I would welcome opinions on whether FTS would help in our scenario.
The table has about 28 million rows and has about 10,000 rows added every
morning in an intensive batch process. Then another batch query process is
run that looks for partial name matches.
Eight of the fields we query against are char or varchar, all with single
words.
Sample query: SELECT casenumber FROM table WHERE fname LIKE 'j%' AND lname
LIKE 'smi%'. Rreturns 55,874 rows in 7 seconds in QA.
I am also concerned about time to populate FT index every day.
Machine is dual Xeon 3.2 with 4GB ram, OS on RAID1 & SQL data on RAID5. Win
2003 Server and SQL2000, with SQL2005 later this year.
Thanks much!
Wow! That's fantastic speed for a like. I'd try change tracking. IIRC on a
similar machine I was able to hit 2000 rows per minute with SQL 2000.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Bil Click" <BilClick@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FFF888F6-8310-4B1F-83B0-399830C17F53@.microsoft.com...
>I would welcome opinions on whether FTS would help in our scenario.
> The table has about 28 million rows and has about 10,000 rows added every
> morning in an intensive batch process. Then another batch query process is
> run that looks for partial name matches.
> Eight of the fields we query against are char or varchar, all with single
> words.
> Sample query: SELECT casenumber FROM table WHERE fname LIKE 'j%' AND lname
> LIKE 'smi%'. Rreturns 55,874 rows in 7 seconds in QA.
> I am also concerned about time to populate FT index every day.
> Machine is dual Xeon 3.2 with 4GB ram, OS on RAID1 & SQL data on RAID5.
> Win
> 2003 Server and SQL2000, with SQL2005 later this year.
> Thanks much!
|||Thanks Hilary, but do you think a Full Text search would be faster searching
on single words?
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> Wow! That's fantastic speed for a like. I'd try change tracking. IIRC on a
> similar machine I was able to hit 2000 rows per minute with SQL 2000.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Bil Click" <BilClick@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FFF888F6-8310-4B1F-83B0-399830C17F53@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||It will be for larger tables. I am not sure where the cut off it - i.e.
20,000 rows or 2 million.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Bil Click" <BilClick@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FDFBA954-00ED-4444-A7EF-2B5547510343@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks Hilary, but do you think a Full Text search would be faster
> searching
> on single words?
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
Showing posts with label advantages. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advantages. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Advantages/Disadvantages to using more than one database
I have a content site where everything is currently in one SQL Server
DB. As I add features to the site, for example message boards and
blogging, does it make sense to put those features in a separate
database? What would I lose and gain in doing so? Thanks so much.
It's difficult to say without knowing more about the business as such.
But assuming that you have common concepts like users, and you may want
to have links between different entities, a single database makes life
simpler. Cross-databases references are messy.
>
It's difficult to say without knowing more about the business as such.
But assuming that you have common concepts like users, and you may want
to have links between different entities, a single database makes life
simpler. Cross-databases references are messy.
>
But if the message board and the blogs are entirely unrelated, separate
databases may be a better idea.
>
One advantage of separate databases, is that if the message-board database
crashes, the blog database may still be available.
Thanks Erland...what if the message board and blog were to sit in
subdomains - is that a stronger argument for using a different
database? My concern is that if the traffic builds, I wouldn't want
activity in one area to slow down other areas of the site; but I don't
want to sacrifice simplicity either. From the sound of it, there's no
hard and fast rule about this...I'm just trying to plan in the event I
get the traffic going. Easier to fix now than later. :)
Subdomains? You mean like blogs.lautier.com, messageboard.lautier.com etc?
I can't see that that has anything to do with it.
DB. As I add features to the site, for example message boards and
blogging, does it make sense to put those features in a separate
database? What would I lose and gain in doing so? Thanks so much.
ErikErik Lautier (lautier@.gmail.com) writes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
I have a content site where everything is currently in one SQL Server
DB. As I add features to the site, for example message boards and
blogging, does it make sense to put those features in a separate
database? What would I lose and gain in doing so? Thanks so much.
It's difficult to say without knowing more about the business as such.
But assuming that you have common concepts like users, and you may want
to have links between different entities, a single database makes life
simpler. Cross-databases references are messy.
But if the message board and the blogs are entirely unrelated, separate
databases may be a better idea.
One advantage of separate databases, is that if the message-board database
crashes, the blog database may still be available.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||Erland Sommarskog wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Erik Lautier (lautier@.gmail.com) writes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
I have a content site where everything is currently in one SQL Server
DB. As I add features to the site, for example message boards and
blogging, does it make sense to put those features in a separate
database? What would I lose and gain in doing so? Thanks so much.
>
It's difficult to say without knowing more about the business as such.
But assuming that you have common concepts like users, and you may want
to have links between different entities, a single database makes life
simpler. Cross-databases references are messy.
>
But if the message board and the blogs are entirely unrelated, separate
databases may be a better idea.
>
One advantage of separate databases, is that if the message-board database
crashes, the blog database may still be available.
Thanks Erland...what if the message board and blog were to sit in
subdomains - is that a stronger argument for using a different
database? My concern is that if the traffic builds, I wouldn't want
activity in one area to slow down other areas of the site; but I don't
want to sacrifice simplicity either. From the sound of it, there's no
hard and fast rule about this...I'm just trying to plan in the event I
get the traffic going. Easier to fix now than later. :)
Erik
Quote:
Originally Posted by
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thanks Erland...what if the message board and blog were to sit in
subdomains - is that a stronger argument for using a different
database? My concern is that if the traffic builds, I wouldn't want
activity in one area to slow down other areas of the site; but I don't
want to sacrifice simplicity either. From the sound of it, there's no
hard and fast rule about this...I'm just trying to plan in the event I
get the traffic going. Easier to fix now than later. :)
Subdomains? You mean like blogs.lautier.com, messageboard.lautier.com etc?
I can't see that that has anything to do with it.
If you are nervous that the bloggers would slow down the message board,
then the same or the different database does not matter, as long as they
are on the same server. And that would be an argument for different
databases: if you go for different databases from the start, it will be
simple to move the databases between servers.
But then the databases would be entirely independent. Things like storing
users and their profiles should probably be in a separate database, and
the middle tier would be responsible to pass that information to the
databases.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx
Advantages/Disadvantages of TEXT Column type in SQL 2005
Hello,
I know this question has been asked before, but I'd like to get the
opinions from others before I continue with my database. I am creating
a Database to track calls for a Tech Support dept. There are some
tables like tb_Call, tb_Ticket where I need to allow a user to enter a
long description if necessary. I am thinking of using the Text Field
type with a leght of 16. My question is what are the
advantages/di
vantages with this as opposed to using any other data
type. Any insight or recommendations you can provide will be greatly
appreciated!
Thanks in advance!The TEXT datatype is deprecated in SQL Server 2005. So do not use it for
any new work. Instead, use VARCHAR(MAX) -- that datatype has the same
maximum storage capacity as TEXT, and is a lot more flexible in terms of
being able to use string functions.
Adam Machanic
Pro SQL Server 2005, available now
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=457
--
"Ed_p" <edp@.nomail.com> wrote in message
news:utvCvDY6FHA.1248@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I know this question has been asked before, but I'd like to get the
> opinions from others before I continue with my database. I am creating a
> Database to track calls for a Tech Support dept. There are some tables
> like tb_Call, tb_Ticket where I need to allow a user to enter a long
> description if necessary. I am thinking of using the Text Field type with
> a leght of 16. My question is what are the advantages/divantages with
> this as opposed to using any other data type. Any insight or
> recommendations you can provide will be greatly appreciated!
> Thanks in advance!|||
Adam Machanic wrote:
>The TEXT datatype is deprecated in SQL Server 2005. So do not use it for
>any new work. Instead, use VARCHAR(MAX) -- that datatype has the same
>maximum storage capacity as TEXT, and is a lot more flexible in terms of
>being able to use string functions.
>
>
It's worth noting that while for [text] the default is
to store data out-of-row, for the (max) types, the
default is to store data in-row. In some cases, this
can make a difference, and it may be useful to set the
table option so that the (max) type behaves like [text]
did:
exec sp_tableoption N'MyTable', 'large value types out of row', 'ON'
Steve Kass
Drew University|||In addition to the other posts, if you have several such columns, where each
will fit inside the
regular varchar or nvarchar limit: In 2005, you have page overflow, meaning
you can have for
instance two varchar(5000) each containing 5000 characters.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Ed_p" <edp@.nomail.com> wrote in message news:utvCvDY6FHA.1248@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...[colo
r=darkred]
> Hello,
> I know this question has been asked before, but I'd like to get the opinio
ns from others before I
> continue with my database. I am creating a Database to track calls for a
Tech Support dept.
> There are some tables like tb_Call, tb_Ticket where I need to allow a user
to enter a long
> description if necessary. I am thinking of using the Text Field type with
a leght of 16. My
> question is what are the advantages/divantages with this as opposed to
using any other data
> type. Any insight or recommendations you can provide will be greatly appr
eciated!
> Thanks in advance![/color]
I know this question has been asked before, but I'd like to get the
opinions from others before I continue with my database. I am creating
a Database to track calls for a Tech Support dept. There are some
tables like tb_Call, tb_Ticket where I need to allow a user to enter a
long description if necessary. I am thinking of using the Text Field
type with a leght of 16. My question is what are the
advantages/di
vantages with this as opposed to using any other datatype. Any insight or recommendations you can provide will be greatly
appreciated!
Thanks in advance!The TEXT datatype is deprecated in SQL Server 2005. So do not use it for
any new work. Instead, use VARCHAR(MAX) -- that datatype has the same
maximum storage capacity as TEXT, and is a lot more flexible in terms of
being able to use string functions.
Adam Machanic
Pro SQL Server 2005, available now
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=457
--
"Ed_p" <edp@.nomail.com> wrote in message
news:utvCvDY6FHA.1248@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I know this question has been asked before, but I'd like to get the
> opinions from others before I continue with my database. I am creating a
> Database to track calls for a Tech Support dept. There are some tables
> like tb_Call, tb_Ticket where I need to allow a user to enter a long
> description if necessary. I am thinking of using the Text Field type with
> a leght of 16. My question is what are the advantages/di
vantages with> this as opposed to using any other data type. Any insight or
> recommendations you can provide will be greatly appreciated!
> Thanks in advance!|||
Adam Machanic wrote:
>The TEXT datatype is deprecated in SQL Server 2005. So do not use it for
>any new work. Instead, use VARCHAR(MAX) -- that datatype has the same
>maximum storage capacity as TEXT, and is a lot more flexible in terms of
>being able to use string functions.
>
>
It's worth noting that while for [text] the default is
to store data out-of-row, for the (max) types, the
default is to store data in-row. In some cases, this
can make a difference, and it may be useful to set the
table option so that the (max) type behaves like [text]
did:
exec sp_tableoption N'MyTable', 'large value types out of row', 'ON'
Steve Kass
Drew University|||In addition to the other posts, if you have several such columns, where each
will fit inside the
regular varchar or nvarchar limit: In 2005, you have page overflow, meaning
you can have for
instance two varchar(5000) each containing 5000 characters.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Ed_p" <edp@.nomail.com> wrote in message news:utvCvDY6FHA.1248@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...[colo
r=darkred]
> Hello,
> I know this question has been asked before, but I'd like to get the opinio
ns from others before I
> continue with my database. I am creating a Database to track calls for a
Tech Support dept.
> There are some tables like tb_Call, tb_Ticket where I need to allow a user
to enter a long
> description if necessary. I am thinking of using the Text Field type with
a leght of 16. My
> question is what are the advantages/di
vantages with this as opposed to using any other data
> type. Any insight or recommendations you can provide will be greatly appr
eciated!
> Thanks in advance![/color]
Advantages/Disadvantages of SQL 2005 Reporting Vs Crystal Report 1
Hi:
Can someone show me a link where I can get the Advantages/Disadvantages of
SQL 2005 Reporting Vs Crystal Report 10 ?
Thanks in advance.
--
Thanks,
SDRoyTry this:
http://www.crystalreportsbook.com/SSRSandCR_ExecSummary.asp
"SDRoy" wrote:
> Hi:
> Can someone show me a link where I can get the Advantages/Disadvantages of
> SQL 2005 Reporting Vs Crystal Report 10 ?
> Thanks in advance.
> --
> Thanks,
> SDRoy|||I just perused it and two things. One is that it was written prior to SQL
Server 2005 coming out. And, two, the licensing is incomplete. Apples to
Apples I have never heard that Crystal Reports is cheaper. The licensing
costs mentioned are per CPU for SQL Server which you might or might not have
to do. From what I have seen when we looked at Crystal Reports licensing
there is no way that you will get away with the $7,500 license fee that the
author compares to the Enterprise per processor license for SQL Server.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"John G." <John G.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9AF11023-0A1E-4CE8-87DC-81B7F583A2D0@.microsoft.com...
> Try this:
> http://www.crystalreportsbook.com/SSRSandCR_ExecSummary.asp
> "SDRoy" wrote:
>> Hi:
>> Can someone show me a link where I can get the Advantages/Disadvantages
>> of
>> SQL 2005 Reporting Vs Crystal Report 10 ?
>> Thanks in advance.
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> SDRoy
Can someone show me a link where I can get the Advantages/Disadvantages of
SQL 2005 Reporting Vs Crystal Report 10 ?
Thanks in advance.
--
Thanks,
SDRoyTry this:
http://www.crystalreportsbook.com/SSRSandCR_ExecSummary.asp
"SDRoy" wrote:
> Hi:
> Can someone show me a link where I can get the Advantages/Disadvantages of
> SQL 2005 Reporting Vs Crystal Report 10 ?
> Thanks in advance.
> --
> Thanks,
> SDRoy|||I just perused it and two things. One is that it was written prior to SQL
Server 2005 coming out. And, two, the licensing is incomplete. Apples to
Apples I have never heard that Crystal Reports is cheaper. The licensing
costs mentioned are per CPU for SQL Server which you might or might not have
to do. From what I have seen when we looked at Crystal Reports licensing
there is no way that you will get away with the $7,500 license fee that the
author compares to the Enterprise per processor license for SQL Server.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"John G." <John G.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9AF11023-0A1E-4CE8-87DC-81B7F583A2D0@.microsoft.com...
> Try this:
> http://www.crystalreportsbook.com/SSRSandCR_ExecSummary.asp
> "SDRoy" wrote:
>> Hi:
>> Can someone show me a link where I can get the Advantages/Disadvantages
>> of
>> SQL 2005 Reporting Vs Crystal Report 10 ?
>> Thanks in advance.
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> SDRoy
Advantages OLEDB vs ODBC
Hi!
Could you give me a list of advantages using OLEDB in stead of ODBC? Is
there an idea of getting good informations how to handle OLEDB?
My problem is by using ODBC for a WebApplication the
system often is blocked. I hope the system gets
faster by using OLEDB. Is it like this?
Thanks,
Christian alias HansMoser
If you can not get your system to perform using ODBC, switching to OLEDB is
not going to help you. You better investigate why it does not perform first.
GertD@.SQLDev.Net
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
You assume all risk for your use.
Copyright SQLDev.Net 1991-2004 All rights reserved.
"Hans Moser" <dont_answer@.gmx.de> wrote in message
news:4153eeea$0$14521$99d2ed3e@.news.highwayone.de. ..
> Hi!
> Could you give me a list of advantages using OLEDB in stead of ODBC? Is
> there an idea of getting good informations how to handle OLEDB?
> My problem is by using ODBC for a WebApplication the
> system often is blocked. I hope the system gets
> faster by using OLEDB. Is it like this?
> Thanks,
> Christian alias HansMoser
>
sql
Could you give me a list of advantages using OLEDB in stead of ODBC? Is
there an idea of getting good informations how to handle OLEDB?
My problem is by using ODBC for a WebApplication the
system often is blocked. I hope the system gets
faster by using OLEDB. Is it like this?
Thanks,
Christian alias HansMoser
If you can not get your system to perform using ODBC, switching to OLEDB is
not going to help you. You better investigate why it does not perform first.
GertD@.SQLDev.Net
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
You assume all risk for your use.
Copyright SQLDev.Net 1991-2004 All rights reserved.
"Hans Moser" <dont_answer@.gmx.de> wrote in message
news:4153eeea$0$14521$99d2ed3e@.news.highwayone.de. ..
> Hi!
> Could you give me a list of advantages using OLEDB in stead of ODBC? Is
> there an idea of getting good informations how to handle OLEDB?
> My problem is by using ODBC for a WebApplication the
> system often is blocked. I hope the system gets
> faster by using OLEDB. Is it like this?
> Thanks,
> Christian alias HansMoser
>
sql
Advantages of using SQL Server vs Oracle for Small to Mdium Size N
We currently have 8 locations around the world with Access database on a
local machine in each location. Some of these locations are in remote areas
where network or internet connectivity is not available all the time. We are
looking to discontinue the Access database and migrate to either MS SQL
Server or Oracle.
We want to have local databases in each location and when ever there is
connectivity we want to be able to update the main database in the US. What
are the advantages of using SQL Server for this purpose and how can this be
done?
Thanks
SQL Server 2000 Replication Overview
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluat...eplication.asp
AMB
"ADW" wrote:
> We currently have 8 locations around the world with Access database on a
> local machine in each location. Some of these locations are in remote areas
> where network or internet connectivity is not available all the time. We are
> looking to discontinue the Access database and migrate to either MS SQL
> Server or Oracle.
> We want to have local databases in each location and when ever there is
> connectivity we want to be able to update the main database in the US. What
> are the advantages of using SQL Server for this purpose and how can this be
> done?
> Thanks
>
|||SQL Server is easier to admin if you don't plan to hire a dedicated
experienced Oracle DBA.
Its software license is also cheaper, dual core CPUs count as 1 CPU license.
SQL 2005 is just around the corner in November, you can check the June
preview.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/productinfo/ctp.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/pr...5features.mspx
local machine in each location. Some of these locations are in remote areas
where network or internet connectivity is not available all the time. We are
looking to discontinue the Access database and migrate to either MS SQL
Server or Oracle.
We want to have local databases in each location and when ever there is
connectivity we want to be able to update the main database in the US. What
are the advantages of using SQL Server for this purpose and how can this be
done?
Thanks
SQL Server 2000 Replication Overview
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluat...eplication.asp
AMB
"ADW" wrote:
> We currently have 8 locations around the world with Access database on a
> local machine in each location. Some of these locations are in remote areas
> where network or internet connectivity is not available all the time. We are
> looking to discontinue the Access database and migrate to either MS SQL
> Server or Oracle.
> We want to have local databases in each location and when ever there is
> connectivity we want to be able to update the main database in the US. What
> are the advantages of using SQL Server for this purpose and how can this be
> done?
> Thanks
>
|||SQL Server is easier to admin if you don't plan to hire a dedicated
experienced Oracle DBA.
Its software license is also cheaper, dual core CPUs count as 1 CPU license.
SQL 2005 is just around the corner in November, you can check the June
preview.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/productinfo/ctp.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/pr...5features.mspx
Advantages of using SQL Server vs Oracle for Small to Mdium Size N
We currently have 8 locations around the world with Access database on a
local machine in each location. Some of these locations are in remote areas
where network or internet connectivity is not available all the time. We are
looking to discontinue the Access database and migrate to either MS SQL
Server or Oracle.
We want to have local databases in each location and when ever there is
connectivity we want to be able to update the main database in the US. What
are the advantages of using SQL Server for this purpose and how can this be
done?
ThanksSQL Server 2000 Replication Overview
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/features/replication.asp
AMB
"ADW" wrote:
> We currently have 8 locations around the world with Access database on a
> local machine in each location. Some of these locations are in remote areas
> where network or internet connectivity is not available all the time. We are
> looking to discontinue the Access database and migrate to either MS SQL
> Server or Oracle.
> We want to have local databases in each location and when ever there is
> connectivity we want to be able to update the main database in the US. What
> are the advantages of using SQL Server for this purpose and how can this be
> done?
> Thanks
>|||Thanks for the info, but what are the advantages of using MS SQL over Oracle?
ADW
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
> SQL Server 2000 Replication Overview
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/features/replication.asp
>
> AMB
> "ADW" wrote:
> > We currently have 8 locations around the world with Access database on a
> > local machine in each location. Some of these locations are in remote areas
> > where network or internet connectivity is not available all the time. We are
> > looking to discontinue the Access database and migrate to either MS SQL
> > Server or Oracle.
> >
> > We want to have local databases in each location and when ever there is
> > connectivity we want to be able to update the main database in the US. What
> > are the advantages of using SQL Server for this purpose and how can this be
> > done?
> >
> > Thanks
> >|||SQL Server is easier to admin if you don't plan to hire a dedicated
experienced Oracle DBA.
Its software license is also cheaper, dual core CPUs count as 1 CPU license.
SQL 2005 is just around the corner in November, you can check the June
preview.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/productinfo/ctp.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/productinfo/sql2005features.mspx
local machine in each location. Some of these locations are in remote areas
where network or internet connectivity is not available all the time. We are
looking to discontinue the Access database and migrate to either MS SQL
Server or Oracle.
We want to have local databases in each location and when ever there is
connectivity we want to be able to update the main database in the US. What
are the advantages of using SQL Server for this purpose and how can this be
done?
ThanksSQL Server 2000 Replication Overview
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/features/replication.asp
AMB
"ADW" wrote:
> We currently have 8 locations around the world with Access database on a
> local machine in each location. Some of these locations are in remote areas
> where network or internet connectivity is not available all the time. We are
> looking to discontinue the Access database and migrate to either MS SQL
> Server or Oracle.
> We want to have local databases in each location and when ever there is
> connectivity we want to be able to update the main database in the US. What
> are the advantages of using SQL Server for this purpose and how can this be
> done?
> Thanks
>|||Thanks for the info, but what are the advantages of using MS SQL over Oracle?
ADW
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
> SQL Server 2000 Replication Overview
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/features/replication.asp
>
> AMB
> "ADW" wrote:
> > We currently have 8 locations around the world with Access database on a
> > local machine in each location. Some of these locations are in remote areas
> > where network or internet connectivity is not available all the time. We are
> > looking to discontinue the Access database and migrate to either MS SQL
> > Server or Oracle.
> >
> > We want to have local databases in each location and when ever there is
> > connectivity we want to be able to update the main database in the US. What
> > are the advantages of using SQL Server for this purpose and how can this be
> > done?
> >
> > Thanks
> >|||SQL Server is easier to admin if you don't plan to hire a dedicated
experienced Oracle DBA.
Its software license is also cheaper, dual core CPUs count as 1 CPU license.
SQL 2005 is just around the corner in November, you can check the June
preview.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/productinfo/ctp.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/productinfo/sql2005features.mspx
Advantages of using SQL Server vs Oracle for Small to Mdium Size N
We currently have 8 locations around the world with Access database on a
local machine in each location. Some of these locations are in remote areas
where network or internet connectivity is not available all the time. We are
looking to discontinue the Access database and migrate to either MS SQL
Server or Oracle.
We want to have local databases in each location and when ever there is
connectivity we want to be able to update the main database in the US. What
are the advantages of using SQL Server for this purpose and how can this be
done?
ThanksSQL Server 2000 Replication Overview
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evalua...replication.asp
AMB
"ADW" wrote:
> We currently have 8 locations around the world with Access database on a
> local machine in each location. Some of these locations are in remote area
s
> where network or internet connectivity is not available all the time. We a
re
> looking to discontinue the Access database and migrate to either MS SQL
> Server or Oracle.
> We want to have local databases in each location and when ever there is
> connectivity we want to be able to update the main database in the US. Wha
t
> are the advantages of using SQL Server for this purpose and how can this b
e
> done?
> Thanks
>|||SQL Server is easier to admin if you don't plan to hire a dedicated
experienced Oracle DBA.
Its software license is also cheaper, dual core CPUs count as 1 CPU license.
SQL 2005 is just around the corner in November, you can check the June
preview.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/productinfo/ctp.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/p...05features.mspx
local machine in each location. Some of these locations are in remote areas
where network or internet connectivity is not available all the time. We are
looking to discontinue the Access database and migrate to either MS SQL
Server or Oracle.
We want to have local databases in each location and when ever there is
connectivity we want to be able to update the main database in the US. What
are the advantages of using SQL Server for this purpose and how can this be
done?
ThanksSQL Server 2000 Replication Overview
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evalua...replication.asp
AMB
"ADW" wrote:
> We currently have 8 locations around the world with Access database on a
> local machine in each location. Some of these locations are in remote area
s
> where network or internet connectivity is not available all the time. We a
re
> looking to discontinue the Access database and migrate to either MS SQL
> Server or Oracle.
> We want to have local databases in each location and when ever there is
> connectivity we want to be able to update the main database in the US. Wha
t
> are the advantages of using SQL Server for this purpose and how can this b
e
> done?
> Thanks
>|||SQL Server is easier to admin if you don't plan to hire a dedicated
experienced Oracle DBA.
Its software license is also cheaper, dual core CPUs count as 1 CPU license.
SQL 2005 is just around the corner in November, you can check the June
preview.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/productinfo/ctp.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/p...05features.mspx
Advantages of using nonclustered index after using clustered index on one table
Hi everyone,
When we create a clustered index firstly, and then is it advantageous to create another index which is nonclustered ?
In my opinion, yes it is. Because, since we use clustered index first, our rows are sorted and so while using nonclustered index on this data file, finding adress of the record on this sorted data is really easier than finding adress of the record on unsorted data, is not it ?
Thanks
Yes, you are correct. A nonclustered index like an index in a book "points" to a particular record which makes them ideal for exact matches queries. A NCI will either point to a rowid in a heap situation or the key in a CI-based table.
BOL 2005 excerpt:
If the underlying table is sorted using a clustered index, the location is the clustering key value; otherwise, the location is the row ID (RID) comprised of the file number, page number, and slot number of the row
HTH,
Derek
|||see more info on the other post
http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=522859&SiteID=1
creation of Clustered index must happen first because
if NCIs are created first. The creation of a clustered index later will
force the recreation of all the NCIs to force it to use CI's rather than RID as locator
thereby causing a lot of trouble in the database.
|||
It is not entirely accurate that rows are sorted and stored in a clustered index. The b-tree structure ensures logical ordering of the rows and physically the rows may not be sorted in the same manner or present next to one another in a page for example. Please take a look at the link below for series of BOL topics on indexes:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189271.aspx
Advantages of using CRL Sprocs over T-SQL Sprocs?
I am wondering what the advantages of using CRL Sprocs over T-SQL sprocs and what not.
Looking for such comparison and articles on websites resulted in only "how to create CRL sprocs" but none of them were talking about what they are used for in what situations.
I would really appreciate it if you guys can post comments, links and external articles.
Thank you in advance.
? The book referenced in my signature has some guidelines. But basically: - Use T-SQL routines for all normal data access, including both SELECTs and DML operations. - Use SQLCLR routines when you need more complex logic that might be difficult to express in T-SQL. Also, SQLCLR routines are good when you need high performance math or string operations. -- Adam MachanicPro SQL Server 2005, available nowhttp://www..apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=457-- <DontBotherMeWithSpam@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:781b0860-5d01-4caf-a357-6307b7e0e621@.discussions.microsoft.com... I am wondering what the advantages of using CRL Sprocs over T-SQL sprocs and what not. Looking for such comparison and articles on websites resulted in only "how to create CRL sprocs" but none of them were talking about what they are used for in what situations. I would really appreciate it if you guys can post comments, links and external articles. Thank you in advance.sqlAdvantages of Table variables over Temp tables
What are the advantages of using a table type variables over a
temporary table. Isn't the data stored in the temp db in the case of
table type variables? if not, where is the data stored?An article on this here:
http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2475
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||You can read following article written by Mike Gunderloy, describing
usage and advantages with respect to Table variable and temporary
tables.
<http://developer.com/db/article.php/10920_3414331_1>
-Hari Sharma
India|||http://toponewithties.blogspot.com/...nd.h
tml
Roji. P. Thomas
Net Asset Management
http://toponewithties.blogspot.com
<balacr@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127109967.631131.113870@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> What are the advantages of using a table type variables over a
> temporary table. Isn't the data stored in the temp db in the case of
> table type variables? if not, where is the data stored?
>
temporary table. Isn't the data stored in the temp db in the case of
table type variables? if not, where is the data stored?An article on this here:
http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2475
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||You can read following article written by Mike Gunderloy, describing
usage and advantages with respect to Table variable and temporary
tables.
<http://developer.com/db/article.php/10920_3414331_1>
-Hari Sharma
India|||http://toponewithties.blogspot.com/...nd.h
tml
Roji. P. Thomas
Net Asset Management
http://toponewithties.blogspot.com
<balacr@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127109967.631131.113870@.g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> What are the advantages of using a table type variables over a
> temporary table. Isn't the data stored in the temp db in the case of
> table type variables? if not, where is the data stored?
>
Advantages of storing datas in hexadecimal or octal formate
Is there any advantages that storing data in hexadecimal octal formate in data base?
By Manikandan.
There can be but -- to my practice -- it is very rare.
By Manikandan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by icemani
Is there any advantages that storing data in hexadecimal octal formate in data base?
By Manikandan.
There can be but -- to my practice -- it is very rare.
One might be if you need to store numbers that are out of bounds of built-in data types. If -- in addition -- you have to be space conscious (but don't care much about computing) hex format is an option.
Another one if hex representation has some meaning to it, e.g. color codes in HTML tags.
Yet another one if you store some data encoded, and the encoding algorithm produces octal or hex output.
And there may be others...
Advantages of Stored Procedures?
Hi,
Generally I write all my SQL in Stored Procedures instead of using adhoc queries. But I dont feel good about stored procedures when I come across situations like this.
Generally I write all my SQL in Stored Procedures instead of using adhoc queries. But I dont feel good about stored procedures when I come across situations like this.
Lets say that I have a stored procedure something like this
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.proc_MYSP
@.CaseID char(10)
AS
SELECT * FROM TABLE1WHERE CASEID = @.CASEID
Suppose in future if the field CASEID is changed to char(20) then I need to change the declaration of CaseID in all my stored procedures that take CaseID as input parameter. If I write adhoc queries then I need not worry about this. Is there any effective solution for a situation like this.
Thank you.>>If I write adhoc queries then I need not worry about this...
you will have that prob no matter if you use stored procs or adhoc queries. you'd still need to make the changes whereever req'd. its just less pain to make the changes in the stored procs than asp pages. business logic is best kept at the backend. its like a rule.
hth|||mndinkar, I seriously hope you meant this as a joke. See:
::you will have that prob no matter if you use stored procs or adhoc queries. you'd still need
::to make the changes whereever req'd. its just less pain to make the changes in the stored
::procs than asp pages. business logic is best kept at the backend. its like a rule.
There is a couple of things that need to be ccorrected here.
First, you seriously oversimplify. See, we do pretty complex apps. I use dynamic SQL. Still I haeve no sql at all in any ASP page. Basically: dude, get real. THere is a lot you can make between writing SP's and putting the SQL into asp pages. Stuff like working with classes. Or, if you want to be primitive, stuff like centralising all your SQL statements in one class.
Second, basically, a SP like the one shown above - nothing more than a select - givesyou nothing but adds. It is another layer that has to be maintained, and it is one that is badly integrated into the development environment (integration with VSS, for example, or the requirements for debugging). How can maintaining more than you have be less painfull? When you gain nothing and only loose?
Third, the statement that business logic per se is best kept at the backend is bordering on irresponsibility. The complete school of modern software architecture goes against putting business logic into the data store. Multi tiered applications are the modern concept of how to make software, and no, they are not about dumping all your business logic into the database. Quite the contrary.
Don't get met wrong, there is nothing wqrong with using SP's iin certain situations. Just when you advice to use them - no. They just cost you.|||Take a look at this, it's a very good cool headed approach to the issues.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/storedprocsnetdev2.asp|||And for a good hot-headed discussion on the issue, see Rob Howard's classic blog post and repliesDon't use stored procedures yet? Must be suffering from NIHS (Not Invented Here Syndrome) And of course Frans Bouma's rebuttal blog postStored procedures are bad, m'kay?.
I at least thought it was interesting reading.
Terri|||those were interesting links terri. got to know a few things. thanks.
Advantages of SQL Server 2005 named instance?
The installation of SQL Server 2005 (Express) has an option
for default instance or named instance (SQLExpress as default)
What are the advantages of setting up named instance and default instance?
Thanks for answering...
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200608/1"pedestrian via SQLMonster.com" <u16758@.uwe> wrote in
news:64c9478703e41@.uwe:
> The installation of SQL Server 2005 (Express) has an option
> for default instance or named instance (SQLExpress as default)
> What are the advantages of setting up named instance and default
> instance? Thanks for answering...
There can only be one default instance, but multipe named instances with
different names. Advantage of the default instance is that you (or the
user) do not have to remember an instance name.
One of the major reasons for using multiple instances will be complete
separation of database solutions. Each instance has it's own service, and
thus you can set memory constraints per instance. Furthermore, remember
that logins are defined in the master database, so logins are only
available within that instance, which can be a good security measure.
--
Ole Kristian Bangås
MCT, MCDBA, MCDST, MCSE:Security, MCSE:Messaging, MCTS, MCITP|||Thanks for replying... I'm currently using SQL Server 2005 Express...
I have set up with Named Instance = SQLExpress, that is, the default name.
So, does that mean I can still set up another copy of Express server
using Default Instance?
Ole Kristian Bangås wrote:
>> The installation of SQL Server 2005 (Express) has an option
>> for default instance or named instance (SQLExpress as default)
>> What are the advantages of setting up named instance and default
>> instance? Thanks for answering...
>There can only be one default instance, but multipe named instances with
>different names. Advantage of the default instance is that you (or the
>user) do not have to remember an instance name.
>One of the major reasons for using multiple instances will be complete
>separation of database solutions. Each instance has it's own service, and
>thus you can set memory constraints per instance. Furthermore, remember
>that logins are defined in the master database, so logins are only
>available within that instance, which can be a good security measure.
>
--
Pedestrian, Penang.
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200608/1|||> So, does that mean I can still set up another copy of Express server
> using Default Instance?
Yes. There can be one default instance on a machine and a number of named instances (each need a
unique name, of course). Installation order doesn't matter (excluding prior versions of SQL
Server/MSDE).
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"pedestrian via SQLMonster.com" <u16758@.uwe> wrote in message news:64d4235358c63@.uwe...
> Thanks for replying... I'm currently using SQL Server 2005 Express...
> I have set up with Named Instance = SQLExpress, that is, the default name.
> So, does that mean I can still set up another copy of Express server
> using Default Instance?
> Ole Kristian Bangås wrote:
>> The installation of SQL Server 2005 (Express) has an option
>> for default instance or named instance (SQLExpress as default)
>> What are the advantages of setting up named instance and default
>> instance? Thanks for answering...
>>There can only be one default instance, but multipe named instances with
>>different names. Advantage of the default instance is that you (or the
>>user) do not have to remember an instance name.
>>One of the major reasons for using multiple instances will be complete
>>separation of database solutions. Each instance has it's own service, and
>>thus you can set memory constraints per instance. Furthermore, remember
>>that logins are defined in the master database, so logins are only
>>available within that instance, which can be a good security measure.
> --
> Pedestrian, Penang.
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200608/1
>|||I haven't tried to install two SQL Server 2005 Express instances on the
same computer, but since multiple applications may install their instance
of MSDE I cannot see any reason why this should not work.
"pedestrian via SQLMonster.com" <u16758@.uwe> wrote in
news:64d4235358c63@.uwe:
> Thanks for replying... I'm currently using SQL Server 2005 Express...
> I have set up with Named Instance = SQLExpress, that is, the default
> name.
> So, does that mean I can still set up another copy of Express server
> using Default Instance?
--
Ole Kristian Bangås
MCT, MCDBA, MCDST, MCSE:Security, MCSE:Messaging, MCTS, MCITP|||Thanks to Tibor and Ole... I shall try it out.
--
Pedestrian, Penang.
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
for default instance or named instance (SQLExpress as default)
What are the advantages of setting up named instance and default instance?
Thanks for answering...
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200608/1"pedestrian via SQLMonster.com" <u16758@.uwe> wrote in
news:64c9478703e41@.uwe:
> The installation of SQL Server 2005 (Express) has an option
> for default instance or named instance (SQLExpress as default)
> What are the advantages of setting up named instance and default
> instance? Thanks for answering...
There can only be one default instance, but multipe named instances with
different names. Advantage of the default instance is that you (or the
user) do not have to remember an instance name.
One of the major reasons for using multiple instances will be complete
separation of database solutions. Each instance has it's own service, and
thus you can set memory constraints per instance. Furthermore, remember
that logins are defined in the master database, so logins are only
available within that instance, which can be a good security measure.
--
Ole Kristian Bangås
MCT, MCDBA, MCDST, MCSE:Security, MCSE:Messaging, MCTS, MCITP|||Thanks for replying... I'm currently using SQL Server 2005 Express...
I have set up with Named Instance = SQLExpress, that is, the default name.
So, does that mean I can still set up another copy of Express server
using Default Instance?
Ole Kristian Bangås wrote:
>> The installation of SQL Server 2005 (Express) has an option
>> for default instance or named instance (SQLExpress as default)
>> What are the advantages of setting up named instance and default
>> instance? Thanks for answering...
>There can only be one default instance, but multipe named instances with
>different names. Advantage of the default instance is that you (or the
>user) do not have to remember an instance name.
>One of the major reasons for using multiple instances will be complete
>separation of database solutions. Each instance has it's own service, and
>thus you can set memory constraints per instance. Furthermore, remember
>that logins are defined in the master database, so logins are only
>available within that instance, which can be a good security measure.
>
--
Pedestrian, Penang.
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200608/1|||> So, does that mean I can still set up another copy of Express server
> using Default Instance?
Yes. There can be one default instance on a machine and a number of named instances (each need a
unique name, of course). Installation order doesn't matter (excluding prior versions of SQL
Server/MSDE).
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"pedestrian via SQLMonster.com" <u16758@.uwe> wrote in message news:64d4235358c63@.uwe...
> Thanks for replying... I'm currently using SQL Server 2005 Express...
> I have set up with Named Instance = SQLExpress, that is, the default name.
> So, does that mean I can still set up another copy of Express server
> using Default Instance?
> Ole Kristian Bangås wrote:
>> The installation of SQL Server 2005 (Express) has an option
>> for default instance or named instance (SQLExpress as default)
>> What are the advantages of setting up named instance and default
>> instance? Thanks for answering...
>>There can only be one default instance, but multipe named instances with
>>different names. Advantage of the default instance is that you (or the
>>user) do not have to remember an instance name.
>>One of the major reasons for using multiple instances will be complete
>>separation of database solutions. Each instance has it's own service, and
>>thus you can set memory constraints per instance. Furthermore, remember
>>that logins are defined in the master database, so logins are only
>>available within that instance, which can be a good security measure.
> --
> Pedestrian, Penang.
> Message posted via SQLMonster.com
> http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200608/1
>|||I haven't tried to install two SQL Server 2005 Express instances on the
same computer, but since multiple applications may install their instance
of MSDE I cannot see any reason why this should not work.
"pedestrian via SQLMonster.com" <u16758@.uwe> wrote in
news:64d4235358c63@.uwe:
> Thanks for replying... I'm currently using SQL Server 2005 Express...
> I have set up with Named Instance = SQLExpress, that is, the default
> name.
> So, does that mean I can still set up another copy of Express server
> using Default Instance?
--
Ole Kristian Bangås
MCT, MCDBA, MCDST, MCSE:Security, MCSE:Messaging, MCTS, MCITP|||Thanks to Tibor and Ole... I shall try it out.
--
Pedestrian, Penang.
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
Advantages of SQL Server 2005 named instance?
The installation of SQL Server 2005 (Express) has an option
for default instance or named instance (SQLExpress as default)
What are the advantages of setting up named instance and default instance?
Thanks for answering...
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200608/1"pedestrian via droptable.com" <u16758@.uwe> wrote in
news:64c9478703e41@.uwe:
> The installation of SQL Server 2005 (Express) has an option
> for default instance or named instance (SQLExpress as default)
> What are the advantages of setting up named instance and default
> instance? Thanks for answering...
There can only be one default instance, but multipe named instances with
different names. Advantage of the default instance is that you (or the
user) do not have to remember an instance name.
One of the major reasons for using multiple instances will be complete
separation of database solutions. Each instance has it's own service, and
thus you can set memory constraints per instance. Furthermore, remember
that logins are defined in the master database, so logins are only
available within that instance, which can be a good security measure.
Ole Kristian Bangs
MCT, MCDBA, MCDST, MCSE:Security, MCSE:Messaging, MCTS, MCITP|||Thanks for replying... I'm currently using SQL Server 2005 Express...
I have set up with Named Instance = SQLExpress, that is, the default name.
So, does that mean I can still set up another copy of Express server
using Default Instance?
Ole Kristian Bang?s wrote:
>There can only be one default instance, but multipe named instances with
>different names. Advantage of the default instance is that you (or the
>user) do not have to remember an instance name.
>One of the major reasons for using multiple instances will be complete
>separation of database solutions. Each instance has it's own service, and
>thus you can set memory constraints per instance. Furthermore, remember
>that logins are defined in the master database, so logins are only
>available within that instance, which can be a good security measure.
>
Pedestrian, Penang.
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200608/1|||> So, does that mean I can still set up another copy of Express server
> using Default Instance?
Yes. There can be one default instance on a machine and a number of named in
stances (each need a
unique name, of course). Installation order doesn't matter (excluding prior
versions of SQL
Server/MSDE).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"pedestrian via droptable.com" <u16758@.uwe> wrote in message news:64d4235358c63@.uwe...[vbco
l=seagreen]
> Thanks for replying... I'm currently using SQL Server 2005 Express...
> I have set up with Named Instance = SQLExpress, that is, the default name.
> So, does that mean I can still set up another copy of Express server
> using Default Instance?
> Ole Kristian Bang?s wrote:
> --
> Pedestrian, Penang.
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200608/1
>[/vbcol]|||I haven't tried to install two SQL Server 2005 Express instances on the
same computer, but since multiple applications may install their instance
of MSDE I cannot see any reason why this should not work.
"pedestrian via droptable.com" <u16758@.uwe> wrote in
news:64d4235358c63@.uwe:
> Thanks for replying... I'm currently using SQL Server 2005 Express...
> I have set up with Named Instance = SQLExpress, that is, the default
> name.
> So, does that mean I can still set up another copy of Express server
> using Default Instance?
Ole Kristian Bangs
MCT, MCDBA, MCDST, MCSE:Security, MCSE:Messaging, MCTS, MCITP|||Thanks to Tibor and Ole... I shall try it out.
Pedestrian, Penang.
Message posted via http://www.droptable.comsql
for default instance or named instance (SQLExpress as default)
What are the advantages of setting up named instance and default instance?
Thanks for answering...
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200608/1"pedestrian via droptable.com" <u16758@.uwe> wrote in
news:64c9478703e41@.uwe:
> The installation of SQL Server 2005 (Express) has an option
> for default instance or named instance (SQLExpress as default)
> What are the advantages of setting up named instance and default
> instance? Thanks for answering...
There can only be one default instance, but multipe named instances with
different names. Advantage of the default instance is that you (or the
user) do not have to remember an instance name.
One of the major reasons for using multiple instances will be complete
separation of database solutions. Each instance has it's own service, and
thus you can set memory constraints per instance. Furthermore, remember
that logins are defined in the master database, so logins are only
available within that instance, which can be a good security measure.
Ole Kristian Bangs
MCT, MCDBA, MCDST, MCSE:Security, MCSE:Messaging, MCTS, MCITP|||Thanks for replying... I'm currently using SQL Server 2005 Express...
I have set up with Named Instance = SQLExpress, that is, the default name.
So, does that mean I can still set up another copy of Express server
using Default Instance?
Ole Kristian Bang?s wrote:
>There can only be one default instance, but multipe named instances with
>different names. Advantage of the default instance is that you (or the
>user) do not have to remember an instance name.
>One of the major reasons for using multiple instances will be complete
>separation of database solutions. Each instance has it's own service, and
>thus you can set memory constraints per instance. Furthermore, remember
>that logins are defined in the master database, so logins are only
>available within that instance, which can be a good security measure.
>
Pedestrian, Penang.
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200608/1|||> So, does that mean I can still set up another copy of Express server
> using Default Instance?
Yes. There can be one default instance on a machine and a number of named in
stances (each need a
unique name, of course). Installation order doesn't matter (excluding prior
versions of SQL
Server/MSDE).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"pedestrian via droptable.com" <u16758@.uwe> wrote in message news:64d4235358c63@.uwe...[vbco
l=seagreen]
> Thanks for replying... I'm currently using SQL Server 2005 Express...
> I have set up with Named Instance = SQLExpress, that is, the default name.
> So, does that mean I can still set up another copy of Express server
> using Default Instance?
> Ole Kristian Bang?s wrote:
> --
> Pedestrian, Penang.
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forum...server/200608/1
>[/vbcol]|||I haven't tried to install two SQL Server 2005 Express instances on the
same computer, but since multiple applications may install their instance
of MSDE I cannot see any reason why this should not work.
"pedestrian via droptable.com" <u16758@.uwe> wrote in
news:64d4235358c63@.uwe:
> Thanks for replying... I'm currently using SQL Server 2005 Express...
> I have set up with Named Instance = SQLExpress, that is, the default
> name.
> So, does that mean I can still set up another copy of Express server
> using Default Instance?
Ole Kristian Bangs
MCT, MCDBA, MCDST, MCSE:Security, MCSE:Messaging, MCTS, MCITP|||Thanks to Tibor and Ole... I shall try it out.
Pedestrian, Penang.
Message posted via http://www.droptable.comsql
Advantages of SQL Server
hi ! my boss is thinking of redoing our accounting system which is currently running on FOXPRO - we are planning on a VB/SQL SERVER platform.but he isn't convinced that the benefits of SQL server outweigh those offered by FOXPRO especially since everyone in the office is very comfortable with Foxpro.Can anyone give me some solid advantages of SQL SErver or any other RDBMS over Foxpro ?http://dbforums.com/arch/125/2003/2/689282|||FoxPro?
Accounting?
Security?
I got it...how 'bout an abacus, quill and parchment...
Ok...enough with the sillyness...guess they keep advancing it...why? I have no idea..
http://gotdotnet.com/team/vfp/
What version of foxpro?|||A couple of observations...
VFP and MS-SQL are not mutually exclusive. You can have the benefits of both if you choose. SQL Server can provide the "back end" at the server, and VFP can provide the "front end" at the client.
SQL Server allows much better security, eliminates damaged files due to workstation disconnects, better performance, practically infinite ability to scale.
-PatP|||I still have a Programmer's Manual for FoxPro 2.0, right before it was bought up by M$. It presented a serious competition to Borland's dBase IV, and gave me an opportunity to really dive into SQL...Anybody wants to buy 19 Installation disks (1.44MB) for FoxPro 2.6 with a Connectivity Kit?|||Still got your Access 1.2 disks?
;)
First consultant gig was on 2.0
:D
Now where did all the side business go?
:(|||I've still got a set of 5 1/4 Paradox discs (pre-Windows). 8:)|||Hey, Paradox 4.0/4.5 was my next step (actually a step backwards in regards to SQL) I believe I still have them too, not sure about the version...Anyone?|||...And I also have the first decent VB for DOS, 2.0. Fits on 2 1.44MB floppies, very compact and suitable for travel. Very low minimum system requirements, produces beautiful forms and popup dialog boxes ;)|||Sorry, my old Kaypro doesn't have 3 1/2 inch drives. Just the old 360KB floppies. No HD either.|||I still have a pair of 8" floppies with Vulcan on them.
-PatP|||I knew I should have kept my first program! But carting all those punch cards around got to be a real pain (literally!) :)|||I tossed my paper tape after the program went into production!|||okay..
i used to get up each morning 3 hrs before i went to sleep and clean the road with my tongue, for 3 cents a week. considering the shoebox at the bottom of the lake that we lived in had a rent of 32 cents a week, we had to do a lot of odd jobs.
my first for pay consulting job was at mr slate's quarry.
i used to maintain(feed) the first database ever created called "joe" after it's creator "joe". it used a series of stones tied to sticks attached to a pelican. and through a series of levers we could calculate pi to 1 place in 7.3 hours.
being a very exclusive database, there was only one copy and since it was a bit on the gamey side, it couldnt be kept indoors.
i have a copy in a storage container in my back yard, it's not totally oledb compatible but with a bit of work it could be dblibrary.|||Wow! You still have a copy of the "Joe" database? What a coincidence! At the back of one of my file cabinets I still have the original RFP I submitted for the project.
Did you know it was actually a conversion from an older legacy system?|||nope your thinking of "joe's" weaker sister "mary" it wasnt even a database per se.
the storage mechanism was elephant turds and while being easy to find, were not very portable and therfore would harden after a few days making the db unusable.
we considered mary to be effetively a slowly created statue not a database.
i have a "mary" coffee table if you need some living room furniture.|||Ruprect, the elephant dung can be softened by the application of moisture. This should have been part of your regularly scheduled maintenance plan.
Really, you should have paid more attention to Books On Rocks. It was full of usefull examples. I guess back then you must have been a rookie DBA (Dung Ball Administrator).|||what is it with you
even on older databases your books online is still out of date
[Books On Rocks] Stone Package 3
in the last release of "Mary" database there is no need to apply moisture to the mammoth dung as it is considered a "wasting asset"
you will have to rebuild the dung clusters with fresh dung every one to two weeks for proper retireval.
everyone knows that you will change the "flies" sort order if you moisten the dung
what an ultramaroon..
update your books on rocks|||I stand corrected. I guess my only excuse is that my thinking has been fuzzy and muddled ever since I stumbled upon a strange black rectangular monolith in the woods...
I concede that your knowledge of Dung Ball Administration is much deeper than mine. Knee-deep, even.
Accounting?
Security?
I got it...how 'bout an abacus, quill and parchment...
Ok...enough with the sillyness...guess they keep advancing it...why? I have no idea..
http://gotdotnet.com/team/vfp/
What version of foxpro?|||A couple of observations...
VFP and MS-SQL are not mutually exclusive. You can have the benefits of both if you choose. SQL Server can provide the "back end" at the server, and VFP can provide the "front end" at the client.
SQL Server allows much better security, eliminates damaged files due to workstation disconnects, better performance, practically infinite ability to scale.
-PatP|||I still have a Programmer's Manual for FoxPro 2.0, right before it was bought up by M$. It presented a serious competition to Borland's dBase IV, and gave me an opportunity to really dive into SQL...Anybody wants to buy 19 Installation disks (1.44MB) for FoxPro 2.6 with a Connectivity Kit?|||Still got your Access 1.2 disks?
;)
First consultant gig was on 2.0
:D
Now where did all the side business go?
:(|||I've still got a set of 5 1/4 Paradox discs (pre-Windows). 8:)|||Hey, Paradox 4.0/4.5 was my next step (actually a step backwards in regards to SQL) I believe I still have them too, not sure about the version...Anyone?|||...And I also have the first decent VB for DOS, 2.0. Fits on 2 1.44MB floppies, very compact and suitable for travel. Very low minimum system requirements, produces beautiful forms and popup dialog boxes ;)|||Sorry, my old Kaypro doesn't have 3 1/2 inch drives. Just the old 360KB floppies. No HD either.|||I still have a pair of 8" floppies with Vulcan on them.
-PatP|||I knew I should have kept my first program! But carting all those punch cards around got to be a real pain (literally!) :)|||I tossed my paper tape after the program went into production!|||okay..
i used to get up each morning 3 hrs before i went to sleep and clean the road with my tongue, for 3 cents a week. considering the shoebox at the bottom of the lake that we lived in had a rent of 32 cents a week, we had to do a lot of odd jobs.
my first for pay consulting job was at mr slate's quarry.
i used to maintain(feed) the first database ever created called "joe" after it's creator "joe". it used a series of stones tied to sticks attached to a pelican. and through a series of levers we could calculate pi to 1 place in 7.3 hours.
being a very exclusive database, there was only one copy and since it was a bit on the gamey side, it couldnt be kept indoors.
i have a copy in a storage container in my back yard, it's not totally oledb compatible but with a bit of work it could be dblibrary.|||Wow! You still have a copy of the "Joe" database? What a coincidence! At the back of one of my file cabinets I still have the original RFP I submitted for the project.
Did you know it was actually a conversion from an older legacy system?|||nope your thinking of "joe's" weaker sister "mary" it wasnt even a database per se.
the storage mechanism was elephant turds and while being easy to find, were not very portable and therfore would harden after a few days making the db unusable.
we considered mary to be effetively a slowly created statue not a database.
i have a "mary" coffee table if you need some living room furniture.|||Ruprect, the elephant dung can be softened by the application of moisture. This should have been part of your regularly scheduled maintenance plan.
Really, you should have paid more attention to Books On Rocks. It was full of usefull examples. I guess back then you must have been a rookie DBA (Dung Ball Administrator).|||what is it with you
even on older databases your books online is still out of date
[Books On Rocks] Stone Package 3
in the last release of "Mary" database there is no need to apply moisture to the mammoth dung as it is considered a "wasting asset"
you will have to rebuild the dung clusters with fresh dung every one to two weeks for proper retireval.
everyone knows that you will change the "flies" sort order if you moisten the dung
what an ultramaroon..
update your books on rocks|||I stand corrected. I guess my only excuse is that my thinking has been fuzzy and muddled ever since I stumbled upon a strange black rectangular monolith in the woods...
I concede that your knowledge of Dung Ball Administration is much deeper than mine. Knee-deep, even.
Advantages of Reporting Services 2005
Hello,
I am working on the Reporting Services 2005, I don' know anything about Business Object.
Please let me know what are the advantages of Reporting Services 2005 over the Business Object.
Any specific link will be useful for me.
Thanks in advance.
Bye.
If you already have a SQL Server 2005 box...SSRS is free. That is usually a very compelling argument. Check with MS on your specific licensing scenario though.
The next is Report Builder which is a user friendly ad-hoc tool for analysts to build their own reports without the learning curve of Visual Studio (although the learning curve is really not that high on RS).
|||Hello Davind,
I agree with you on the advantage you have mentioned above but I have question?
Reporing services have direct connection to the database there is know any middle tire, and I throught that because of this the processing of report might be slow. In the same case Business Object have some middletire I don't know exactly.
Any help in this will be appreciated.
|||check this blog for all the Resources link on Reporting services.
http://blogs.sqlxml.org/vinodkumar/archive/2007/09/14/sql-rs-resources-links.aspx
Madhu
|||Yes, when you look at BO, Cognos, SAS BI etc.. it is understood that you will build some middle tier...like an OLAP cube to report.
The difference with SSRS is that it is purely a reporting tool, abstract from a datasource. So think of it this way, you CAN report directly against a live OLTP database. To your point, you may have some performance considerations to make. But you CAN also build reports against a datawarehouse (SQL) or against Cubes that have been defined.
It goes beyond that...You can also build reports directly against other datasources like Oracle, Access..I've developed real-time SSRS reports against Lawson (Oracle hosted on Unix) for example.
Lastly, you can build reports based upon Models or even SSIS. SSIS can be thought of as a middle-ware...very robust ETL tool on steroids. So think of being able to mix DW data with say..live RSS feeds or data from a web service, or some real time ETL integration?
A report model is entirely different in that you can build a report from a user friendly definition without having to have a knowledge of the table structures, field names, business rules and joins (of course that 'model' must be defined first by someone who does)..that then leaves report building in the hands of analysts..not programmers.
So the biggest thing that I see is choice..you have deep choices to make in the datasets you consume and are not limited solely to OLAP datasources or MDX code. Plus the technology is primarily standard across the Microsoft framework. Meaning, the models can be used in SSRS or even Report Builder. The OLAP cubes or datasources can of course be consumed in SSRS, but also Excel PivotTable, ProClarity...basically any cube viewer tool of choice. Those should be additional measuring sticks when looking at other vendor solutions in BI.
Advantages of Multiple Instances
Where can I find advantages of Multiple Instances on a single Server.
Instances are fairly well isolated from one another. They can run under different service accounts, store data by default on separate disks, etc. In 30 second of looking through BOL I couldn't find a good summary description of instances but I bet it's in there somewhere. Do you have a more specific question or are you looking for general info? Are you asking about the SQL Server Engine in particular, or other components?
Paul
|||On intranet we are having some applications, in particular time everyday we are uploading bulk data onto a database. Due to this other applications are unable to access the database server OR it is very slow. In this case is there any advantage of using Multiple Instances ?
Here databases are sharing some of the data each other.
|||I'm moving this thread to the database engine forum for expert comment. Are the bulk load and other applications accessing the same table or different tables? Is the bulk load consuming a large percentage of CPU or disk throughput?
Paul
|||Use local snapshot replication (pull).advantages of Identity Column
Hi,
What would be possible advantages of having Identity column as primary key
than having another unique column as primary key.?http://www.aspfaq.com/2504
"mavrick_101" <mavrick101@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4648FD42-BB0A-4B09-B1C1-820F08FFA46E@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> What would be possible advantages of having Identity column as primary key
> than having another unique column as primary key.?
>
What would be possible advantages of having Identity column as primary key
than having another unique column as primary key.?http://www.aspfaq.com/2504
"mavrick_101" <mavrick101@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4648FD42-BB0A-4B09-B1C1-820F08FFA46E@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> What would be possible advantages of having Identity column as primary key
> than having another unique column as primary key.?
>
Advantages of Database Diagram
What is the advantages/disadvantages of using Database Diagram and link all the tables in MS SQL Server Management Studio versus letting the application check and link the different tables at run time? Currently, I do not have all my tables linked in a Database Diagram. I do everything at run time in my application code behind. What are the best practices? Which is easier or perhaps more secure?
I always used the diagram tool in SQL2000 - not only is it a great resource for new DBA's and developers, it adds constraints that you might otherwise forget. It's a great simple way to ensure you don't end up with missing links in your data.
|||Many thanks for the response. Is constraint the biggest advantage of using diagram? By the way, can I use MS SQL Server Management Studio 2005 to diagram a database tables on SQL Server 2000?
|||Lack of referential integrity can lead to very hard to trace faults. Where relationships exist, it is far better to define then at the database level as the relationship is then always enforced.
You can have more than one diagram. It is not necessary to have diagrams to define foreign key relationships, it is just a bit easier that way.
|||
Thanks for the responses.
sql
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)