PHWinfo - Afficher un message - strange error: ran out of internal resources

12/09/2007, 23h03

Emin (emin.shopper@gmail.com) writes:
> The really strange part is that if I left the clause "ORDER BY myDate"
> off the query I didn't get the error. My work around was to put the
> results of the query into a temporary table called #myTemp and then do
> "SELECT * FROM #myTemp ORDER BY myDate".
>
> 1. Is there a way to tell the query processor to use more resources so
> I don't get this error?

No. Possibly more memory to SQL Server could .

> 2. Since it seems like the ORDER BY clause is causing the problem, is
> there a way to tell the query analyzer to just do the query and then
> order everything instead of trying to be too clever?

Yes, leave out the ORDER BY clause. If you leave it in, the query
processor has to comply. Or tell you that you can't. It can't produce
an unordered result when you requested an ordered one. That would
be a bug.

> 3. Is there a better way to solve this problem than using a temporaray
> table?

Without know nothing about the tables or the query, I cannot propose any
alternatives. A temp table seems like an easy way out. But it's possible
that the query itself could be simplified.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx

12/09/2007, 23h03	#2
Erland Sommarskog Messages: n/a Hébergeur:	Re: strange error: ran out of internal resources Emin (emin.shopper@gmail.com) writes: > The really strange part is that if I left the clause "ORDER BY myDate" > off the query I didn't get the error. My work around was to put the > results of the query into a temporary table called #myTemp and then do > "SELECT * FROM #myTemp ORDER BY myDate". > > 1. Is there a way to tell the query processor to use more resources so > I don't get this error? No. Possibly more memory to SQL Server could . > 2. Since it seems like the ORDER BY clause is causing the problem, is > there a way to tell the query analyzer to just do the query and then > order everything instead of trying to be too clever? Yes, leave out the ORDER BY clause. If you leave it in, the query processor has to comply. Or tell you that you can't. It can't produce an unordered result when you requested an ordered one. That would be a bug. > 3. Is there a better way to solve this problem than using a temporaray > table? Without know nothing about the tables or the query, I cannot propose any alternatives. A temp table seems like an easy way out. But it's possible that the query itself could be simplified. -- Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx