"Joe" <Joe@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:70FA3F79-004C-4E8C-B6E7-D8792FE38B6F@microsoft.com...
> Hi
>
> Hopefully just a quickie.
>
> When just importing tables and their data, is it better to use seperate
> source & destination connections for each table, to run the process in
> parallel, or to use a "Copy SQL Objects Task" to include all tables?
>
> With the later, I'm thinking that the imports will run serially as there
> are
> only two connections specified.
>
> Any advice from one that knows would be greatly appreciated!
>
> BTW These aren't huge tables, roughly 3 million rows per table.
>
> Cheers
>
> Joe

"Allan Mitchell" wrote:

> Personally I do use seperate connection definitions. If I want to bulk load
> I also drop all indexes on the destination first and reapply later.
>
> --
>
>
>
> Allan Mitchell MCSE,MCDBA, (Microsoft SQL Server MVP)
> www.SQLDTS.com - The site for all your DTS needs.
> www.SQLIS.com - You thought DTS was good. here we show you the new stuff.
> www.konesans.com - Consultancy from the people who know
>
>
> "Joe" <Joe@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:70FA3F79-004C-4E8C-B6E7-D8792FE38B6F@microsoft.com...
> > Hi
> >
> > Hopefully just a quickie.
> >
> > When just importing tables and their data, is it better to use seperate
> > source & destination connections for each table, to run the process in
> > parallel, or to use a "Copy SQL Objects Task" to include all tables?
> >
> > With the later, I'm thinking that the imports will run serially as there
> > are
> > only two connections specified.
> >
> > Any advice from one that knows would be greatly appreciated!
> >
> > BTW These aren't huge tables, roughly 3 million rows per table.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Joe
>
>