Queries run faster with replication then without

Hello everyone,
I have a situation where I am using a Cursor to retrieve records from one table and inserting those records one at a time into another table. When I perform this action without replication, it takes longer to insert the 474 records into this table then it
does with replication. The table that is being inserted to is the table that is being replicated. It doesn't make sense. You would think that using replication would slow down this action. By contrast, if I use a simple INSERT statement without using a c
ursor (ie: Insert table2 select * from table1), the process runs much faster without replication then with replication. Any idea why?
Thanks!!
this is counter intuitive, unless the replication process is bringing the
database pages off disk and into cache thereby resulting in faster reads.
"Nupee" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C5EDAB30-AB12-46BA-812B-1C0A6EB3562F@.microsoft.com...
> Hello everyone,
> I have a situation where I am using a Cursor to retrieve records from one
table and inserting those records one at a time into another table. When I
perform this action without replication, it takes longer to insert the 474
records into this table then it does with replication. The table that is
being inserted to is the table that is being replicated. It doesn't make
sense. You would think that using replication would slow down this action.
By contrast, if I use a simple INSERT statement without using a cursor (ie:
Insert table2 select * from table1), the process runs much faster without
replication then with replication. Any idea why?
> Thanks!!
|||Is it possible that it has something to do with the system procedures, and triggers that are added to the database through replication configuration? Either that or is there any documentation on the effects of replication of Cursors?
Thanks!!
-- Hilary Cotter wrote: --
this is counter intuitive, unless the replication process is bringing the
database pages off disk and into cache thereby resulting in faster reads.
"Nupee" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C5EDAB30-AB12-46BA-812B-1C0A6EB3562F@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hello everyone,
table and inserting those records one at a time into another table. When I
perform this action without replication, it takes longer to insert the 474
records into this table then it does with replication. The table that is
being inserted to is the table that is being replicated. It doesn't make
sense. You would think that using replication would slow down this action.
By contrast, if I use a simple INSERT statement without using a cursor (ie:
Insert table2 select * from table1), the process runs much faster without
replication then with replication. Any idea why?[vbcol=seagreen]

Quagmire situation (Database or Network)

I am here in a peculiar situtation i am not very sure the problem which i am facing as of know is a Database or Network.

One of our organisation application is connected to SQLServer 2005 (clustered) database was working fine before few days back we gone though a windows 2003 server patch update activity and server was restarted and a failover occured.

The day patch activity is done we are facing data loss problem over the network.

Checked the SQLServer2005 ErrorLog but no error related to database.

Few user are facing problem as mentioned below

Error : Checknetwork Documentation

Search the net but no satisfactory answer.

Please help me with a resolution or work around.

One more Issue :

While pinging the server some time we get request Time out.This Request time out is for 1 ms.

Do this also effects the thick client application connectivity with the Database.

regards

Sufian

There are all sorts of network issues surrounding 2003 patches.

I have experienced similar problems with 2003 patches and upgrades.

If you are getting timeouts on a ping, it's a network issue.