M
M D
I was trying to get a feel of how much faster it might be to use a
dataset rather than writing a new working table in SQL Server.
The event log reports:
"aspnet_wp.exe (PID: 2284) was recycled because memory consumption
exceeded the 143 MB (60 percent of available RAM)."
(This is just localhost on my workstation.)
Commenting out the DataAdapter.fill and reloading, the Taskmanager
reports aspnet_wp.exe as using slightly more than 20 Mb during and after
the page is loaded.
1) I used the VS wizard to create the sqlConnection & dataset
2) I had to go into the restricted region and type in a "good"
connection string to make it work
It's a stored procedure but here's what the table structure would be:
CREATE TABLE [ralph] (
[a] [varchar] (9) NOT NULL ,
[int] NULL ,
[c] [char] (3) NULL ,
[d] [char] (2) NULL ,
[e] [bit] NULL ,
[f] [char] (6) NULL ,
[g] [char] (1) NULL ,
[h] [bit] NULL ,
[char] (1) NULL ,
[j] [bit] NULL ,
[k] [char] (1) NULL ,
[l] [char] (2) NULL ,
[m] [char] (2) NULL ,
[n] [char] (2) NULL ,
[o] [char] (1) NULL ,
[p] [char] (1) NULL ,
[q] [char] (2) NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
Even assuming the bits take up a whole char each that's 40 bytes per
record and a million records should be less than 40Mb. That's
significantly less than the 123Mb used up before the operating system
intercedes.
What's going on in memory here? What's the overhead?
thx
md
dataset rather than writing a new working table in SQL Server.
The event log reports:
"aspnet_wp.exe (PID: 2284) was recycled because memory consumption
exceeded the 143 MB (60 percent of available RAM)."
(This is just localhost on my workstation.)
Commenting out the DataAdapter.fill and reloading, the Taskmanager
reports aspnet_wp.exe as using slightly more than 20 Mb during and after
the page is loaded.
1) I used the VS wizard to create the sqlConnection & dataset
2) I had to go into the restricted region and type in a "good"
connection string to make it work
It's a stored procedure but here's what the table structure would be:
CREATE TABLE [ralph] (
[a] [varchar] (9) NOT NULL ,
[int] NULL ,
[c] [char] (3) NULL ,
[d] [char] (2) NULL ,
[e] [bit] NULL ,
[f] [char] (6) NULL ,
[g] [char] (1) NULL ,
[h] [bit] NULL ,
[char] (1) NULL ,
[j] [bit] NULL ,
[k] [char] (1) NULL ,
[l] [char] (2) NULL ,
[m] [char] (2) NULL ,
[n] [char] (2) NULL ,
[o] [char] (1) NULL ,
[p] [char] (1) NULL ,
[q] [char] (2) NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
Even assuming the bits take up a whole char each that's 40 bytes per
record and a million records should be less than 40Mb. That's
significantly less than the 123Mb used up before the operating system
intercedes.
What's going on in memory here? What's the overhead?
thx
md