16,018,818 members
Sign in
Sign in
Email
Password
Forgot your password?
Sign in with
home
articles
Browse Topics
>
Latest Articles
Top Articles
Posting/Update Guidelines
Article Help Forum
Submit an article or tip
Import GitHub Project
Import your Blog
quick answers
Q&A
Ask a Question
View Unanswered Questions
View All Questions
View C# questions
View C++ questions
View Visual Basic questions
View Javascript questions
View .NET questions
discussions
forums
CodeProject.AI Server
All Message Boards...
Application Lifecycle
>
Running a Business
Sales / Marketing
Collaboration / Beta Testing
Work Issues
Design and Architecture
Artificial Intelligence
ASP.NET
JavaScript
Internet of Things
C / C++ / MFC
>
ATL / WTL / STL
Managed C++/CLI
C#
Free Tools
Objective-C and Swift
Database
Hardware & Devices
>
System Admin
Hosting and Servers
Java
Linux Programming
Python
.NET (Core and Framework)
Android
iOS
Mobile
WPF
Visual Basic
Web Development
Site Bugs / Suggestions
Spam and Abuse Watch
features
features
Competitions
News
The Insider Newsletter
The Daily Build Newsletter
Newsletter archive
Surveys
CodeProject Stuff
community
lounge
Who's Who
Most Valuable Professionals
The Lounge
The CodeProject Blog
Where I Am: Member Photos
The Insider News
The Weird & The Wonderful
help
?
What is 'CodeProject'?
General FAQ
Ask a Question
Bugs and Suggestions
Article Help Forum
About Us
Search within:
Articles
Quick Answers
Messages
Comments by Muli G. (Top 7 by date)
Muli G.
9-Jun-14 10:20am
View
Does all the indexes are being removed or just the non clustered ones?
Can it be that the schema_option is set to "copy nonclustered indexes" = false?
please review this article:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/repltalk/archive/2012/04/03/replicating-non-clustered-indexes-improves-subscriber-query-performance.aspx
and this msdn forum question:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/sqlserver/en-US/51512117-b53d-429b-8c3d-84d9a925126e/sql-server-replication-initilize-subscription-removes-nonclustered-indexes?forum=sqlreplication
hope this will help
Muli G.
9-Jun-14 10:09am
View
try this tutorial:
http://www.easysoft.com/developer/languages/c/odbc_tutorial.html
Muli G.
5-Jun-14 10:54am
View
I think that you will need to use alter system in order to change MAX_UTILIZATION
but are you sure this is the setting you need to change? are you working in dedicated or shared server?
Muli G.
5-Jun-14 10:44am
View
Try to use this:
http://www.dotnetfunda.com/forums/show/6847/play-video-from-memory-stream-or-byte-array
Good luck :)
Muli G.
5-Jun-14 10:24am
View
BTW there is something in the msdn forum about the memory of SQL server the confirms sql doesn't release memory unless it has to:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/sqlserver/en-US/90d5422f-c924-4211-9323-7373e9d5ad1f/sql-server-not-releasing-memory-back
Muli G.
5-Jun-14 10:14am
View
1. I think sql server doesn't release memory once it is allocated and most of the time it keeps the maximum amount of memory that was set to him, have you tried to close the connection in order to see if something that is session related like temporary tables are still available and not dropped?
2. I think the performance will be the same in case of index exists on this column because it will go the right side of the BTREE and get the valuse, however if you don't have an index it will need to scan all records in case of MAX and sort all the records in case of TOP 1, sorting is a very heavy operation so I suggest to go with the MAX.
Good luck :)
Muli G.
3-Jun-14 2:17am
View
Did you try to check the the execution plan to see if it use the index or not?
if it doesn't try to add hint to use the index (just for the test) in order to see if it works better...
if it works better maybe this is optimizer problem.
Show More