> I doubt you would get any performance increase. Pinning the table would
> allow it to stay in memory but fetching rows from ms_replcommands is
> not likely to be the source of the I/O. Also, if you have enough memory
> SQL Server does a good job of managing what data needs to be cached.
> More memory in the server might be a better solution.
>
>

"combfilter" <asdf@adsf.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47340be37d3d7a9896ab@news.newsreader.com...
> In article <1121808111.871451.41790@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> seanbell68@gmail.com says...
> > I doubt you would get any performance increase. Pinning the table would
> > allow it to stay in memory but fetching rows from ms_replcommands is
> > not likely to be the source of the I/O. Also, if you have enough memory
> > SQL Server does a good job of managing what data needs to be cached.
> > More memory in the server might be a better solution.
> >
> >
> Thanks for the response. I hope a few more people throw in their two
> cents on this. I need to present this back to them.
>
> thx
> -comb

> This is seldom a good idea.
>
>