Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
In SQL Profiler you can see that very simple updates to a table by primary key take about 10-30ms each. On about every 10th update the write column shows 1, on all other updates it shows 0. This must mean that about every 10th update statement still requires disk IO. I wonder why that is. Would it not be more efficient queue up all IO until the transaction commits?
And where would you wish to store these kind of memory updates once you update a table of size, lets say 10 000 000 records?
Where would you wish to store the transaction log.
AS plentifull as RAM seems, we cannot assume it is endless…