User profile for PDinCA

Why would one have to deal with a STANDARD key-combo? Surely RG should use a DISTINCT combo, not already assigned to an SSMS function...? / comments

Why would one have to deal with a STANDARD key-combo? Surely RG should use a DISTINCT combo, not already assigned to an SSMS function...?

0 votes

Fixed - yes. Key combo does multiple things... Ctrl+Shift+E in SSMS 18.3.1 with SQP 9.5.21.11921: I do see the correct Code Analysis box... AND SSMS kindly gives me the "Resource View" pop-out... (bonus feature?) Oops? / comments

Fixed - yes. Key combo does multiple things...Ctrl+Shift+E in SSMS 18.3.1 with SQP 9.5.21.11921: I do see the correct Code Analysis box... AND SSMS kindly gives me the "Resource View" pop-out... (...

0 votes

SSMS 18.2 / comments

SSMS 18.2

0 votes

I did create a new project. DB has over 2000 tables. I only care about ONE db schema - "pricemanager", so, about 20 tables, of which I care to compare just 11. It takes nearly five full minutes just to get a tables and views page I can choose from. WHY, can I not simply "FILTER BEFORE RETRIEVAL"? I know what I want, and it isn't 2000+ tables and 5000+indexes, et al. Like the OP, and I JUST upgraded to 13.4.5.6953 in hopes of some speed improvement (all hopes dashed when it ground on for the usual 5 mins), electing to omit the typical "who" columns for each of my 11 tables bearing these columns is, arguably, one of the WORST experiences a Product has to offer... It is plain ridiculous to have to wait another five to ten minutes for every table I need to simply omit columns from... And while here, it is also RIDICULOUS that to edit my project to include another table, I have to wait ANOTHER FIVE MINUTES for "it" to go back to the DBs I already went to, just to collect the SAME objects, in the SAME state... GIVE US A "DO NOT RE-READ SCHEMA" OPTION! (Both while we have a project open and need to edit, OR when we first open SDC - allow us to say, "JUST GET MY PROJECT'S CHECKED TABLES OBJECT DEFINITIONS" (getting 11 instead of 2500, now that's a speed-up waiting to happen...) I cannot attest to this being a "productivity enhancer" - simply because I waste tens of minutes while unnecessary schema reads are repeatedly done, and "it" goes off into la-la land simply when I exclude 4 columns from the a table compare! Shocking it should be this bad at Version 13! And, when I have the GRID of results on show, GIVE ME A RIGHT-CLICK TO EXCLUDE A COLUMN, there and then, while the grid is on view - and "REFRESH JUST THIS TABLE" taking into account newly excluded columns... SO. MUCH. FASTER. And this is on a MacBook Pro, with i7 processor and 16GB RAM, and SSD, so it's no slouch - and the servers are via wired 10GB Ethernet, about 150ft away, so no network latency. ANY pointers RG can give to make this a usable tool would be greatly appreciated! / comments

I did create a new project. DB has over 2000 tables. I only care about ONE db schema - "pricemanager", so, about 20 tables, of which I care to compare just 11. It takes nearly five full minutes ...

0 votes

I commented on normalizing the time-line on the charts, and suffixing the time-zone in the legend. That would be far preferable to having to state a single time zone for a multi-zone report. There is no notion whatsoever of any "downside" involving "time-zone inference". The timezone information is readily available from each server - please use it - no guesswork/inference needed. As also noted, when the servers run on the same time-zone, there isn't a problem, except for the consumer to know what that timezone is - just show the server timezone on the report. Irrespective of a User's timezone, always, and forever, only use the server time. It is awful to expect us to use the repository timezone, or to put a repository in each time zone just to satisfy a reporting feature that ought, honestly, to be better at what it does than it is now! (I give it a 2/10) The auto-scheduling doesn't need a time-zone selector... Use the server's time. End of story. End of confusion. The Report for multiple zones would be the ONLY place a time-zone would be needed - give us a dropdown of those zones across the population of servers on the report, let us pick which one to set as "Zulu", and fire off the auto-report at that time of day, in that timezone. The time-zone math isn't difficult, except when DST/STD occurs just twice a year max, and I'm very aware of many of those nuances form timebie.com, having had the "joy" of understanding UTC-based maintenance date-times across the globe where these time-shifts occur. Time-zone designation helps that, but admittedly, the fall-back day's measurements are a pithy problem... But that's just one day a year. All this is a tad moot, though, because despite setting up IIS per the instructions, I cannot get a single auto-scheduled report out, but on-demand "send test email" works just fine! My hope is that the Report function will mature swiftly, but as you said "no timeframes", it will remain one of the least used and least useful features. (Sure would like to able to email myself the Analysis page content... Exporting a csv and then having to make my own charts, when you already made them... Why prevent pdf-ing the page and emailing?) / comments

I commented on normalizing the time-line on the charts, and suffixing the time-zone in the legend. That would be far preferable to having to state a single time zone for a multi-zone report.There ...

0 votes

Thanks, Russell. Certainly worth considering. Brent Ozar's SQL Constant Care was the only mechanism that found the issue in one of our production databases (inconveniently on the 1st day of my vacation, so it was missed for 2 weeks, so we had no "good" backups readily available...). Recommend his "corrupt" checklist, BTW... sp_Blitz has some code for the msdb..suspect_pages content that may be adaptable, too. / comments

Thanks, Russell. Certainly worth considering. Brent Ozar's SQL Constant Care was the only mechanism that found the issue in one of our production databases (inconveniently on the 1st day of my va...

0 votes

Well, that confirms to me that this release is an easy "Skip - irrelevant". Cheers! / comments

Well, that confirms to me that this release is an easy "Skip - irrelevant".Cheers!

0 votes

A solid "maybe" on that one, Jessica. I updated to the latest SQP 9.1.1.4243, but I don't have any bandwidth at this time to tinker while fighting performance issues faced by a Tier-1 Client. Sorry to disappoint, but it will be a few weeks (the issues are MANY!) / comments

A solid "maybe" on that one, Jessica. I updated to the latest SQP 9.1.1.4243, but I don't have any bandwidth at this time to tinker while fighting performance issues faced by a Tier-1 Client. Sorr...

0 votes

Thanks for the warm reception re the filtered count, Alex. Yes, something along the lines of the dual-number display would be great. I'd vote for filter-count first, as in 5 of 135, bolded for not-read as currently exhibited. Cheers! / comments

Thanks for the warm reception re the filtered count, Alex. Yes, something along the lines of the dual-number display would be great. I'd vote for filter-count first, as in 5 of 135, bolded for not...

0 votes

Turned "it" on in SSMS 2017 v17.5 - SQP 9.1.0.4138. I'm now restarting SSMS because it became unresponsive - utterly unresponsive. You can guess what's being PERMANENTLY turned OFF! / comments

Turned "it" on in SSMS 2017 v17.5 - SQP 9.1.0.4138. I'm now restarting SSMS because it became unresponsive - utterly unresponsive. You can guess what's being PERMANENTLY turned OFF!

0 votes

How can we help you today?

PDinCA

Comments