how much overhead with query notification services in sqlserer2005?

I notice a lot of activity on my sqlserver2005 box when nothing is
happening. (just query notificatins which I have set up) . I can't
find any write ups on this. To me, it seems
important.
thanks
Peter Kellner
http://peterkellner.net
Peter Kellner
http://peterkellner.netQuery notifications utilizes the Service Broker infrastructure internally to
handle the automatic activation of the notification when something changes.
This is where the activity is coming from. Query notifications were
primarily designed to allow you to maintain relatively static caches of
data. You don't want to use them in highly volitile data sets or with high
volume systems, because the notification mechanism can get overwhelmed by
the pace of changes in the environment.
--
Mike
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
or entity either by inference or direct reference.
"Peter Kellner" <pkellnernews@.73rdstreet.com> wrote in message
news:p6l442tbga971ustvm4dg2u583ab864hlt@.4ax.com...
>I notice a lot of activity on my sqlserver2005 box when nothing is
> happening. (just query notificatins which I have set up) . I can't
> find any write ups on this. To me, it seems
> important.
> thanks
> Peter Kellner
> http://peterkellner.net
> Peter Kellner
> http://peterkellner.net|||On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 09:57:17 -0500, "Michael Hotek"
<mike@.solidqualitylearning.com> wrote:
>Query notifications utilizes the Service Broker infrastructure internally to
>handle the automatic activation of the notification when something changes.
>This is where the activity is coming from. Query notifications were
>primarily designed to allow you to maintain relatively static caches of
>data. You don't want to use them in highly volitile data sets or with high
>volume systems, because the notification mechanism can get overwhelmed by
>the pace of changes in the environment.
thanks Mike. I understand now. -Peter
Peter Kellner
http://peterkellner.net