This is a discussion on SLOW performance on table with image fields (SQL 2000) within the SQL Server forums, part of the Microsoft SQL Server category; --> Hi We have a SQL server 2000 SP4 on a windows 2003 2x3Ghz XEON 4 GB ram. We have ...
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| Hi We have a SQL server 2000 SP4 on a windows 2003 2x3Ghz XEON 4 GB ram. We have a table looking like this with currently 6 rows. Total data is aprox 10 kb i all row all together. CREATE TABLE [dbo].[BIOMETRICPROFILE] ( [BIOMETRICPROFILEID] [bigint] IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL , [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE1] [image] NOT NULL , [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE2] [image] NOT NULL , [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE3] [image] NOT NULL , [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE4] [image] NOT NULL , [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE5] [image] NOT NULL , [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE6] [image] NOT NULL , [TYPE] [nvarchar] (50) COLLATE Danish_Norwegian_CI_AS NOT NULL ) ON [PRIMARY] TEXTIMAGE_ON [PRIMARY] GO select * from BIOMETRICPROFILE takes ~4 seconds (!) to execute thourgh Query analyzer. Alle other tables has no performance problems. We have a SQL 2005 express instalation on the same server. If we restore a backup from the sql 2000 database the query takes aprox ~ 15 ms.What is going on here? Has SQL 2000 problems with image fields? or how can we find the problem? Regards Anders |
| |||
| news.tele.dk wrote: > CREATE TABLE [dbo].[BIOMETRICPROFILE] ( > [BIOMETRICPROFILEID] [bigint] IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL , > [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE1] [image] NOT NULL , > [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE2] [image] NOT NULL , > [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE3] [image] NOT NULL , > [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE4] [image] NOT NULL , > [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE5] [image] NOT NULL , > [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE6] [image] NOT NULL , > [TYPE] [nvarchar] (50) COLLATE Danish_Norwegian_CI_AS NOT NULL > ) ON [PRIMARY] TEXTIMAGE_ON [PRIMARY] > GO http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/Z/Ze...nity-Rule.html |
| ||||
| Your answere indicates that the image type is "randomly large" so to much data is retrieved. Is image the wrong field type then? My binary data is beteween 1-200kb large per field but the current performance is not an option. And why is sql 2005 working whitout problems? Can you please give me some more details. Thanks in regards Anders "Ed Murphy" <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> skrev i en meddelelse news:MuH6h.706$Fg.524@tornado.socal.rr.com... > news.tele.dk wrote: > >> CREATE TABLE [dbo].[BIOMETRICPROFILE] ( >> [BIOMETRICPROFILEID] [bigint] IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL , >> [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE1] [image] NOT NULL , >> [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE2] [image] NOT NULL , >> [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE3] [image] NOT NULL , >> [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE4] [image] NOT NULL , >> [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE5] [image] NOT NULL , >> [FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE6] [image] NOT NULL , >> [TYPE] [nvarchar] (50) COLLATE Danish_Norwegian_CI_AS NOT NULL >> ) ON [PRIMARY] TEXTIMAGE_ON [PRIMARY] >> GO > > http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/Z/Ze...nity-Rule.html |