Why 2005 is missing PIN TABLE?

Why 2005 is missing PIN TABLE?

• Morris LN

  What additional capabilities do you feel that being able to force a table to stay in memory brings to the product   If a given table's pages are "hot" (read from/written to a lot), they'll stay in the buffer cache anyway.  And I'm assuming you wouldn't want to pin a table that's NOT used very often--doing so would essentially waste the memory, starving other tables out of RAM that are potentially used a lot more often and can make better use of repeated cache hits.  So I personally don't see a use case for PINTABLE... I'd be very interested in what scenarios you have in mind.

   

  
  --
  Adam Machanic
  Pro SQL Server 2005, available now
  http://www..apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html bID=457
  --

   

   

  <erdsah88@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:348571a7-1b99-49f9-923d-fb97a4dfa493_WBRev1_@discussions..microsoft.com...

  This post has been edited either by the author or a moderator in the Microsoft Forums: http://forums.microsoft.com I am shocked to read this document...
  
  http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms144262.aspx
  
  DBCC PINTABLE, DBCC UNPINTABLE  >>> No replacement
  
  
  How are we gonna use our memory *
  
  I am confused....
  
  
  
  *the way I like
  

  
  

• Shibu Bhattarai

  The scenario you describe would not be helped by pinning.  Pinning does not tell SQL Server to load the table into memory; it only tells it not to clear that memory out of the buffer cache once it's there.  If your app is only using 2 GB of RAM, pinning would not increase that amount, or even give you any additional buffer page lifetime -- since you have no memory pressure, those pages are not getting expired anyway.

   

  
  --
  Adam Machanic
  Pro SQL Server 2005, available now
  http://www..apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html bID=457
  --

   

   

  <Joshua_10002@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:d6c719e0-c69c-488d-b5b4-60436189c3b9@discussions.microsoft.com...

  We have 8 GB of memory on our server and barely use 2GB on a regular basis. We would like to see if pinning some reference tables in memory (regardless of how often they are used) increases our performance. Our data is stored on a SAN and sometimes IO is not all that was promised.

  We would rather have the option to use this feature rather than it being discontinued. Otherwise, we are left relying 100% on SQL server to make the decision for us - sure, most of the time it makes the right choice but there is always that strange case where you might need this functionality.

  
  

• shade29450

  We have 8 GB of memory on our server and barely use 2GB on a regular basis. We would like to see if pinning some reference tables in memory (regardless of how often they are used) increases our performance. Our data is stored on a SAN and sometimes IO is not all that was promised.

  We would rather have the option to use this feature rather than it being discontinued. Otherwise, we are left relying 100% on SQL server to make the decision for us - sure, most of the time it makes the right choice but there is always that strange case where you might need this functionality.

  
  
• Why 2005 is missing PIN TABLE?