Multiple threads or not?

SQL 7.0/NT 4.0 latest SPs
Performance question.
One application will be writing to two tables. 1000s of
records at a time, in bursts, and at the same time, the
tables will be serving up data to end-users from a
separate application.
Question: Should there be a separate thread written to
each table that the appliation is writing to? Would that
help performance getting the records in faster and reduce
the amount of over-head so that the users making their
requests aren't slow in getting their data.
Thank you for your help.
DonHow are you inserting them? Have you tried using Bulk Insert?
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Don" <ddachner@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:04b701c37ed2$a0adc300$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> SQL 7.0/NT 4.0 latest SPs
> Performance question.
> One application will be writing to two tables. 1000s of
> records at a time, in bursts, and at the same time, the
> tables will be serving up data to end-users from a
> separate application.
> Question: Should there be a separate thread written to
> each table that the appliation is writing to? Would that
> help performance getting the records in faster and reduce
> the amount of over-head so that the users making their
> requests aren't slow in getting their data.
> Thank you for your help.
> Don
>|||The developer is using INSERT. Looks like one record at
at time from C++.
Bulk insert would be better?
Don
>--Original Message--
>How are you inserting them? Have you tried using Bulk
Insert?
>--
>Andrew J. Kelly
>SQL Server MVP
>
>"Don" <ddachner@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:04b701c37ed2$a0adc300$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
>> SQL 7.0/NT 4.0 latest SPs
>> Performance question.
>> One application will be writing to two tables. 1000s of
>> records at a time, in bursts, and at the same time, the
>> tables will be serving up data to end-users from a
>> separate application.
>> Question: Should there be a separate thread written to
>> each table that the appliation is writing to? Would
that
>> help performance getting the records in faster and
reduce
>> the amount of over-head so that the users making their
>> requests aren't slow in getting their data.
>> Thank you for your help.
>> Don
>
>.
>|||A Bulk Insert would generally be many times faster than individual inserts.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Don" <ddachner@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:055401c37ee9$c88931e0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> The developer is using INSERT. Looks like one record at
> at time from C++.
> Bulk insert would be better?
> Don
> >--Original Message--
> >How are you inserting them? Have you tried using Bulk
> Insert?
> >
> >--
> >
> >Andrew J. Kelly
> >SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> >"Don" <ddachner@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:04b701c37ed2$a0adc300$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> SQL 7.0/NT 4.0 latest SPs
> >>
> >> Performance question.
> >>
> >> One application will be writing to two tables. 1000s of
> >> records at a time, in bursts, and at the same time, the
> >> tables will be serving up data to end-users from a
> >> separate application.
> >>
> >> Question: Should there be a separate thread written to
> >> each table that the appliation is writing to? Would
> that
> >> help performance getting the records in faster and
> reduce
> >> the amount of over-head so that the users making their
> >> requests aren't slow in getting their data.
> >>
> >> Thank you for your help.
> >>
> >> Don
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >|||Bulk insert techniques are the fastest way to load large volumes of data
into SQL Server. You can use SQLOLEDB IRowserFastLoad or ODBC Bulk Copy
to load data directly from a C++ program. To load data from files, you
can use T-SQL BULK INSERT, the BCP command-line utility or DTS.
Parallel loading (e.g. multiple threads) can improve throughput further.
However, you may not need to resort to that since you can probably load
thousands of rows in a few seconds.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
--
SQL FAQ links (courtesy Neil Pike):
http://www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq
--
"Don" <ddachner@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:055401c37ee9$c88931e0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> The developer is using INSERT. Looks like one record at
> at time from C++.
> Bulk insert would be better?
> Don
> >--Original Message--
> >How are you inserting them? Have you tried using Bulk
> Insert?
> >
> >--
> >
> >Andrew J. Kelly
> >SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> >"Don" <ddachner@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:04b701c37ed2$a0adc300$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> SQL 7.0/NT 4.0 latest SPs
> >>
> >> Performance question.
> >>
> >> One application will be writing to two tables. 1000s of
> >> records at a time, in bursts, and at the same time, the
> >> tables will be serving up data to end-users from a
> >> separate application.
> >>
> >> Question: Should there be a separate thread written to
> >> each table that the appliation is writing to? Would
> that
> >> help performance getting the records in faster and
> reduce
> >> the amount of over-head so that the users making their
> >> requests aren't slow in getting their data.
> >>
> >> Thank you for your help.
> >>
> >> Don
> >>
> >
> >
> >.
> >

Multiple Table Grouping

Hi,
I have two tables based on the same dataset.
The way the report is setup i have it set up with two tables.
One table shows the latest month and the other table shows a 12 month period
of the same data.
It is also grouped by division number.
What i want to do is show both tables (latest and 12 month) for division A
then a page break and then both tables for division B.
Can this be done.Yes, but AFAIK only with 4 Tables. Two for div a and two for div b.
Another thing would be to put the tables horizontally together (in a
retangle ) and do your page break on a group basis.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
--
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--
"Fez" <Fez@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:702B1045-289B-41DF-A8D0-83A570389534@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have two tables based on the same dataset.
> The way the report is setup i have it set up with two tables.
> One table shows the latest month and the other table shows a 12 month
> period
> of the same data.
> It is also grouped by division number.
> What i want to do is show both tables (latest and 12 month) for division A
> then a page break and then both tables for division B.
> Can this be done.|||Well the reason i have two tables is because of the size of the inforamtion.
I have to split the data up into 2 tables.

Multiple SQL Server Native Client Versions

One of the big problems with the old MDAC was different versions on different client machines. You would test your app with the latest version say, but when you deployed it, it might fail as the client has a different version.

My company develops software for Municipal Government clients. These clients use other SQL Server applications as well as ours, but they can only use one version of the client software (MDAC) on a given desktop. That means if we require a particular MDAC version, but the clients other applications from other vendors don't officially support that MDAC version, the client is in a real jam.

Our software also supports Oracle, which allows our software to specify a particular Oracle Home which points to a directory with a particular version of the Oracle client dlls (along with corresponding registry entries for that Oracle Home), such that we control the exact client version of the Oracle software that the client uses with our applications. This will not interfere with, and is completely seperate, from the default Oracle home installed when you install the Oracle client software.

What I would like to see for the Native Client is the ability to have our applications use the version of the Native Client that we wish to support and deploy without interfering with the Native Client version used by other applications. Have a default Native Client, but allow applications to somehow specify a different Native Client version/set of DLLs.

Is there any such functionality with the Native Client? (I didn't see any mention of such in the documentation, but I thought I'd ask)

If not, are there any future plans to support multiple Native Client versions on the same desktop?

At present, there is only one version of the SQL Server Native Client, so the particular issue you've raised isn't technically a concern at this point (which may explain why you didn't find any obvious discussion of the topic).

In the SQL Server Native Client blog, Chris and/or Acey discuss the history of issues that were encountered with multiple versions of MDAC and specifically discuss the issue you've brought up above (the blog posting is at: http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlnativeclient/archive/2006/09/27/774286.aspx ). They go on to specifically mention:

By wrapping the OLE DB and ODBC technologies into a single library, we are able to avoid these issues by making a clean break from MDAC so that you can effectively deploy SQL Native Client as needed, without concern about if it will “play nicely” with other versions of MDAC.

So, for you app today, you can build against the SQL Server Native Client and deploy that application (including the SQL Server Native Client redistributable) to your clients without breaking existing MDAC based applications.

As to the future, making this clean break only to commit to the same course of action with the new SQL Server Native Client would be less than ideal and we are actively considering how best to support this need in the next release that will come with future versions of Microsoft SQL Server. If you have specific scenarios or issues you would like considered, we would very much like to hear your ideas.