Monday, March 12, 2012

Mgs 8650:

When I switched to a multiple processor SQL Server 2000 machine, some of the
more complex queries produced this error
(http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=837983):
Msg 8650:
Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #50) to
deadlock. Rerun the query without intra-query parallelism by using the query
hint option (maxdop 1).
I had SP3a but the error still occured even with the MAXDOP 1 hint on the
query. The only resolution that worked was to set the "Use" processors = 1
on the properties. Does anyone know if SP4 has the resolution for this in
in?
Dab
Hi David
There are 6 options to try in this article, did you try any of the others?
John
"David A. Beck" wrote:

> When I switched to a multiple processor SQL Server 2000 machine, some of the
> more complex queries produced this error
> (http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=837983):
> Msg 8650:
> Intra-query parallelism caused your server command (process ID #50) to
> deadlock. Rerun the query without intra-query parallelism by using the query
> hint option (maxdop 1).
> I had SP3a but the error still occured even with the MAXDOP 1 hint on the
> query. The only resolution that worked was to set the "Use" processors = 1
> on the properties. Does anyone know if SP4 has the resolution for this in
> in?
> Dab
>
>
>
|||John,
All except re-writing the query. The hints (2 options) did not do anything.
The reason for my question is that I thought SP4 might negate the need for
option 1 (crippling the SP3+ parallel scan behavior). Running the query
again (as if I hadn't run it a zillion times) never works.General
performance tuning is just hit and miss.
MS has know about this problem for some time so I ask this question again,
does SP4 resolve the intra-query parallelism deadlock problem?
Dab
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D95D94BC-2149-4B32-9224-3A9DCDF6E0A3@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi David
> There are 6 options to try in this article, did you try any of the others?
> John
> "David A. Beck" wrote:

No comments:

Post a Comment