has parallelism helped any of you ?

It seems to hurt more than help that we like to turn it off on all servers
by default. Has anyone seen advantages of a parallised query vs one that
doesnt go through one
Using SQL 2000Yes. It has helped. However, if a Query is processed with Parellelism, we
check
each of the Query and make sure that it does help indeed. (On a Case to Case
Basis)
In very rare cases, did we have to use OPTION (MAXDOP 1). But later we
realised that "Exec SPname WITH RECOMPILE" actually helped remove
Parellelism.
Gopi
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23nzTh5FUFHA.752@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> It seems to hurt more than help that we like to turn it off on all servers
> by default. Has anyone seen advantages of a parallised query vs one that
> doesnt go through one
> Using SQL 2000
>|||Hassan
I'd not change a deafult configiration of SQL Server instead I'd tune the
queries and see if it hurts perfomance by using parallelism try to opotimize
it perhaps by using MAXDOP(1) hint
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23nzTh5FUFHA.752@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> It seems to hurt more than help that we like to turn it off on all servers
> by default. Has anyone seen advantages of a parallised query vs one that
> doesnt go through one
> Using SQL 2000
>sql