On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 09:06 -0700, William R. Mussatto wrote:
On Thu, October 19, 2006 18:24, Ow Mun Heng said:
Just curious to know,
I tried to update a table with ~1.7 million rows (~1G in size) and the
update took close to 15-20 minutes before it says it's done.
Is this kind of speed
it says this is done so that other read processes can still
access the DB/table in it's OLD state w/o any hiccups.
I do not understand
so how does the MSSQL DB work when we alter table add column* *
2006/10/22, Ow Mun Heng [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 09:06 -0700, William R.
On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 21:32 +0800, 黄小聪 wrote:
it says this is done so that other read processes can still
access the DB/table in it's OLD state w/o any hiccups.
I do not understand
so how does the MSSQL DB work when we alter table add column
Frankly, I don't really know. I tried adding a
On Thu, October 19, 2006 18:24, Ow Mun Heng said:
Just curious to know,
I tried to update a table with ~1.7 million rows (~1G in size) and the
update took close to 15-20 minutes before it says it's done.
Is this kind of speed expected?
I don't really understand how the alter table add
Just curious to know,
I tried to update a table with ~1.7 million rows (~1G in size) and the
update took close to 15-20 minutes before it says it's done.
Is this kind of speed expected?
I don't really understand how the alter table add column is done, but
when I look at the show processlist I
Just curious to know,
I tried to update a table with ~1.7 million rows (~1G in size) and the
update took close to 15-20 minutes before it says it's done.
Is this kind of speed expected?
I don't really understand how the alter table add column is done, but
when I look at the show processlist I
On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 09:29 +0800, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
Just curious to know,
I tried to update a table with ~1.7 million rows (~1G in size) and the
update took close to 15-20 minutes before it says it's done.
Is this kind of speed expected?
I don't really understand how the alter table
