SQL Server (2000, 2005, 2008): Recovery/Rollback Taking Longer Than Expected

re: SQL Server (2000, 2005, 2008): Recovery/Rollback Taking Longer Than Expected

Miguel de la Broadbento — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:58:23 GMT

We do full refreshes throughout our DW builds and all the rollbacks do is get in the way. Too bad there isn't an option to

KILL SPID and just leave the data in place as is. The rerun of our process would then do either table truncate or drop and we'd be on our merry way. In other words, the rollback is superfluous within the context of our local use of SQL Server.

re: SQL Server (2000, 2005, 2008): Recovery/Rollback Taking Longer Than Expected

ajaymalloc — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:37:56 GMT

Really good to know this aspect of ROLLBACK behavour.

Is there any way to detect how much time the rollback will take. From your blog it seems that ROLLBACK will always take longer than actual work done, because the mechanism like single rollback thread, log read dependency, of SQL Server is supports transactions more than that of Rollback. But for my experience it has worked opposite.

re: SQL Server (2000, 2005, 2008): Recovery/Rollback Taking Longer Than Expected

Jimmy May — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 00:11:48 GMT

This is a fundamental yet little understood area. Thanks for adding some clarity by publishing this great post.

car insurance » SQL Server (2000, 2005, 2008): Recovery/Rollback Taking Longer Than Expected

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:30:05 GMT

PingBack from http://hoursfunnywallpaper.cn/?p=5955