sql server (alternate): Tommy (Tommy.Vincent@gmail.com) writes:
[quoted text, click to view]

The timeout is a default setting in your client library. Assuming that
you have control over the code, you need to change the application to
specify a different timeout than the default of 30 seconds. 0 is a good
value - it means "no timeout".

Then again, if takes 30 seconds to update 100 records, then this sounds a
tad slow to be, and you may need to review indexes etc to see if you can
speed it up.

Also, if 100 of 900 rows are updated, this raises the question: is this
acceptable. That is, if you want either all 900 updated or no rows at all,
you need to add transaction handling.


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

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at

hi,

I have a database in sql 2000 and its size is 30 gb.

problem faced by me is when From my front end application when my user

updates a record for a category,900 records are suppose to be updated.

Updation uses only 3 tables from my database,

but in between only user gets a error of

'TimeOut Expired',and only 100 records are updated.

If i make them to do this updation in less ie decrease the no from

900 records to 50 records it updates properly.

But ideally i think that this should not happen user should be able

to update record to any extend.

If i am wrong pls correct me and i need to know why does this error occur and

a solution or guidance for solving this problem.

Thanks in advance