Windows 10 is a lost cause; even in a best-case scenario where Microsoft delivers the finest desktop OS to ever.
This controller lets you send an FTP "retrieve file" or "upload file" request to an FTP server. If you are going to send multiple requests to the same FTP server. Returns information about all the waits encountered by threads that executed. You can use this aggregated view to diagnose performance issues with SQL Server and also.
THIS TOPIC APPLIES TO: SQL Server (starting with 2016) Azure SQL Database Azure SQL Data Warehouse Parallel Data Warehouse. Creates a PolyBase external table that.
The Next Big Windows Update Is Coming to Your Computer October 1. Optimize your storage and back up your files because the Windows Fall Update is just around the corner.
At the IFA Keynote in Berlin Terry Meyerson, VP of the Windows and Devices group, announced that the Windows 1. Fall Creators Update would begin rolling out to compatible PCs October 1.
This update will see the death of the old email program Outlook Express, as well as the depreciation of the popular Paint application. As Microsoft told Gizmodo back in July, while Paint won’t officially go away it will no longer be updated after this release, and many of it’s best features will be moved over to Paint 3. D, a new program developed by Microsoft intended to make producing 3. D artwork as easy as it’s been to produce the 2. D kind in Paint. Besides losing some old apps you might harbor nostalgia for, the Windows 1. Fall Creators Update will also improve One. Drive, so you can choose to only sync specific files and give the Windows Ink app the ability to mark up PDFs.
Microsoft says there are other cool features coming in the update, including changes to its Photo app, and improved gaming integration for Windows and Xbox. Yet perhaps the biggest change coming with the Windows 1. Fall Creators Update is the rollout of Windows Mixed Reality. This is Microsoft’s long promised foray into consumer VR.
While we’ve only seen a little of what this experience will look like we do know major computer makers like Dell, Acer, Lenovo, and HP are producing headset to work with Mixed Reality, and that unlike the Oculus Rift or HTC Vive, these headsets won’t require a bunch of extra cameras and IR sensors placed around the room to work properly. Headsets will start at $3. Acer and HP headsets, will come in bundles including controllers based on a design Microsoft announced back into May.
We’ll definitely have a more exhaustive update on the Windows 1. Fall Creators Update and Windows Mixed Reality closer to the October 1.
Investigating DAX »Story #1: update_recordset considered harmfull. Recently, I was invited to a customer who had started to use Inventory Closing functionality about a month ago. They were using DAX2. Every time when they were running inventory closing, the system locked all (or at least – most of the) invent. Trans records, safely preventing users from any regular work with logistics module. Before I came to the customer I already heard rumors that new functionality of non- financial transfer closing can cause long duration locks to inventory data. Now I had a chance to witness it with my own eyes.
The sql statement which was a reason for show- stopper problem in IC was very easy to find. I knew the place in the code before I went to a customer’s site). It was the following query from Invent. Cost. Non. Financial. Transfer. Handler. Invent. Trans() method: update_recordset invent.
Transsetting Non. Financial. Transfer.
Invent. Closing. Rec. Id = _invent. Closing.
Rec. Id,Date. Closed = invent. Trans. Date. Financial,Value.
Open = Invent. Trans. Open: :Nowhere invent. Trans. Date. Financial != date. Null()& & invent. Trans. Date. Financial < = _invent. Closing. Trans. Date& & invent. Trans. Value. Open == Invent.
Trans. Open: :Yes& & invent. Trans. Direction == _direction// Select transactions that represent transfers: // Transfer journal, WMS Location refill& & (invent. Trans. Trans. Type == Invent. Trans. Type: :Invent. Transfer// Transfer Order|| invent. Trans. Trans. Type == Invent. Trans. Type: :Transfer.
Order. Receive|| invent. Trans. Trans. Type == Invent. Trans. Type: :Transfer. Order. Ship// WMS Pallet transport|| invent. Trans. Trans. Type == Invent.
Trans. Type: :WMSTransport)join invent. Dimwhere invent. Dim.
Invent. Dim. Id == invent. Trans. Invent. Dim. Idexists join invent. Trans. Transfer. Matchwhere ((invent. Trans. Invent. Trans. Id. Transfer != ” & & invent. Trans. Transfer. Match.
Invent. Trans. Id == invent. Trans. Invent. Trans. Id. Transfer)|| (invent.
Trans. Invent. Trans. Id. Transfer == ” & & invent. Trans. Transfer. Match. Invent. Trans. Id == invent. Trans. Invent. Trans.
Id))& & invent. Trans. Transfer. Match. Item. Id == invent. Trans. Item. Id& & invent. Trans. Transfer. Match. Direction == transfer. Match. Direction// select transactions where the corresponding transaction has the same values of financial inventory dimensions#Invent.
Dim. Join(invent. Trans. Transfer. Match. Dim. Id, invent. Dim. Transfer. Match, invent.
Dim, _invent. Dim. Parm)join invent.
Tablewhere invent. Table. Item. Id == invent. Trans. Item. Id& & invent.
Table. Dim. Group. Id == _invent. Dim. Group. Id// exclude std cost itemsjoin invent. Model. Groupwhere invent. Model. Group. Model. Group. Id == invent.
Table. Model. Group. Id& & invent. Model. Group. Invent. Model != Invent. Model: :Std. Cost// there should be no settlements for these transactionsjoin invent. Trans. Not. Settledwhere invent.
Trans. Not. Settled. Invent. Trans. Rec. Id == invent. Trans. Rec. Idnotexists join invent. Cost. Non. Fin. Transfer.
Markingwhere invent. Cost. Non. Fin. Transfer. Marking. Invent. Trans. Rec. Id == invent. Trans. Rec. Id; Looks impressive, hugh ? If you explode nested views, you find out that this query is joining 1.
I lost count to be honest). After I started to look onto the query, I understood that from application logic point of view, the query is Okey. It must update all non- financial transfers for a given Dimension Group in one update. It should not lock users from current operations (e. I made an assumption, that maybe this query is just causing lock escalation from record level to page level and then to table level, thus causing total lockup. I tried to disable lock escalation for invent.
Trans with alter table set(lock_escalation=disable) statement. Just for a test; I think it would be a bad idea in general). It did not help. Then I tried to analyze lock information by selecting data from sys.
I found out that this statement placed U- lock over seemingly every page of the invent. Trans (Or, at least, all pages with given dataareaid). I never had a lot of experience with U- locks before. I saw them in a database from time to time, but I red somewhere in SQL BOL that it is a kind of short duration locks issued by update statement to maintain consistency and prevent deadlocks. When I tried to find more information on update locks in internet, I ran into perfect article Read Committed and Updates by Craig Freedman.
It turned out that update statement in SQL (and update_recordset statement in Axapta respectively) place U- lock ON EVERY row it read. What happens next ? If update statement has simple logic (like update table set nonindex_field=constant where another_field=constant), the system either update a row (if it fits a where condition) and replace U lock with X, either it immediately release U lock (if row does not fit to the condition). So for simple cases, U- lock is placed on a row for really short duration – from reading of a page into memory until end of the page’s in- memory scan. But in complex queries, especially in queries with self- join, U- lock is placed in the very beginning of SQL Statement execution (when the page is being read for the first time) and kept until query reached a home- run stage, when all records to be updated are defined and the query started update phase itself. Since our query in question has a join of 1. In the worst case (and this worst case happens too often), the system was choosing incorrect execution plan.
In this case, U- Locks persisted for 3. It was locking all the pages in the table, because the system was simply reading all pages with given data. Area. Id (because invent. Trans do not have more specific index suitable for query conditions) thus leading to a total lock- up for 3. BTW, there is no much point in locking here, because these updates being called only from starting part of Inventory Closing, which is executed in single user mode. Chances that these invent. Trans records would be updated but some other user activity (not IC) are pretty thin: There is no much you can do with already financially updated inventory transfer transactions.
The only thing which is coming to my mind is an idea that some crazy user will start to change Invent. Dim. Id of inventory transactions via Item Details- > Functions- > Edit dimensions function. But I think we can ignore this possibility ? I can understand SQL Server concerns about the data to be modified by different process, but from application logic point of view it is highly improbable. When I identified the issue, I started to try different ways to fix it. First thing I tried to replace an update_recordset with equivalent set of statements w/o update_recordset: while select table {select forupdate table. Id==table. recid; table.
Since outermost select does not use ‘pessimisticklock’ clause (and Invent. Trans has OCC enabled), it does not places any locks on table it read. Inner select use ‘forupdate’ clause, but because of OCC it is just a syntactic sugar, which does not generate any additional clauses or hints for the select statement sent to SQL Serever. This approach brought some progress: Although the query (now select, not update) was still taking 3. U- locks over all records; IC was still slow, but it stopped to lock users at least. As a next stage, I tried to split one select onto two nested selects.
For everyone who is into SQL Statement tuning it sounds like very counter- natural, but since we are unable to directly influence the query plan in X++ with hints, we must somehow ensure SQL Server selecting more or less decent execution plan. I tried the following approach: On outer level I placed a query which was simply producing a list of item. Ids, which have non- closed transfers (any transfers, maybe even financial ones), in nested while select I used the copy of original select, only with adding ‘item. Id==item. Id. From. Outer. Select’ condition to every occurrence of Invent. Trans and invent. Settlement in the query.
This approach brings good results: Processing of non- financial transfers in my case took only 1- 1. Maybe in your case, if you have many items with transfers, it will take about 3.
Well, maybe this approach is not the most perfect one. Maybe I should try to combine outermost select (to select item list) and inner update_recordset. Maybe this U- Locks won’t be so nasty after all.
If the statement takes only 5- 1.