables? It can
happen
> > > for RID or KEY locks as well within the same table, can't it?
> > >
> > > Christian Smith
> > >
> > > "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> > > news:OkcJl6X9DHA.548@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > > Deadlocks are usually caused by 2 or more users attempting to update
the
> > > > same set of tables in opposite orders. If you have one sp that
updates
> > > > Orders and then Details while another updates details first and then
> > orders
> > > > this will eventually cause a dead lock. If they are both in the
same
> > order
> > > > you most likely get only blocking which is normal and can be
controlled.
> > Do
> > > > you have an example of 2 procedures that deadlock on each other and
the
> > > > associated DDL for those tables? Deadlocking is almost always a
result
> > of
> > a
> > > > poor schema or more likely poor data access methods. Serialization
is
> > not
> > > > the way to go, you should do it right and find the cause so you can
fix
> > it.
> > > > Maybe these will help:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=224453 Blocking Problems
> > > > http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=271509 How to monitor SQL
2000
> > > > Blocking
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000W86FY/qid=1077039326//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0688407-7232719?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Andrew J. Kelly
> > > > SQL Server MVP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "n_o_s_p_a__m" <n_o_s_p_a__m@.mail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1faa8782.0402170756.4a53601f@.posting.google.com...
> > > > > I created a .net program which uses multithreading. The threads
> > > > > concurrently access the same db resources. This has generated no
end
> > > > > of sql server deadlocks, which our dba is struggling to resolve.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am very close to giving up and going ahead and serializing all
> > > > > database access for the application. This will reduce performance
> > > > > quite a bit, although it will eliminate all the deadlocks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe it's our dba's fault, maybe it's sql server's fault, maybe
it's
> > > > > mine for building an app that hits the db so hard, but we are
unable
> > > > > to solve all the deadlocking issues using the errorlog and
profiling
> > > > > combo that has been suggested. We solve one deadlock issue, only
to
> > > > > see another one revealed later, perhaps on different resources,
> > > > > perhaps not.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have heard there are many applications that use the Singleton
> > > > > pattern to serialize db access accross the board, just to avoid
> > > > > situations like this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any feedback welcome.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >|||In article <1faa8782.0402201155.64b1af2@.posting.google.com>,
n_o_s_p_a__m@.mail.com said...
> One deadlocking situation is fairly simple:
> node 1: Select from some_table where rownum = 42
> node 2: update some_table with (TABLOCKX) where rownum = 42
Actually both would error out because they're not valid SQL statements ;)
Seriously though, why would that deadlock? Whichever grabbed the table
first would finish its work and release it for the other.

multithreading = sqlserver deadlocks

I created a .net program which uses multithreading. The threads
concurrently access the same db resources. This has generated no end
of sql server deadlocks, which our dba is struggling to resolve.
I am very close to giving up and going ahead and serializing all
database access for the application. This will reduce performance
quite a bit, although it will eliminate all the deadlocks.
Maybe it's our dba's fault, maybe it's sql server's fault, maybe it's
mine for building an app that hits the db so hard, but we are unable
to solve all the deadlocking issues using the errorlog and profiling
combo that has been suggested. We solve one deadlock issue, only to
see another one revealed later, perhaps on different resources,
perhaps not.
I have heard there are many applications that use the Singleton
pattern to serialize db access accross the board, just to avoid
situations like this.
Any feedback welcome.Deadlocks are usually caused by 2 or more users attempting to update the
same set of tables in opposite orders. If you have one sp that updates
Orders and then Details while another updates details first and then orders
this will eventually cause a dead lock. If they are both in the same order
you most likely get only blocking which is normal and can be controlled. Do
you have an example of 2 procedures that deadlock on each other and the
associated DDL for those tables? Deadlocking is almost always a result of a
poor schema or more likely poor data access methods. Serialization is not
the way to go, you should do it right and find the cause so you can fix it.
Maybe these will help:
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=224453 Blocking Problems
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=271509 How to monitor SQL 2000
Blocking
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"n_o_s_p_a__m" <n_o_s_p_a__m@.mail.com> wrote in message
news:1faa8782.0402170756.4a53601f@.posting.google.com...
> I created a .net program which uses multithreading. The threads
> concurrently access the same db resources. This has generated no end
> of sql server deadlocks, which our dba is struggling to resolve.
> I am very close to giving up and going ahead and serializing all
> database access for the application. This will reduce performance
> quite a bit, although it will eliminate all the deadlocks.
> Maybe it's our dba's fault, maybe it's sql server's fault, maybe it's
> mine for building an app that hits the db so hard, but we are unable
> to solve all the deadlocking issues using the errorlog and profiling
> combo that has been suggested. We solve one deadlock issue, only to
> see another one revealed later, perhaps on different resources,
> perhaps not.
> I have heard there are many applications that use the Singleton
> pattern to serialize db access accross the board, just to avoid
> situations like this.
> Any feedback welcome.|||Can't deadlocking also happen for locks other than tables? It can happen
for RID or KEY locks as well within the same table, can't it?
Christian Smith
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:OkcJl6X9DHA.548@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Deadlocks are usually caused by 2 or more users attempting to update the
> same set of tables in opposite orders. If you have one sp that updates
> Orders and then Details while another updates details first and then
orders
> this will eventually cause a dead lock. If they are both in the same
order
> you most likely get only blocking which is normal and can be controlled.
Do
> you have an example of 2 procedures that deadlock on each other and the
> associated DDL for those tables? Deadlocking is almost always a result of
a
> poor schema or more likely poor data access methods. Serialization is not
> the way to go, you should do it right and find the cause so you can fix
it.
> Maybe these will help:
>
> http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=224453 Blocking Problems
> http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=271509 How to monitor SQL 2000
> Blocking
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "n_o_s_p_a__m" <n_o_s_p_a__m@.mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1faa8782.0402170756.4a53601f@.posting.google.com...
>|||Yes there are other reasons why dead locks occur but the main reason is as I
posted. Without more details it's all a guess so the most logical or common
reason is what I posted.
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Christian Smith" <csmith@.digex.com> wrote in message
news:uxC%23TGY9DHA.3404@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Can't deadlocking also happen for locks other than tables? It can happen
> for RID or KEY locks as well within the same table, can't it?
> Christian Smith
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:OkcJl6X9DHA.548@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> orders
> order
> Do
of
> a
not
> it.
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846
>|||One deadlocking situation is fairly simple:
node 1: Select from some_table where rownum = 42
node 2: update some_table with (TABLOCKX) where rownum = 42
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message news:<O4PueDZ9DHA.2432@.
TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>...
> Yes there are other reasons why dead locks occur but the main reason is as
I
> posted. Without more details it's all a guess so the most logical or comm
on
> reason is what I posted.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "Christian Smith" <csmith@.digex.com> wrote in message
> news:uxC%23TGY9DHA.3404@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> orders
> order
> Do
> of
> a
> not
> it.
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846|||Here is the deadlock graph of the previous post:
Wait-for graph
2004-02-18 12:06:37.50 spid4
2004-02-18 12:06:37.50 spid4 Node:1
2004-02-18 12:06:37.51 spid4 KEY: 26:1124251110:2 (130092d8179c)
CleanCnt:1 Mode: U Flags: 0x0
2004-02-18 12:06:37.51 spid4 Grant List 0::
2004-02-18 12:06:37.51 spid4 Owner:0x4fce9ac0 Mode: S
Flg:0x0 Ref:1 Life:00000000 SPID:73 ECID:0
2004-02-18 12:06:37.51 spid4 SPID: 73 ECID: 0 Statement Type:
SELECT Line #: 46
2004-02-18 12:06:37.51 spid4 Input Buf: RPC Event:
S_BPI_BY_BPIID_XML;1
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 Requested By:
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 ResType:LockOwner Stype:'OR' Mode:
X SPID:57 ECID:0 Ec0x53915568) Value:0x558fa140 Cost0/3C)
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 Node:2
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 KEY: 26:1124251110:1 (4a004cee256c)
CleanCnt:1 Mode: X Flags: 0x0
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 Grant List 0::
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 Owner:0x4edb17a0 Mode: X
Flg:0x0 Ref:1 Life:02000000 SPID:57 ECID:0
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 SPID: 57 ECID: 0 Statement Type:
UPDATE Line #: 347
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 Input Buf: RPC Event:
U_FAILED_ELI_CT;1
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 Requested By:
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 ResType:LockOwner Stype:'OR' Mode:
S SPID:73 ECID:0 Ec0x4872B568) Value:0x48b1e3e0 Cost0/0)
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 Victim Resource Owner:
2004-02-18 12:06:37.53 spid4 ResType:LockOwner Stype:'OR' Mode: S
SPID:73 ECID:0 Ec0x4872B568) Value:0x48b1e3e0 Cost0/0)
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message news:<O4PueDZ9DHA.2432@.
TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>...
> Yes there are other reasons why dead locks occur but the main reason is as
I
> posted. Without more details it's all a guess so the most logical or comm
on
> reason is what I posted.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "Christian Smith" <csmith@.digex.com> wrote in message
> news:uxC%23TGY9DHA.3404@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> orders
> order
> Do
> of
> a
> not
> it.
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846|||Not sure I follow what Node1 & 2 are. Are they 2 different users? Do they
both issue a select and an update? Sometimes it can be more confusing to
only give partial details. There must be more to it than what you show.
Are they wrapped in a transaction and what other statements are between the
begin and commit? But the real question is why on earth are you using a
TABLOCKX?
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"n_o_s_p_a__m" <n_o_s_p_a__m@.mail.com> wrote in message
news:1faa8782.0402201155.64b1af2@.posting.google.com...
> One deadlocking situation is fairly simple:
> node 1: Select from some_table where rownum = 42
> node 2: update some_table with (TABLOCKX) where rownum = 42
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:<O4PueDZ9DHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>...
as I
common
happen
the
updates
same
controlled.
the
result
is
fix
2000
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846
end
it's
unable
profiling
to|||In article <1faa8782.0402201155.64b1af2@.posting.google.com>,
n_o_s_p_a__m@.mail.com said...
> One deadlocking situation is fairly simple:
> node 1: Select from some_table where rownum = 42
> node 2: update some_table with (TABLOCKX) where rownum = 42
Actually both would error out because they're not valid SQL statements ;)
Seriously though, why would that deadlock? Whichever grabbed the table
first would finish its work and release it for the other.

Multi-Table Update?

Being an access guy, I am having a hard time understanding why I can't do a join statement on an UPDATE?

What is the alternatives??

I have to match two tables up and use records from one to update the other and creating a view isn't working...I would have suggested a view. What kind of problems are you getting with this approach? Are you trying to update a key value?|||
Another option is to use a stored procedure. You can update multiple tables, one after the other, using a stored procedure. Within the stored procedure you can use variables to hold values retrieved from one table and insert them into the next one.

|||you tend to lose update capabilities with a join when its a many to many join.

if your joining with a primary key it should work|||I'm going to have to learn some more about stored procedures because that would be excellent to do multiple updates like that..

Is there a code sample or link where I can learn more about doing the updates in that manor?

thx|||
Probably your best bet is to find a good book on the topic. In the meantime, you can hava look at the books online:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/tsqlref/ts_create_4hk5.asp?frame=true

You can also download some of theStarter Kits from this website for lots of great samples (see the tab above).

Hope this helps.

Multi-Table Linked Query?

I can access a single table in a query, but I cannot seem to make a
multi-table query work. The following works:
SELECT order_number from
remote.staging.dbo.orders
where
company_code = 'Company1' and
order_number = '005579974620040304'
However, I cannot get joins to work when both sides of the joins are on the
remote server. I always get "column prefix does not match" errors. Is a
linked server good only for one table?
Can someone give me an example ? Just make up an additional table in the
same DB with a join. Thank you.
DaveKCould you please post your join query ?
-jens Suessmeyer.|||Hello Dave,
I belive that linked tables arn't so much for queries but for server
operaitons (backups etc).
As an example of a joined table on the same server, it is often useful to
see it another way - as a simple join using a WHERE statement so you can see
the function of joining:
SELECT name_table.first_name, address_table.street_number
FROM name_table, address_table
WHERE name_table.address_id = address_table.address_id
In this example I am linking the two tables by the address_id field.
So using a JOIN you would use:
SELECT name_table.first_name, address_table.street_number
FROM name_table
INNER JOIN
address_table ON name_table.address_id = address_table.address_id
Does this help you a little bit?
"DaveK" <DaveK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:509461C5-1A63-4979-AA81-212139DB467A@.microsoft.com...
>I can access a single table in a query, but I cannot seem to make a
> multi-table query work. The following works:
> SELECT order_number from
> remote.staging.dbo.orders
> where
> company_code = 'Company1' and
> order_number = '005579974620040304'
> However, I cannot get joins to work when both sides of the joins are on
> the
> remote server. I always get "column prefix does not match" errors. Is a
> linked server good only for one table?
> Can someone give me an example ? Just make up an additional table in the
> same DB with a join. Thank you.
> DaveK|||If you use table identifiers, that should work:
ie:
select top 1* from [Test1].[MyDB].[dbo].[Table1] a inner jo
in
[Test1].[MyDB].[dbo].[Table2] b
on b.Col1=a.Col1
"DaveK" wrote:

> I can access a single table in a query, but I cannot seem to make a
> multi-table query work. The following works:
> SELECT order_number from
> remote.staging.dbo.orders
> where
> company_code = 'Company1' and
> order_number = '005579974620040304'
> However, I cannot get joins to work when both sides of the joins are on th
e
> remote server. I always get "column prefix does not match" errors. Is a
> linked server good only for one table?
> Can someone give me an example ? Just make up an additional table in the
> same DB with a join. Thank you.
> DaveK|||Hi Dave
You should be fine with more than one table, but without seeing the query or
the exact error text or number it is hard to say exactly which is wrong. It
sounds like you have a typo.
John
"DaveK" wrote:

> I can access a single table in a query, but I cannot seem to make a
> multi-table query work. The following works:
> SELECT order_number from
> remote.staging.dbo.orders
> where
> company_code = 'Company1' and
> order_number = '005579974620040304'
> However, I cannot get joins to work when both sides of the joins are on th
e
> remote server. I always get "column prefix does not match" errors. Is a
> linked server good only for one table?
> Can someone give me an example ? Just make up an additional table in the
> same DB with a join. Thank you.
> DaveK|||Thanks for the inputs everyone. After looking at your examples, I did get s
ome
progress. Here is the exact query:
select c.test_code, d.result_code
from server1.staging.dbo.tests c
right join server1.staging.dbo.results d
on c.company_code = d.company_code and
c.order_number = d.order_number and
c.test_code = d.test_code
where c.company_code = 'Company'
and c.order_number like '00557997462004____'
and d.result_code = '35645AA1'
Now what I get is:Server: Msg 7399, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
OLE DB provider 'SQLOLEDB' reported an error. Execution terminated by the
provider because a resource limit was reached.
[OLE/DB provider returned message: Timeout expired]
OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB' ICommandText::Execute
returned 0x80040e31: Execution terminated by the provider because a resourc
e
limit was reached.].
These tables have several million rows. The error, after 15 minutes, looks
to me like the linked server was trying to send the whole tables. This
should not be.
A single query with no join, like this one:
select c.test_code, c.result_code, c.value
from server1.staging.dbo.results c
where c.company_code = 'Company'
and c.order_number like '00557997462004____'
and c.result_code = '35645AA1'
normally takes 3 seconds
Am I on the right track with the limitations of a linked server? I was able
to get OPENQUERY style querys to work with my join syntax, so I am pretty
sure I am using the correct syntax. They only took 3 seconds as well. BTW,
the linked server is 2,000 miles away, but we have a good connection.|||Hi Dave
Your error is probably the remote query timing out
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;314530
As OPENQUERY is working so well I assume that you are going to use that?
John
"DaveK" wrote:

> Thanks for the inputs everyone. After looking at your examples, I did get
some
> progress. Here is the exact query:
> select c.test_code, d.result_code
> from server1.staging.dbo.tests c
> right join server1.staging.dbo.results d
> on c.company_code = d.company_code and
> c.order_number = d.order_number and
> c.test_code = d.test_code
> where c.company_code = 'Company'
> and c.order_number like '00557997462004____'
> and d.result_code = '35645AA1'
> Now what I get is:Server: Msg 7399, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> OLE DB provider 'SQLOLEDB' reported an error. Execution terminated by the
> provider because a resource limit was reached.
> [OLE/DB provider returned message: Timeout expired]
> OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB' ICommandText::Execute
> returned 0x80040e31: Execution terminated by the provider because a resou
rce
> limit was reached.].
> These tables have several million rows. The error, after 15 minutes, look
s
> to me like the linked server was trying to send the whole tables. This
> should not be.
> A single query with no join, like this one:
> select c.test_code, c.result_code, c.value
> from server1.staging.dbo.results c
> where c.company_code = 'Company'
> and c.order_number like '00557997462004____'
> and c.result_code = '35645AA1'
> normally takes 3 seconds
>
> Am I on the right track with the limitations of a linked server? I was ab
le
> to get OPENQUERY style querys to work with my join syntax, so I am pretty
> sure I am using the correct syntax. They only took 3 seconds as well. BT
W,
> the linked server is 2,000 miles away, but we have a good connection.
>|||I think I have narrowed down the problem some more.
If I use a search string in single quotes, it runs pretty fast. However if
I built the search string as a variable (declare @.search_string ...,) then
use that in my where clause, everything goes to pot timewise.
forinstance:
select c.order_number, c.value
from remote1.staging.dbo.orders c
where c.company_code = 'Company1'
and c.order_number = @.accession_string
this takes forever and times out.
Why would one form of the same data (literals in single quotes vs. string
variable change the query so much?|||Hi Dave
I am not sure why it does this, you may want to try using profiler on the
local and remote machines to see what gets sent to them, to determine if thi
s
is the query optimiser or the OLEDB driver that is having problems.
Assuming @.accession_string is a char(10), you may want to try:
EXEC remote1.master.dbo.sp_executesql
N'select c.order_number, c.value from staging.dbo.orders c
where c.company_code = ''Company1''
and c.order_number = @.accession',
N'@.accession char(10)',
@.accession_string
John
"DaveK" wrote:

> I think I have narrowed down the problem some more.
> If I use a search string in single quotes, it runs pretty fast. However
if
> I built the search string as a variable (declare @.search_string ...,) then
> use that in my where clause, everything goes to pot timewise.
> forinstance:
> select c.order_number, c.value
> from remote1.staging.dbo.orders c
> where c.company_code = 'Company1'
> and c.order_number = @.accession_string
> this takes forever and times out.
> Why would one form of the same data (literals in single quotes vs. string
> variable change the query so much?
>

Multi-Table Linked Query?

I can access a single table in a query, but I cannot seem to make a
multi-table query work. The following works:
SELECT order_number from
remote.staging.dbo.orders
where
company_code = 'Company1' and
order_number = '005579974620040304'
However, I cannot get joins to work when both sides of the joins are on the
remote server. I always get "column prefix does not match" errors. Is a
linked server good only for one table?
Can someone give me an example ? Just make up an additional table in the
same DB with a join. Thank you.
DaveK
Could you please post your join query ?
-jens Suessmeyer.
|||Hello Dave,
I belive that linked tables arn't so much for queries but for server
operaitons (backups etc).
As an example of a joined table on the same server, it is often useful to
see it another way - as a simple join using a WHERE statement so you can see
the function of joining:
SELECT name_table.first_name, address_table.street_number
FROM name_table, address_table
WHERE name_table.address_id = address_table.address_id
In this example I am linking the two tables by the address_id field.
So using a JOIN you would use:
SELECT name_table.first_name, address_table.street_number
FROM name_table
INNER JOIN
address_table ON name_table.address_id = address_table.address_id
Does this help you a little bit?
"DaveK" <DaveK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:509461C5-1A63-4979-AA81-212139DB467A@.microsoft.com...
>I can access a single table in a query, but I cannot seem to make a
> multi-table query work. The following works:
> SELECT order_number from
> remote.staging.dbo.orders
> where
> company_code = 'Company1' and
> order_number = '005579974620040304'
> However, I cannot get joins to work when both sides of the joins are on
> the
> remote server. I always get "column prefix does not match" errors. Is a
> linked server good only for one table?
> Can someone give me an example ? Just make up an additional table in the
> same DB with a join. Thank you.
> DaveK
|||If you use table identifiers, that should work:
ie:
select top 1* from [Test1].[MyDB].[dbo].[Table1] a inner join
[Test1].[MyDB].[dbo].[Table2] b
on b.Col1=a.Col1
"DaveK" wrote:

> I can access a single table in a query, but I cannot seem to make a
> multi-table query work. The following works:
> SELECT order_number from
> remote.staging.dbo.orders
> where
> company_code = 'Company1' and
> order_number = '005579974620040304'
> However, I cannot get joins to work when both sides of the joins are on the
> remote server. I always get "column prefix does not match" errors. Is a
> linked server good only for one table?
> Can someone give me an example ? Just make up an additional table in the
> same DB with a join. Thank you.
> DaveK
|||Hi Dave
You should be fine with more than one table, but without seeing the query or
the exact error text or number it is hard to say exactly which is wrong. It
sounds like you have a typo.
John
"DaveK" wrote:

> I can access a single table in a query, but I cannot seem to make a
> multi-table query work. The following works:
> SELECT order_number from
> remote.staging.dbo.orders
> where
> company_code = 'Company1' and
> order_number = '005579974620040304'
> However, I cannot get joins to work when both sides of the joins are on the
> remote server. I always get "column prefix does not match" errors. Is a
> linked server good only for one table?
> Can someone give me an example ? Just make up an additional table in the
> same DB with a join. Thank you.
> DaveK
|||Thanks for the inputs everyone. After looking at your examples, I did get some
progress. Here is the exact query:
select c.test_code, d.result_code
from server1.staging.dbo.tests c
right join server1.staging.dbo.results d
on c.company_code = d.company_code and
c.order_number = d.order_number and
c.test_code = d.test_code
where c.company_code = 'Company'
and c.order_number like '00557997462004____'
and d.result_code = '35645AA1'
Now what I get is:Server: Msg 7399, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
OLE DB provider 'SQLOLEDB' reported an error. Execution terminated by the
provider because a resource limit was reached.
[OLE/DB provider returned message: Timeout expired]
OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB' ICommandText::Execute
returned 0x80040e31: Execution terminated by the provider because a resource
limit was reached.].
These tables have several million rows. The error, after 15 minutes, looks
to me like the linked server was trying to send the whole tables. This
should not be.
A single query with no join, like this one:
select c.test_code, c.result_code, c.value
from server1.staging.dbo.results c
where c.company_code = 'Company'
and c.order_number like '00557997462004____'
and c.result_code = '35645AA1'
normally takes 3 seconds
Am I on the right track with the limitations of a linked server? I was able
to get OPENQUERY style querys to work with my join syntax, so I am pretty
sure I am using the correct syntax. They only took 3 seconds as well. BTW,
the linked server is 2,000 miles away, but we have a good connection.
|||Hi Dave
Your error is probably the remote query timing out
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;314530
As OPENQUERY is working so well I assume that you are going to use that?
John
"DaveK" wrote:

> Thanks for the inputs everyone. After looking at your examples, I did get some
> progress. Here is the exact query:
> select c.test_code, d.result_code
> from server1.staging.dbo.tests c
> right join server1.staging.dbo.results d
> on c.company_code = d.company_code and
> c.order_number = d.order_number and
> c.test_code = d.test_code
> where c.company_code = 'Company'
> and c.order_number like '00557997462004____'
> and d.result_code = '35645AA1'
> Now what I get is:Server: Msg 7399, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> OLE DB provider 'SQLOLEDB' reported an error. Execution terminated by the
> provider because a resource limit was reached.
> [OLE/DB provider returned message: Timeout expired]
> OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB' ICommandText::Execute
> returned 0x80040e31: Execution terminated by the provider because a resource
> limit was reached.].
> These tables have several million rows. The error, after 15 minutes, looks
> to me like the linked server was trying to send the whole tables. This
> should not be.
> A single query with no join, like this one:
> select c.test_code, c.result_code, c.value
> from server1.staging.dbo.results c
> where c.company_code = 'Company'
> and c.order_number like '00557997462004____'
> and c.result_code = '35645AA1'
> normally takes 3 seconds
>
> Am I on the right track with the limitations of a linked server? I was able
> to get OPENQUERY style querys to work with my join syntax, so I am pretty
> sure I am using the correct syntax. They only took 3 seconds as well. BTW,
> the linked server is 2,000 miles away, but we have a good connection.
>
|||I think I have narrowed down the problem some more.
If I use a search string in single quotes, it runs pretty fast. However if
I built the search string as a variable (declare @.search_string ...,) then
use that in my where clause, everything goes to pot timewise.
forinstance:
select c.order_number, c.value
from remote1.staging.dbo.orders c
where c.company_code = 'Company1'
and c.order_number = @.accession_string
this takes forever and times out.
Why would one form of the same data (literals in single quotes vs. string
variable change the query so much?
|||Hi Dave
I am not sure why it does this, you may want to try using profiler on the
local and remote machines to see what gets sent to them, to determine if this
is the query optimiser or the OLEDB driver that is having problems.
Assuming @.accession_string is a char(10), you may want to try:
EXEC remote1.master.dbo.sp_executesql
N'select c.order_number, c.value from staging.dbo.orders c
where c.company_code = ''Company1''
and c.order_number = @.accession',
N'@.accession char(10)',
@.accession_string
John
"DaveK" wrote:

> I think I have narrowed down the problem some more.
> If I use a search string in single quotes, it runs pretty fast. However if
> I built the search string as a variable (declare @.search_string ...,) then
> use that in my where clause, everything goes to pot timewise.
> forinstance:
> select c.order_number, c.value
> from remote1.staging.dbo.orders c
> where c.company_code = 'Company1'
> and c.order_number = @.accession_string
> this takes forever and times out.
> Why would one form of the same data (literals in single quotes vs. string
> variable change the query so much?
>

Multi-Table Linked Query?

I can access a single table in a query, but I cannot seem to make a
multi-table query work. The following works:
SELECT order_number from
remote.staging.dbo.orders
where
company_code = 'Company1' and
order_number = '005579974620040304'
However, I cannot get joins to work when both sides of the joins are on the
remote server. I always get "column prefix does not match" errors. Is a
linked server good only for one table?
Can someone give me an example ? Just make up an additional table in the
same DB with a join. Thank you.
DaveKCould you please post your join query ?
-jens Suessmeyer.|||Hello Dave,
I belive that linked tables arn't so much for queries but for server
operaitons (backups etc).
As an example of a joined table on the same server, it is often useful to
see it another way - as a simple join using a WHERE statement so you can see
the function of joining:
SELECT name_table.first_name, address_table.street_number
FROM name_table, address_table
WHERE name_table.address_id = address_table.address_id
In this example I am linking the two tables by the address_id field.
So using a JOIN you would use:
SELECT name_table.first_name, address_table.street_number
FROM name_table
INNER JOIN
address_table ON name_table.address_id = address_table.address_id
Does this help you a little bit?
"DaveK" <DaveK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:509461C5-1A63-4979-AA81-212139DB467A@.microsoft.com...
>I can access a single table in a query, but I cannot seem to make a
> multi-table query work. The following works:
> SELECT order_number from
> remote.staging.dbo.orders
> where
> company_code = 'Company1' and
> order_number = '005579974620040304'
> However, I cannot get joins to work when both sides of the joins are on
> the
> remote server. I always get "column prefix does not match" errors. Is a
> linked server good only for one table?
> Can someone give me an example ? Just make up an additional table in the
> same DB with a join. Thank you.
> DaveK|||If you use table identifiers, that should work:
ie:
select top 1* from [Test1].[MyDB].[dbo].[Table1] a inner join
[Test1].[MyDB].[dbo].[Table2] b
on b.Col1=a.Col1
"DaveK" wrote:
> I can access a single table in a query, but I cannot seem to make a
> multi-table query work. The following works:
> SELECT order_number from
> remote.staging.dbo.orders
> where
> company_code = 'Company1' and
> order_number = '005579974620040304'
> However, I cannot get joins to work when both sides of the joins are on the
> remote server. I always get "column prefix does not match" errors. Is a
> linked server good only for one table?
> Can someone give me an example ? Just make up an additional table in the
> same DB with a join. Thank you.
> DaveK|||Hi Dave
You should be fine with more than one table, but without seeing the query or
the exact error text or number it is hard to say exactly which is wrong. It
sounds like you have a typo.
John
"DaveK" wrote:
> I can access a single table in a query, but I cannot seem to make a
> multi-table query work. The following works:
> SELECT order_number from
> remote.staging.dbo.orders
> where
> company_code = 'Company1' and
> order_number = '005579974620040304'
> However, I cannot get joins to work when both sides of the joins are on the
> remote server. I always get "column prefix does not match" errors. Is a
> linked server good only for one table?
> Can someone give me an example ? Just make up an additional table in the
> same DB with a join. Thank you.
> DaveK|||Thanks for the inputs everyone. After looking at your examples, I did get some
progress. Here is the exact query:
select c.test_code, d.result_code
from server1.staging.dbo.tests c
right join server1.staging.dbo.results d
on c.company_code = d.company_code and
c.order_number = d.order_number and
c.test_code = d.test_code
where c.company_code = 'Company'
and c.order_number like '00557997462004____'
and d.result_code = '35645AA1'
Now what I get is:Server: Msg 7399, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
OLE DB provider 'SQLOLEDB' reported an error. Execution terminated by the
provider because a resource limit was reached.
[OLE/DB provider returned message: Timeout expired]
OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB' ICommandText::Execute
returned 0x80040e31: Execution terminated by the provider because a resource
limit was reached.].
These tables have several million rows. The error, after 15 minutes, looks
to me like the linked server was trying to send the whole tables. This
should not be.
A single query with no join, like this one:
select c.test_code, c.result_code, c.value
from server1.staging.dbo.results c
where c.company_code = 'Company'
and c.order_number like '00557997462004____'
and c.result_code = '35645AA1'
normally takes 3 seconds
Am I on the right track with the limitations of a linked server? I was able
to get OPENQUERY style querys to work with my join syntax, so I am pretty
sure I am using the correct syntax. They only took 3 seconds as well. BTW,
the linked server is 2,000 miles away, but we have a good connection.|||Hi Dave
Your error is probably the remote query timing out
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314530
As OPENQUERY is working so well I assume that you are going to use that?
John
"DaveK" wrote:
> Thanks for the inputs everyone. After looking at your examples, I did get some
> progress. Here is the exact query:
> select c.test_code, d.result_code
> from server1.staging.dbo.tests c
> right join server1.staging.dbo.results d
> on c.company_code = d.company_code and
> c.order_number = d.order_number and
> c.test_code = d.test_code
> where c.company_code = 'Company'
> and c.order_number like '00557997462004____'
> and d.result_code = '35645AA1'
> Now what I get is:Server: Msg 7399, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> OLE DB provider 'SQLOLEDB' reported an error. Execution terminated by the
> provider because a resource limit was reached.
> [OLE/DB provider returned message: Timeout expired]
> OLE DB error trace [OLE/DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB' ICommandText::Execute
> returned 0x80040e31: Execution terminated by the provider because a resource
> limit was reached.].
> These tables have several million rows. The error, after 15 minutes, looks
> to me like the linked server was trying to send the whole tables. This
> should not be.
> A single query with no join, like this one:
> select c.test_code, c.result_code, c.value
> from server1.staging.dbo.results c
> where c.company_code = 'Company'
> and c.order_number like '00557997462004____'
> and c.result_code = '35645AA1'
> normally takes 3 seconds
>
> Am I on the right track with the limitations of a linked server? I was able
> to get OPENQUERY style querys to work with my join syntax, so I am pretty
> sure I am using the correct syntax. They only took 3 seconds as well. BTW,
> the linked server is 2,000 miles away, but we have a good connection.
>|||I think I have narrowed down the problem some more.
If I use a search string in single quotes, it runs pretty fast. However if
I built the search string as a variable (declare @.search_string ...,) then
use that in my where clause, everything goes to pot timewise.
forinstance:
select c.order_number, c.value
from remote1.staging.dbo.orders c
where c.company_code = 'Company1'
and c.order_number = @.accession_string
this takes forever and times out.
Why would one form of the same data (literals in single quotes vs. string
variable change the query so much?|||Hi Dave
I am not sure why it does this, you may want to try using profiler on the
local and remote machines to see what gets sent to them, to determine if this
is the query optimiser or the OLEDB driver that is having problems.
Assuming @.accession_string is a char(10), you may want to try:
EXEC remote1.master.dbo.sp_executesql
N'select c.order_number, c.value from staging.dbo.orders c
where c.company_code = ''Company1''
and c.order_number = @.accession',
N'@.accession char(10)',
@.accession_string
John
"DaveK" wrote:
> I think I have narrowed down the problem some more.
> If I use a search string in single quotes, it runs pretty fast. However if
> I built the search string as a variable (declare @.search_string ...,) then
> use that in my where clause, everything goes to pot timewise.
> forinstance:
> select c.order_number, c.value
> from remote1.staging.dbo.orders c
> where c.company_code = 'Company1'
> and c.order_number = @.accession_string
> this takes forever and times out.
> Why would one form of the same data (literals in single quotes vs. string
> variable change the query so much?
>

multiple web site to access the same SQL Server database

Each SQL Server database should correspond to one IP address. I assume web
server and database server are in separate machines. Here's 2 cases:
case 1: A single web site have data access to the SQL Server database.
case 2: There are multiple web sites need to have data access to the same
SQL Server database.
Obviously, case 2 will create more network traffic than case 1. Then how
should do we about that? Use more than one SQL Server (i.e. different IP
address)? But what IP address should use in connection string in web pages'
Please advise!
Thanks!Hi,
If you want to distribute the work load amoung multiple SQL servers I
believe you would have to use some form of clustering technology such as
Microsoft Cluster Service. Then you can use the IP address of the virtual
SQL Server. There are limitations to this solution so be sure to investigate
and make sure that it fits your requirement.
Hope this helps
Chris Taylor
"Matt" <mattloude@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e92o1DZoDHA.1632@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Each SQL Server database should correspond to one IP address. I assume web
> server and database server are in separate machines. Here's 2 cases:
> case 1: A single web site have data access to the SQL Server database.
> case 2: There are multiple web sites need to have data access to the same
> SQL Server database.
> Obviously, case 2 will create more network traffic than case 1. Then how
> should do we about that? Use more than one SQL Server (i.e. different IP
> address)? But what IP address should use in connection string in web
pages'
> Please advise!
> Thanks!
>
>

Multiple users with the same default "schema"

Probably quite a simple one, have patience...I'm just learning the
ropes with SQL Server...
I want to grant new users access to an existing database, owned by
user X. So far this works, but user Y has to include X's username
before any object names. For example
select * from cd_collection;
does not work, Y has to use
select * from X.cd_collection;
instead. Any advice on how to add new users (with varying permissions)
to an existing "schema" so that they would have the schema as default
one? SQL Server version is 7.0.Hi
In SQL Server 7 or 2000 you can not change this.
Kalen Delaney wrote an article in the April SQL Server magazine " "Object
Ownership and Security" (InstantDoc ID 41773), I talked about the confusions
and limitations surrounding SQL Server 2000's model, which doesn't separate
the concepts of user and schema." This also talks about the changes in SQL
Server 2005 (Yukon).
http://www.winnetmag.com/SQLServer/...1773/41773.html
John
"janne" <janne_1976@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6539de6f.0406142332.6de2004d@.posting.google.com...
> Probably quite a simple one, have patience...I'm just learning the
> ropes with SQL Server...
> I want to grant new users access to an existing database, owned by
> user X. So far this works, but user Y has to include X's username
> before any object names. For example
> select * from cd_collection;
> does not work, Y has to use
> select * from X.cd_collection;
> instead. Any advice on how to add new users (with varying permissions)
> to an existing "schema" so that they would have the schema as default
> one? SQL Server version is 7.0.

Multiple SQL servers sharing Common Disk

Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
disk containing the database and work concurrently?
No.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>
>
|||As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
until SQL 2005 for mirroring
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
|||Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
|||What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
failure, another server can continue in its place.
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
|||You are looking for failover clustering. You use a highly-redundant disk
array such as a SAN, two or more host computers, and Windows and SQL
Software to build a failover cluster. The systems are physically
interconnected at all times, but the cluster software arbitrates ownership
so only one host computer owns a SQL server instance, and its associated
resources) at any one time.
Here is a good overview on SQL failover clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../failclus.mspx
Here is a good resource on SQL Server High Availability solutions:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/sqlhalp.mspx
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434F9806.D4DC58BD@.hillhouse.ca...
> What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
> failure, another server can continue in its place.
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>

Multiple SQL servers sharing Common Disk

Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
disk containing the database and work concurrently?No.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>
>|||As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
until SQL 2005 for mirroring
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> No.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
> >
> >
> >|||Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> No.
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
>> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
>> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
>> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>|||What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
failure, another server can continue in its place.
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> > As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> > until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> >
> >> No.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Geoff N. Hiten
> >> Senior Database Administrator
> >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> >> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> >> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> >> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >|||You are looking for failover clustering. You use a highly-redundant disk
array such as a SAN, two or more host computers, and Windows and SQL
Software to build a failover cluster. The systems are physically
interconnected at all times, but the cluster software arbitrates ownership
so only one host computer owns a SQL server instance, and its associated
resources) at any one time.
Here is a good overview on SQL failover clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/failclus.mspx
Here is a good resource on SQL Server High Availability solutions:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/sqlhalp.mspx
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434F9806.D4DC58BD@.hillhouse.ca...
> What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
> failure, another server can continue in its place.
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
>> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
>> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
>> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
>> > As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
>> > until SQL 2005 for mirroring
>> >
>> > Steve
>> >
>> > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> >
>> >> No.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Geoff N. Hiten
>> >> Senior Database Administrator
>> >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> >> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
>> >> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
>> >> > Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
>> >> > disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>

Multiple SQL servers sharing Common Disk

Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
disk containing the database and work concurrently?No.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...
> Is it possible to have 2 SQL 2000 (STD) servers access a common RAID
> disk containing the database and work concurrently?
>
>|||As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
until SQL 2005 for mirroring
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E6529.9DBA7366@.hillhouse.ca...|||Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...
> As I suspected - I guess that SQL clustering is the way to go or wait
> until SQL 2005 for mirroring
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
>|||What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
failure, another server can continue in its place.
Steve
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Clustering is a high availability solution, not a scale-up solution.
> Mirroring allows read-only access to the target database.
> SQL does not scale out, it scales up.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
> news:434E696D.2F79952A@.hillhouse.ca...|||You are looking for failover clustering. You use a highly-redundant disk
array such as a SAN, two or more host computers, and Windows and SQL
Software to build a failover cluster. The systems are physically
interconnected at all times, but the cluster software arbitrates ownership
so only one host computer owns a SQL server instance, and its associated
resources) at any one time.
Here is a good overview on SQL failover clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...n/failclus.mspx
Here is a good resource on SQL Server High Availability solutions:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oy/sqlhalp.mspx
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Steve Babcock" <sbabcock@.hillhouse.ca> wrote in message
news:434F9806.D4DC58BD@.hillhouse.ca...
> What I need is a fail-over solution whereby if a sql server has a hardware
> failure, another server can continue in its place.
> Steve
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
>

Multiple Search

Does anyone know how to search for more than one key word
at a time in MS Access 2000?
Example: Cars or Trucks (in a Memo field)Please post this to an MS Access newsgroup.
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
What hardware is your SQL Server running on?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
"Mike" <mike@.countrymedic.com> wrote in message
news:037e01c33f3a$6e3695f0$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
Does anyone know how to search for more than one key word
at a time in MS Access 2000?
Example: Cars or Trucks (in a Memo field)

multiple results query

Hi, I'm new to SQL, first stared using some rudiments of SQL in Access, now I moved to biger flights

Ok this is my question:

I've a table "XPTO" with two colums

Name Type

aaaa 01

bbbb 05

cccc 01

dddd 05

eeee 01

rrrrrrr 01

What I need is for the query to return me following:

UP Down

4 2

I using somethig like this:

SELECT count(*) AS "UP", count(*) AS "Down" FROM "XPTO"
WHERE ("XPTO"."Type" = '01') AND ("XPTO"."Type"= '05')

Wich returns me the following

UP Down

0 0

Because there is no value that complies with the two conditions.

I need the red part of the code to refer exclusively to the alias Down

Thanks in advanced for any help.

Perhaps something like:

Code Snippet

SET NOCOUNT ON

DECLARE @.XPTO table
( [Name] varchar(10),
[Type] char(2)
)

INSERT INTO @.XPTO VALUES ( 'aaaa', '01' )
INSERT INTO @.XPTO VALUES ( 'bbbb', '05' )
INSERT INTO @.XPTO VALUES ( 'cccc', '01' )
INSERT INTO @.XPTO VALUES ( 'dddd', '05' )
INSERT INTO @.XPTO VALUES ( 'eeee', '01' )
INSERT INTO @.XPTO VALUES ( 'rrrrrrr', '01' )

SELECT
Up = sum( CASE Type WHEN '01' THEN 1 END ),
Down = sum( CASE Type WHEN '05' THEN 1 END )
FROM @.XPTO

Up Down
-- --
4 2

|||

You can do below:

Code Snippet

SELECT sum(case t."Type" when '01' then 1 end) AS "UP"

, sum(case t."Type" when '05' then 1 end) AS "Down"

FROM "XPTO" AS t

-- This filter helps restrict the rows and provides better performance if you have an

-- index on the type column.

WHERE t."Type" in ( '01', '05')

|||As Umachandar indicated, the WHERE clause filter is a good idea IF there are more values than '01' and '05' in the [Type] column -otherwise it seems to me that it will not have any significant effect if the [Type] is not indexed -all rows will have to be read.