If I have SQL Server set to dynamically grow the data files - is there ever anything gained by modifying the table extents in dbdef and doing a dbreorg? Is there something within Lawson itself that gains performance by these definitions? SQl Server does not size on a table basis...
What is the point of this?
Hey Lawson_Guy, you finally noticed all that stuff about extents in the SQL Server manual!
So when you go to tune up your SQL Server databases, remember to consult the manual "Lawson Administration: Data Access Using Microsoft SQL Server / Version 8.0.3 / February 2006" where it says on Page 107:
| QUOTE |
For more information on extents and extent sizing, see your Oracle documentation.
|
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Well, that was partly what led me to this question. I KNOW what SQL Server does - but didn't know if the Lawson code took advantage in any way with the table definitions. I couldn't think of any reason so that is why I asked.
I try not to knock Lawson (or at least minimize it), but do they read their own manuals - I can't count the number of times I see UNIX references in the WINDOWS manuals!!! Surely they can afford a full time documentation person??
"Surely they can afford a full time documentation person?"
Yeah. At CUE I told her I'd send her some of the real goofs that still need to be fixed. Still on my to-do list. You found one of the worst (or best) ones.