DBCC pintable

Hi everyone,
I'm currently running sql 2k on win2k3, all with the
latest patches in a clustered/merge replication
environment. I'm considering running the dbcc pintable
command for one small (~38MB), but very hot table in our
database. I've never used this command before so I was
looking for any direction here or any "gotchas" I should
look out for. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.
LeonLeon,
If the table is small and used a lot, you're not going to get any benefit
from pinning it; it will already be in memory anyway do to its constantly
being accessed. Remember that pinning doesn't tell SQL Server to load the
data into memory; rather, it tells it to keep it in memory once it's been
loaded by something else. And SQL Server will do that anyway if requests
keep coming in for the same data.
"Leon" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8d6001c49680$46eddaf0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi everyone,
> I'm currently running sql 2k on win2k3, all with the
> latest patches in a clustered/merge replication
> environment. I'm considering running the dbcc pintable
> command for one small (~38MB), but very hot table in our
> database. I've never used this command before so I was
> looking for any direction here or any "gotchas" I should
> look out for. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.
> Leon|||I agree 100% with Adam here. Pinning tables usually has a more negative
effect than a positive one since it will keep any data in memory even if it
has only been accessed a single time. SQL Server usually does a much better
job at managing the cache than a human can.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:OB5TGSolEHA.3720@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Leon,
> If the table is small and used a lot, you're not going to get any benefit
> from pinning it; it will already be in memory anyway do to its constantly
> being accessed. Remember that pinning doesn't tell SQL Server to load the
> data into memory; rather, it tells it to keep it in memory once it's been
> loaded by something else. And SQL Server will do that anyway if requests
> keep coming in for the same data.
>
> "Leon" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8d6001c49680$46eddaf0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> > Hi everyone,
> > I'm currently running sql 2k on win2k3, all with the
> > latest patches in a clustered/merge replication
> > environment. I'm considering running the dbcc pintable
> > command for one small (~38MB), but very hot table in our
> > database. I've never used this command before so I was
> > looking for any direction here or any "gotchas" I should
> > look out for. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.
> >
> > Leon
>sql

dbcc checkdb not needed?

"With SQL Server 2000, you're no longer required to run DBCC CHECKDB or DBCC
CHECKALLOC statements. The latest version of SQL Server automatically detects
damaged pages and fixes them. Ninety-nine percent of database corruption with
SQL Server 2000 happens due to hardware failures."
I read that on http://www.informit.com/articles/printerfriendly.asp?p=27784 and
I'm looking for confirmation if it's true or not?
I've searched in BOI for confirmation without success.
Thanks in advance,
Craig.That's not quite true. If you have torn pgedetection turned on (the
default) it can detect torn pages. But there are things DBCC CHECKDB can
detect other than that and should be run on a regular basis for reassurance.
You don't need to run CheckAlloc as it is already included in checkdb but
you should run CheckCatalog.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Craig" <spam@.[at]thehurley.[dot]com> wrote in message
news:ecTMYtxAEHA.2480@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> "With SQL Server 2000, you're no longer required to run DBCC CHECKDB or
DBCC
> CHECKALLOC statements. The latest version of SQL Server automatically
detects
> damaged pages and fixes them. Ninety-nine percent of database corruption
with
> SQL Server 2000 happens due to hardware failures."
> I read that on
http://www.informit.com/articles/printerfriendly.asp?p=27784 and
> I'm looking for confirmation if it's true or not?
> I've searched in BOI for confirmation without success.
> Thanks in advance,
> Craig.

dbcc checkdb not needed?

"With SQL Server 2000, you're no longer required to run DBCC CHECKDB or DBCC
CHECKALLOC statements. The latest version of SQL Server automatically detect
s
damaged pages and fixes them. Ninety-nine percent of database corruption wit
h
SQL Server 2000 happens due to hardware failures."
I read that on http://www.informit.com/articles/pr...dly.asp?p=27784
and
I'm looking for confirmation if it's true or not?
I've searched in BOI for confirmation without success.
Thanks in advance,
Craig.That's not quite true. If you have torn pgedetection turned on (the
default) it can detect torn pages. But there are things DBCC CHECKDB can
detect other than that and should be run on a regular basis for reassurance.
You don't need to run CheckAlloc as it is already included in checkdb but
you should run CheckCatalog.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Craig" <spam@.[at]thehurley.[dot]com> wrote in message
news:ecTMYtxAEHA.2480@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> "With SQL Server 2000, you're no longer required to run DBCC CHECKDB or
DBCC
> CHECKALLOC statements. The latest version of SQL Server automatically
detects
> damaged pages and fixes them. Ninety-nine percent of database corruption
with
> SQL Server 2000 happens due to hardware failures."
> I read that on
http://www.informit.com/articles/pr...dly.asp?p=27784 and
> I'm looking for confirmation if it's true or not?
> I've searched in BOI for confirmation without success.
> Thanks in advance,
> Craig.