http://sqlserver.ro/forums/27/ShowForum.aspxenCommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.1)http://sqlserver.ro/forums/thread/1612.aspxTue, 30 Jan 2007 18:35:20 GMT963f3a18-65dd-4aad-905c-b785cfe1d7c7:1612xmldeveloper0http://sqlserver.ro/forums/thread/1612.aspxhttp://sqlserver.ro/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=27&PostID=1612<P>Excelent raspuns Diana! </P> <P>Ca observatie, personal recomand evitarea prin stilul de programare a deadlocks dar cand nu se poate e bine de stiut ca SET DEADLOCK_PRIORITY sau TRY...CATCH ne pot ajuta.</P>http://sqlserver.ro/forums/thread/1611.aspxTue, 30 Jan 2007 17:28:35 GMT963f3a18-65dd-4aad-905c-b785cfe1d7c7:1611Diana0http://sqlserver.ro/forums/thread/1611.aspxhttp://sqlserver.ro/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=27&PostID=1611<p>In SQL 2000, DEADLOCK_PRIORITY poate fi "normal" sau "low" (---&gt; "victima preferata")</p><p>In SQL 2005 exista mai multe posibilitati de a alege prioritatea</p><p>&nbsp;- "normal", "low", "high"</p><p>- si un "numeric priority" intre -10 si 10. "Victima" este sesiunea cu cel mai mic "numeric priority". Daca mai multe sesiuni au acelasi "numeric priority", "victima" este sesiunea cu cel mai "ieftin"rollback. Exista si o echivalenta "low" ---&gt; -5, "normal" ---&gt;0, "high"---&gt;5 </p><p>SQL Server Mag din februarie are&nbsp; un articol care descrie mai bine decat mine aici diferenta...nu stiu insa daca poate fi reprodus aici, macar in parte...<br> </p>http://sqlserver.ro/forums/thread/1605.aspxTue, 30 Jan 2007 15:30:58 GMT963f3a18-65dd-4aad-905c-b785cfe1d7c7:1605xmldeveloper0http://sqlserver.ro/forums/thread/1605.aspxhttp://sqlserver.ro/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=27&PostID=1605<P>Ce s-a modificat la instructiunea SET DEADLOCK_PRIORITY in SQL Server 2005 fata de SQL Server 2000?</P> <P>&nbsp;</P>