Performace penality when selecting on a numeric column in SQL 2005

In SQL 2000 SP4 there was introduced a performance penalty when doing select
on numeric columns (article: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899976/en-us).
It was possible to revert to the behaviour before SP4 by running the server
with a trace flag (-T9059).
Now I'm trying to find out the behaviour in SQL 2005. Is the behaviour same
as in SQL 2000 SP4 where you get an index scan instead of index seek. Or have
they fixed this in some other way? I know that the trace flag does no longer
exist in 2005.
> Is the behaviour same as in SQL 2000 SP4 where you get an index
> scan instead of index seek.
Sorry, I mean vice versa ofcourse:
Is the behaviour same as in SQL 2000 SP4 where you get an index _seek_
instead of index _scan_?
|||I ran the "scenario 2" query from the article under SQL 2005 SP2 and got an
index seek instead of scan. It looks like the issue has been addressed.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Stefan Solender" <StefanSolender@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:5D27738A-4DAC-4EBF-9F2E-B4DAC489C65F@.microsoft.com...
> Sorry, I mean vice versa ofcourse:
> Is the behaviour same as in SQL 2000 SP4 where you get an index _seek_
> instead of index _scan_?
>
|||Yes I did the same test too and got index scan. But that does not have to
mean the there is no other performance penalty. I just want some final
statement that I can give our customers.

Performace penality when selecting on a numeric column in SQL 2005

In SQL 2000 SP4 there was introduced a performance penalty when doing select
on numeric columns (article: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899976/en-us).
It was possible to revert to the behaviour before SP4 by running the server
with a trace flag (-T9059).
Now I'm trying to find out the behaviour in SQL 2005. Is the behaviour same
as in SQL 2000 SP4 where you get an index scan instead of index seek. Or have
they fixed this in some other way? I know that the trace flag does no longer
exist in 2005.> Is the behaviour same as in SQL 2000 SP4 where you get an index
> scan instead of index seek.
Sorry, I mean vice versa ofcourse:
Is the behaviour same as in SQL 2000 SP4 where you get an index _seek_
instead of index _scan_?|||I ran the "scenario 2" query from the article under SQL 2005 SP2 and got an
index seek instead of scan. It looks like the issue has been addressed.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Stefan Solender" <StefanSolender@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:5D27738A-4DAC-4EBF-9F2E-B4DAC489C65F@.microsoft.com...
>> Is the behaviour same as in SQL 2000 SP4 where you get an index
>> scan instead of index seek.
> Sorry, I mean vice versa ofcourse:
> Is the behaviour same as in SQL 2000 SP4 where you get an index _seek_
> instead of index _scan_?
>|||Yes I did the same test too and got index scan. But that does not have to
mean the there is no other performance penalty. I just want some final
statement that I can give our customers.

Performace penality when selecting on a numeric column in SQL 2005

In SQL 2000 SP4 there was introduced a performance penalty when doing select
on numeric columns (article: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899976/en-us).
It was possible to revert to the behaviour before SP4 by running the server
with a trace flag (-T9059).
Now I'm trying to find out the behaviour in SQL 2005. Is the behaviour same
as in SQL 2000 SP4 where you get an index scan instead of index seek. Or hav
e
they fixed this in some other way? I know that the trace flag does no longer
exist in 2005.> Is the behaviour same as in SQL 2000 SP4 where you get an index
> scan instead of index seek.
Sorry, I mean vice versa ofcourse:
Is the behaviour same as in SQL 2000 SP4 where you get an index _seek_
instead of index _scan_?|||I ran the "scenario 2" query from the article under SQL 2005 SP2 and got an
index seek instead of scan. It looks like the issue has been addressed.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Stefan Solender" <StefanSolender@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:5D27738A-4DAC-4EBF-9F2E-B4DAC489C65F@.microsoft.com...
> Sorry, I mean vice versa ofcourse:
> Is the behaviour same as in SQL 2000 SP4 where you get an index _seek_
> instead of index _scan_?
>

Perform aggregate against group value

Is there a way that I can perform my aggregate function agains the value in
group row instead of details row?
Because I do not show numeric values in the details but group row.
--
SevDer
http://www.sevder.com
A new .NET Source For .NET DevelopersDid you try the Previous aggregate function? Just place it into the group
header like =Previous(Fields!Country.Value) and it should work. Note: the
previous function has only one argument.
-- Robert
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"SevDer" <sevder@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:uEOFqzm2FHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is there a way that I can perform my aggregate function agains the value
> in group row instead of details row?
> Because I do not show numeric values in the details but group row.
> --
> SevDer
> http://www.sevder.com
> A new .NET Source For .NET Developers
>
>|||Hi Robert,
I tried Previous as you suggested but this time I endup with empty
datacell..
However, please excuse me that I was not clear enough previously, I want to
perform this aggregate against the group in the footer. So I tried to use
the full previous function as described in the help "Previous(Expression,
AggFunction, PreviousScope, AggScope)" but it basically fails as you've
mentioned.
Anyway, do you have a solution for me?
I would like to sum my group values in the footer.
--
SevDer
http://www.sevder.com
A new .NET Source For .NET Developers
"Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uzeghIq2FHA.3244@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Did you try the Previous aggregate function? Just place it into the group
> header like =Previous(Fields!Country.Value) and it should work. Note: the
> previous function has only one argument.
> -- Robert
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>
> "SevDer" <sevder@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
> news:uEOFqzm2FHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Is there a way that I can perform my aggregate function agains the value
>> in group row instead of details row?
>> Because I do not show numeric values in the details but group row.
>> --
>> SevDer
>> http://www.sevder.com
>> A new .NET Source For .NET Developers
>>
>|||> I would like to sum my group values in the footer.
Maybe I'm missing something, but assuming you group on
=Fields!FieldName.Value, just adding an expression like
=Sum(Fields!FieldName.Value) in the table footer should sum the group
values.
-- Robert
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"SevDer" <sevder@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23rqJeUw2FHA.1184@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi Robert,
> I tried Previous as you suggested but this time I endup with empty
> datacell..
> However, please excuse me that I was not clear enough previously, I want
> to perform this aggregate against the group in the footer. So I tried to
> use the full previous function as described in the help
> "Previous(Expression, AggFunction, PreviousScope, AggScope)" but it
> basically fails as you've mentioned.
> Anyway, do you have a solution for me?
> I would like to sum my group values in the footer.
> --
> SevDer
> http://www.sevder.com
> A new .NET Source For .NET Developers
>
> "Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" <robruc@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:uzeghIq2FHA.3244@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Did you try the Previous aggregate function? Just place it into the group
>> header like =Previous(Fields!Country.Value) and it should work. Note: the
>> previous function has only one argument.
>> -- Robert
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>>
>> "SevDer" <sevder@.newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:uEOFqzm2FHA.1188@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Is there a way that I can perform my aggregate function agains the value
>> in group row instead of details row?
>> Because I do not show numeric values in the details but group row.
>> --
>> SevDer
>> http://www.sevder.com
>> A new .NET Source For .NET Developers
>>
>>
>