Difference between these two SQL Express

Anyone can tell me the difference between

Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Express Edition with Advanced Services

and

Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Express Edition Toolkit

I am wondering which one should i install

If you want to use all posisble features of express you should install both.

difference between the versions of SQL server

Do you find that there is a big difference between the different versions of SQL server (6.5, 7, 2000, 2005) as is between Microsoft programming languages (VB.4, VB5, VB6, .Net and now .Net 2)
Or is the difference in SQL server minimal and very small compared to the programming languages I mentioned.
Thanks a lotThe change from SQL 6.5 to 7 is pretty big and the change from 7/2000 to 2005 is pretty big. However it all depends what you want to do. Think about how hard it was to write web apps in VB5/6 and compare that with VS 2005, thats pretty big but if all you wanted to do was to write hello world that has not changed much.|||thanks

Difference between the SQL Server Express Bundled with C#/VB VS the downloadable SQL Server Expr

What is the Difference between the SQL Server Express Bundled with C#/VB VS the downloadable SQL Server Express SP1 with advanced Services?

I installed C# with SQL Server Express, however I wanted to add the Full Text Searching and the SQL Server Management Studio Express, so I downloaded and installed the SQL Server 2005 Express Edition with Advanced Services SP1. When I installed it over top of my current installation, it complained of version mismatching, and then C# failed to recognize that I had SQL 2005 Express installed at all.

What I'd like to know is, which version is more current (they have to be different, they had different version numbers, one was 9.xx.xxxx the other was 2005.9.xx.xxxx) The one bundled with C#, or the SP1 downloadable one.

Firstly, I want to be up todate as far as security patches, and Secondly, how do I add the full text searching and SSMSE to the one bundled with C# without breaking it.

THe one with Visual Studio does not have SP1 integrated, it also does not have the following features:

SQL Server Express with Advanced Services contains the following features:

SQL Server Management Studio Express, a graphical management tool based on SQL Server Management Studio that makes it easy to manage and administer SQL Server Express databases.

Reporting Services, an integrated report creation and design environment to create reports.

Full-Text Search, a powerful search engine for searching text-intensive data.

(From: http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/sql/download/)

HTH, jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

Are there instructions for upgrading to the SP1 version?

I tried installing it directly overtop, and now it is broken.

When I try to add a database to a project, I get the following error:

Connection to SQL Server files require SQL Server Express 2005 to function properly. Please verify the isntallation of the component.

|||Follow the RTFM rule. The readme file can be found at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=58557. The instaruction there show step by step how to *migrate* the instance.

HTH, jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.desql

Difference between the SQL Server Express Bundled with C#/VB VS the downloadable SQL Server

What is the Difference between the SQL Server Express Bundled with C#/VB VS the downloadable SQL Server Express SP1 with advanced Services?

I installed C# with SQL Server Express, however I wanted to add the Full Text Searching and the SQL Server Management Studio Express, so I downloaded and installed the SQL Server 2005 Express Edition with Advanced Services SP1. When I installed it over top of my current installation, it complained of version mismatching, and then C# failed to recognize that I had SQL 2005 Express installed at all.

What I'd like to know is, which version is more current (they have to be different, they had different version numbers, one was 9.xx.xxxx the other was 2005.9.xx.xxxx) The one bundled with C#, or the SP1 downloadable one.

Firstly, I want to be up todate as far as security patches, and Secondly, how do I add the full text searching and SSMSE to the one bundled with C# without breaking it.

THe one with Visual Studio does not have SP1 integrated, it also does not have the following features:

SQL Server Express with Advanced Services contains the following features:

SQL Server Management Studio Express, a graphical management tool based on SQL Server Management Studio that makes it easy to manage and administer SQL Server Express databases.

Reporting Services, an integrated report creation and design environment to create reports.

Full-Text Search, a powerful search engine for searching text-intensive data.

(From: http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/sql/download/)

HTH, jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

Are there instructions for upgrading to the SP1 version?

I tried installing it directly overtop, and now it is broken.

When I try to add a database to a project, I get the following error:

Connection to SQL Server files require SQL Server Express 2005 to function properly. Please verify the isntallation of the component.

|||Follow the RTFM rule. The readme file can be found at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=58557. The instaruction there show step by step how to *migrate* the instance.

HTH, jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

Difference between the querries.

I have two tables
1. AccountMaster(AccountID int, Name varchar(20))
2. Transactions(TransID, AccountID int, Amount float)

I have two queries for achieving the same result set. They are

Query1:
Select A.AccountID,A.Name,T.TransID,T.Amount
from AccountMaster A, Transactions T
where T. AccountID=A. AccountID

Query1:
Select A.AccountID,A.Name,T.TransID,T.Amount
from AccountMaster A
inner join Transactions T
on T. AccountID=A. AccountID

Here both will make use of inner join then,
Is there any difference in executing the queries ?
If yes, why SQL Server provides both the option ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by getmeidea

I have two tables
1. AccountMaster(AccountID int, Name varchar(20))
2. Transactions(TransID, AccountID int, Amount float)

I have two queries for achieving the same result set. They are

Query1:
Select A.AccountID,A.Name,T.TransID,T.Amount
from AccountMaster A, Transactions T
where T. AccountID=A. AccountID

Query1:
Select A.AccountID,A.Name,T.TransID,T.Amount
from AccountMaster A
inner join Transactions T
on T. AccountID=A. AccountID

Here both will make use of inner join then,
Is there any difference in executing the queries ?
If yes, why SQL Server provides both the option ?

I am not sure but one uses a cross join, the best thing for you is to look up joins, also it is mainly to do with speed issues. In some cases it may actually be nessecary to use a inner join that a cross join can't do or doesn't allow.|||

Quote:

Originally Posted by getmeidea

I have two tables
1. AccountMaster(AccountID int, Name varchar(20))
2. Transactions(TransID, AccountID int, Amount float)

I have two queries for achieving the same result set. They are

Query1:
Select A.AccountID,A.Name,T.TransID,T.Amount
from AccountMaster A, Transactions T
where T. AccountID=A. AccountID

Query1:
Select A.AccountID,A.Name,T.TransID,T.Amount
from AccountMaster A
inner join Transactions T
on T. AccountID=A. AccountID

Here both will make use of inner join then,
Is there any difference in executing the queries ?
If yes, why SQL Server provides both the option ?

Select A.AccountID,A.Name,T.TransID,T.Amount
from AccountMaster A, Transactions T
where T. AccountID=A. AccountID

this kind of qry may easy for join one or two tables with 1 or 2 fields, but if u go beyond that
you have to write many condition with combination in where clause
for join itself. some more conditions for selecting records after joining...

difference between the fuzzy lookup and fuzzy grouping in ssis

Dear Friends,

i think fuzzy lookup

COMPARES WHAT WE ARE MAPING THE COLUMNS WITH SPELLING (IT WILL REJECT ATLEAST 1 LETTER IS DIFFRENT IN ANY RECORD MAPPED COLUMN) EX: RAVI != REVI

what is fuzzy grouping ? please explain

regards

koti

Fuzzy grouping lets you find patterns in your data that could represent duplicated data. i.e., it could match address data like "1234 Main St." to "1234 Main Street" and push these into one record. Fuzzy lookup helps you to clean dirty data by comparing your input with an outside source.

|||

Koti,

I'm just noticing your other threads here... If you have any further questions about what a component does, you should first try to find out about it through the books on-line feature of sql. Most of these components you have asked about have rather good documentation...

Please, look for the documentation BEFORE posting questions like this...

Thanks for your time.

Eric

Difference between the estimated size and size given by sp_spaceus

Hi,
The Books Online article "Estimating the Size of a Table" gives you the
method to estimate the size of a table. Using this method I estimated the
size for one table. However after populating that table with data, I used
sp_spaceused to find out the space used by this particular table, but to my
surprise I found big difference between the value given by method "Estimating
the Size of a Table" and sp_spaceused stored procedure. I also passed
updateusage parameter as true. Can anybody throw some light on why such
difference is found between these values?
Regards,
VaibhavVaibhav
Try UPDATE STATISTICS and then run sp_spaceused.
"Vaibhav" <Vaibhav@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:310A97C9-498D-4C12-B92A-F8C53814F4FF@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> The Books Online article "Estimating the Size of a Table" gives you the
> method to estimate the size of a table. Using this method I estimated the
> size for one table. However after populating that table with data, I used
> sp_spaceused to find out the space used by this particular table, but to
my
> surprise I found big difference between the value given by method
"Estimating
> the Size of a Table" and sp_spaceused stored procedure. I also passed
> updateusage parameter as true. Can anybody throw some light on why such
> difference is found between these values?
> Regards,
> Vaibhav|||> The Books Online article "Estimating the Size of a Table" gives you the
> method to estimate the size of a table. Using this method I estimated the
> size for one table. However after populating that table with data, I used
> sp_spaceused to find out the space used by this particular table, but to
my
> surprise I found big difference between the value given by method
"Estimating
> the Size of a Table" and sp_spaceused stored procedure. I also passed
> updateusage parameter as true. Can anybody throw some light on why such
> difference is found between these values?
Have you counted the indexes? Do you have variable length data types?
What are actal numbers?
--
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com|||Well, do you have any variable-length data (VARCHAR, VARBINARY, TEXT,
IMAGE)? How many of them are populated to the maximum capacity, how many
are NULL (or empty string), how many have valid data? What kind of indexes
do you have? What is the "big difference", 10%, 50%?
--
This is my signature. It is a general reminder.
Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
"Vaibhav" <Vaibhav@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:310A97C9-498D-4C12-B92A-F8C53814F4FF@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> The Books Online article "Estimating the Size of a Table" gives you the
> method to estimate the size of a table. Using this method I estimated the
> size for one table. However after populating that table with data, I used
> sp_spaceused to find out the space used by this particular table, but to
my
> surprise I found big difference between the value given by method
"Estimating
> the Size of a Table" and sp_spaceused stored procedure. I also passed
> updateusage parameter as true. Can anybody throw some light on why such
> difference is found between these values?
> Regards,
> Vaibhav|||Thanks for the response.
I don't have any variable lenght fields. And yes I have also calculated
estimated size for clustered index separately. And this table does not have
any non-clustered index. To tell you something more about this comparision,
if you add the values for all the tables from field 'data' (in the recordset
returned by sp_spaceused) you get a figure which is approx. equals an MDF
file size. So what about the size occupied by other database objects. I would
want to know what this 'data' field value comrpises of...
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> Well, do you have any variable-length data (VARCHAR, VARBINARY, TEXT,
> IMAGE)? How many of them are populated to the maximum capacity, how many
> are NULL (or empty string), how many have valid data? What kind of indexes
> do you have? What is the "big difference", 10%, 50%?
> --
> This is my signature. It is a general reminder.
> Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
> See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
>
>
>
> "Vaibhav" <Vaibhav@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:310A97C9-498D-4C12-B92A-F8C53814F4FF@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > The Books Online article "Estimating the Size of a Table" gives you the
> > method to estimate the size of a table. Using this method I estimated the
> > size for one table. However after populating that table with data, I used
> > sp_spaceused to find out the space used by this particular table, but to
> my
> > surprise I found big difference between the value given by method
> "Estimating
> > the Size of a Table" and sp_spaceused stored procedure. I also passed
> > updateusage parameter as true. Can anybody throw some light on why such
> > difference is found between these values?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vaibhav
>
>|||The difference is of 53 MB or 37%
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> Well, do you have any variable-length data (VARCHAR, VARBINARY, TEXT,
> IMAGE)? How many of them are populated to the maximum capacity, how many
> are NULL (or empty string), how many have valid data? What kind of indexes
> do you have? What is the "big difference", 10%, 50%?
> --
> This is my signature. It is a general reminder.
> Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
> See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
>
>
>
> "Vaibhav" <Vaibhav@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:310A97C9-498D-4C12-B92A-F8C53814F4FF@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > The Books Online article "Estimating the Size of a Table" gives you the
> > method to estimate the size of a table. Using this method I estimated the
> > size for one table. However after populating that table with data, I used
> > sp_spaceused to find out the space used by this particular table, but to
> my
> > surprise I found big difference between the value given by method
> "Estimating
> > the Size of a Table" and sp_spaceused stored procedure. I also passed
> > updateusage parameter as true. Can anybody throw some light on why such
> > difference is found between these values?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vaibhav
>
>|||I have no idea what you're talking about here. But if you want an accurate
judgement of a table size you can do something like:
SELECT SUM(DATALENGTH(col1)) + SUM(DATALENGTH(col2)) + ... FROM table
Then add the overhead associated with nullable columns, and the overhead
associated with the clustered index.
The *estimate* in Books Online is just that, an estimate. It is meant to
give a rough guideline for how much space your table might occupy, it is not
meant to serve as a means to determine the exact number of bytes in an
existing table. So use it for what it is...
--
This is my signature. It is a general reminder.
Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
"Vaibhav" <Vaibhav@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:98CF4A5C-5C3B-44DE-BD73-9E97D7F53A3D@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for the response.
> I don't have any variable lenght fields. And yes I have also calculated
> estimated size for clustered index separately. And this table does not
have
> any non-clustered index. To tell you something more about this
comparision,
> if you add the values for all the tables from field 'data' (in the
recordset
> returned by sp_spaceused) you get a figure which is approx. equals an MDF
> file size. So what about the size occupied by other database objects. I
would
> want to know what this 'data' field value comrpises of...
> "Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> > Well, do you have any variable-length data (VARCHAR, VARBINARY, TEXT,
> > IMAGE)? How many of them are populated to the maximum capacity, how
many
> > are NULL (or empty string), how many have valid data? What kind of
indexes
> > do you have? What is the "big difference", 10%, 50%?
> >
> > --
> > This is my signature. It is a general reminder.
> > Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
> > See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Vaibhav" <Vaibhav@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:310A97C9-498D-4C12-B92A-F8C53814F4FF@.microsoft.com...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The Books Online article "Estimating the Size of a Table" gives you
the
> > > method to estimate the size of a table. Using this method I estimated
the
> > > size for one table. However after populating that table with data, I
used
> > > sp_spaceused to find out the space used by this particular table, but
to
> > my
> > > surprise I found big difference between the value given by method
> > "Estimating
> > > the Size of a Table" and sp_spaceused stored procedure. I also passed
> > > updateusage parameter as true. Can anybody throw some light on why
such
> > > difference is found between these values?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Vaibhav
> >
> >
> >|||Please find the numbers used in the estimation process -
Number of rows 2245536
Number of columns 11
Sum of bytes in all fixed-length columns 33
Number of variable-length columns 0
Maximum size of all variable-length columns 0
Null Bitmap 4
Total size of variable-length columns 0
Total row size 41
Number of rows per page 189
Fill Factor 100
Number of free rows per page 0
Number of pages 11882
Table size (MB) 92.83
And that given by sp_spaceused -
rows 2245536
reserved 150152 KB
data 149200 KB
index_size 896 KB
unused 56 KB
"Dejan Sarka" wrote:
> > The Books Online article "Estimating the Size of a Table" gives you the
> > method to estimate the size of a table. Using this method I estimated the
> > size for one table. However after populating that table with data, I used
> > sp_spaceused to find out the space used by this particular table, but to
> my
> > surprise I found big difference between the value given by method
> "Estimating
> > the Size of a Table" and sp_spaceused stored procedure. I also passed
> > updateusage parameter as true. Can anybody throw some light on why such
> > difference is found between these values?
> Have you counted the indexes? Do you have variable length data types?
> What are actal numbers?
> --
> Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
> Associate Mentor
> www.SolidQualityLearning.com
>
>|||Hi,
After following method given in the Books Online article, I got following
results for a table -
Number of rows 2245536
Number of columns 11
Sum of bytes in all fixed-length columns 33
Number of variable-length columns 0
Maximum size of all variable-length columns 0
Null Bitmap 4
Total size of variable-length columns 0
Total row size 41
Number of rows per page 189
Fill Factor 100
Number of free rows per page 0
Number of pages 11882
Table size (MB) 92.83
And the result given by sp_spaceused is as follows -
rows 2245536
reserved 150152 KB
data 149200 KB
index_size 896 KB
unused 56 KB
After comparing these two resulrs one can see the difference of 57 MB. Could
you please tell me why this much difference is observed. Do I need to
consider any other factors while calculating estimated size for a table.
Again the estimated size of clustered index on this tables is 0.45 MB. Also
can you please tell me how to estimate the size of a database. As the same
knd of difference would be shown in the estimated and actual figures if one
calculates estimated size for a database using Books Online metod?
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> I have no idea what you're talking about here. But if you want an accurate
> judgement of a table size you can do something like:
> SELECT SUM(DATALENGTH(col1)) + SUM(DATALENGTH(col2)) + ... FROM table
> Then add the overhead associated with nullable columns, and the overhead
> associated with the clustered index.
> The *estimate* in Books Online is just that, an estimate. It is meant to
> give a rough guideline for how much space your table might occupy, it is not
> meant to serve as a means to determine the exact number of bytes in an
> existing table. So use it for what it is...
> --
> This is my signature. It is a general reminder.
> Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
> See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
> "Vaibhav" <Vaibhav@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:98CF4A5C-5C3B-44DE-BD73-9E97D7F53A3D@.microsoft.com...
> > Thanks for the response.
> >
> > I don't have any variable lenght fields. And yes I have also calculated
> > estimated size for clustered index separately. And this table does not
> have
> > any non-clustered index. To tell you something more about this
> comparision,
> > if you add the values for all the tables from field 'data' (in the
> recordset
> > returned by sp_spaceused) you get a figure which is approx. equals an MDF
> > file size. So what about the size occupied by other database objects. I
> would
> > want to know what this 'data' field value comrpises of...
> >
> > "Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> >
> > > Well, do you have any variable-length data (VARCHAR, VARBINARY, TEXT,
> > > IMAGE)? How many of them are populated to the maximum capacity, how
> many
> > > are NULL (or empty string), how many have valid data? What kind of
> indexes
> > > do you have? What is the "big difference", 10%, 50%?
> > >
> > > --
> > > This is my signature. It is a general reminder.
> > > Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
> > > See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Vaibhav" <Vaibhav@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:310A97C9-498D-4C12-B92A-F8C53814F4FF@.microsoft.com...
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > The Books Online article "Estimating the Size of a Table" gives you
> the
> > > > method to estimate the size of a table. Using this method I estimated
> the
> > > > size for one table. However after populating that table with data, I
> used
> > > > sp_spaceused to find out the space used by this particular table, but
> to
> > > my
> > > > surprise I found big difference between the value given by method
> > > "Estimating
> > > > the Size of a Table" and sp_spaceused stored procedure. I also passed
> > > > updateusage parameter as true. Can anybody throw some light on why
> such
> > > > difference is found between these values?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Vaibhav
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>|||> After comparing these two resulrs one can see the difference of 57 MB.
Could
> you please tell me why this much difference is observed.
All those starts are fabulous but I still have no idea what kind of table we
are talking about here. Can you please generate the CREATE TABLE statement
(see my signature for details) and make sure to include all keys, indexes
and constraints.
And please, please, please remember (once again) that the method in books
online is a *rough estimate*... 57 MB over more than 2 million rows is
really not that alarming to me, and I'm amazed this is turning into a
two-day discussion.
--
This is my signature. It is a general reminder.
Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.|||Hi,
Thanks for the quick response and I apologize to test your patience. I
assumed that the estimated figure that I would get would be the closest one.
Are there any other methods with wich one can get more closer estimates? If
yes than can you give pointers to those. If not then can I have some pointers
to resources which would expain as to why such difference is seen between the
estimated figures and actual figures?
PS: I would be able to send you the DDL and sample data tomorrow as I would
need some more time to generate it.
Thanks once again...
Regards,
Vaibhav
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> > After comparing these two resulrs one can see the difference of 57 MB.
> Could
> > you please tell me why this much difference is observed.
> All those starts are fabulous but I still have no idea what kind of table we
> are talking about here. Can you please generate the CREATE TABLE statement
> (see my signature for details) and make sure to include all keys, indexes
> and constraints.
> And please, please, please remember (once again) that the method in books
> online is a *rough estimate*... 57 MB over more than 2 million rows is
> really not that alarming to me, and I'm amazed this is turning into a
> two-day discussion.
> --
> This is my signature. It is a general reminder.
> Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
> See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
>
>|||The methods you're already using have worked fine for me. Again, 57 MB is
really not that big of a difference to me. When we are buying and
configuring disks we round to the terabyte, not the MB...
As for generating DDL, if you look at http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 you will
see that all you have to do is right-click the table in Enterprise Manager
and hit "All Tasks > Generate SQL Script"... you shouldn't have to write it
from scratch and if it takes more than two minutes there's something
seriously wrong.
--
This is my signature. It is a general reminder.
Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
"Vaibhav" <Vaibhav@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D16F7B3C-0E86-4C41-B6BD-F90031E36A6C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Thanks for the quick response and I apologize to test your patience. I
> assumed that the estimated figure that I would get would be the closest
one.
> Are there any other methods with wich one can get more closer estimates?
If
> yes than can you give pointers to those. If not then can I have some
pointers
> to resources which would expain as to why such difference is seen between
the
> estimated figures and actual figures?
> PS: I would be able to send you the DDL and sample data tomorrow as I
would
> need some more time to generate it.
> Thanks once again...
> Regards,
> Vaibhav|||Yes Aron I know that it would take less than 2 minutes to generate a script
of a table . Actually yesterday when I read your last reply it was alredy the
time to leave from the office, hence I could not send you the required
details. It seems I am disturbing you too much.
Thanks a lot mate for all the help provided till now.
Bye for now...
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> The methods you're already using have worked fine for me. Again, 57 MB is
> really not that big of a difference to me. When we are buying and
> configuring disks we round to the terabyte, not the MB...
> As for generating DDL, if you look at http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 you will
> see that all you have to do is right-click the table in Enterprise Manager
> and hit "All Tasks > Generate SQL Script"... you shouldn't have to write it
> from scratch and if it takes more than two minutes there's something
> seriously wrong.
> --
> This is my signature. It is a general reminder.
> Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
> See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
>
>
> "Vaibhav" <Vaibhav@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D16F7B3C-0E86-4C41-B6BD-F90031E36A6C@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the quick response and I apologize to test your patience. I
> > assumed that the estimated figure that I would get would be the closest
> one.
> > Are there any other methods with wich one can get more closer estimates?
> If
> > yes than can you give pointers to those. If not then can I have some
> pointers
> > to resources which would expain as to why such difference is seen between
> the
> > estimated figures and actual figures?
> >
> > PS: I would be able to send you the DDL and sample data tomorrow as I
> would
> > need some more time to generate it.
> >
> > Thanks once again...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vaibhav
>
>

Difference between the estimated size and size given by sp_spaceus

Hi,
The Books Online article "Estimating the Size of a Table" gives you the
method to estimate the size of a table. Using this method I estimated the
size for one table. However after populating that table with data, I used
sp_spaceused to find out the space used by this particular table, but to my
surprise I found big difference between the value given by method "Estimatin
g
the Size of a Table" and sp_spaceused stored procedure. I also passed
updateusage parameter as true. Can anybody throw some light on why such
difference is found between these values?
Regards,
VaibhavVaibhav
Try UPDATE STATISTICS and then run sp_spaceused.
"Vaibhav" <Vaibhav@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:310A97C9-498D-4C12-B92A-F8C53814F4FF@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> The Books Online article "Estimating the Size of a Table" gives you the
> method to estimate the size of a table. Using this method I estimated the
> size for one table. However after populating that table with data, I used
> sp_spaceused to find out the space used by this particular table, but to
my
> surprise I found big difference between the value given by method
"Estimating
> the Size of a Table" and sp_spaceused stored procedure. I also passed
> updateusage parameter as true. Can anybody throw some light on why such
> difference is found between these values?
> Regards,
> Vaibhav|||> The Books Online article "Estimating the Size of a Table" gives you the
> method to estimate the size of a table. Using this method I estimated the
> size for one table. However after populating that table with data, I used
> sp_spaceused to find out the space used by this particular table, but to
my
> surprise I found big difference between the value given by method
"Estimating
> the Size of a Table" and sp_spaceused stored procedure. I also passed
> updateusage parameter as true. Can anybody throw some light on why such
> difference is found between these values?
Have you counted the indexes? Do you have variable length data types?
What are actal numbers?
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com|||Well, do you have any variable-length data (VARCHAR, VARBINARY, TEXT,
IMAGE)? How many of them are populated to the maximum capacity, how many
are NULL (or empty string), how many have valid data? What kind of indexes
do you have? What is the "big difference", 10%, 50%?
This is my signature. It is a general reminder.
Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
"Vaibhav" <Vaibhav@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:310A97C9-498D-4C12-B92A-F8C53814F4FF@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> The Books Online article "Estimating the Size of a Table" gives you the
> method to estimate the size of a table. Using this method I estimated the
> size for one table. However after populating that table with data, I used
> sp_spaceused to find out the space used by this particular table, but to
my
> surprise I found big difference between the value given by method
"Estimating
> the Size of a Table" and sp_spaceused stored procedure. I also passed
> updateusage parameter as true. Can anybody throw some light on why such
> difference is found between these values?
> Regards,
> Vaibhavsql

Difference between the estimated size and size given by sp_spaceus

Hi,
The Books Online article "Estimating the Size of a Table" gives you the
method to estimate the size of a table. Using this method I estimated the
size for one table. However after populating that table with data, I used
sp_spaceused to find out the space used by this particular table, but to my
surprise I found big difference between the value given by method "Estimating
the Size of a Table" and sp_spaceused stored procedure. I also passed
updateusage parameter as true. Can anybody throw some light on why such
difference is found between these values?
Regards,
Vaibhav
Vaibhav
Try UPDATE STATISTICS and then run sp_spaceused.
"Vaibhav" <Vaibhav@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:310A97C9-498D-4C12-B92A-F8C53814F4FF@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> The Books Online article "Estimating the Size of a Table" gives you the
> method to estimate the size of a table. Using this method I estimated the
> size for one table. However after populating that table with data, I used
> sp_spaceused to find out the space used by this particular table, but to
my
> surprise I found big difference between the value given by method
"Estimating
> the Size of a Table" and sp_spaceused stored procedure. I also passed
> updateusage parameter as true. Can anybody throw some light on why such
> difference is found between these values?
> Regards,
> Vaibhav
|||> The Books Online article "Estimating the Size of a Table" gives you the
> method to estimate the size of a table. Using this method I estimated the
> size for one table. However after populating that table with data, I used
> sp_spaceused to find out the space used by this particular table, but to
my
> surprise I found big difference between the value given by method
"Estimating
> the Size of a Table" and sp_spaceused stored procedure. I also passed
> updateusage parameter as true. Can anybody throw some light on why such
> difference is found between these values?
Have you counted the indexes? Do you have variable length data types?
What are actal numbers?
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
|||Well, do you have any variable-length data (VARCHAR, VARBINARY, TEXT,
IMAGE)? How many of them are populated to the maximum capacity, how many
are NULL (or empty string), how many have valid data? What kind of indexes
do you have? What is the "big difference", 10%, 50%?
This is my signature. It is a general reminder.
Please post DDL, sample data and desired results.
See http://www.aspfaq.com/5006 for info.
"Vaibhav" <Vaibhav@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:310A97C9-498D-4C12-B92A-F8C53814F4FF@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> The Books Online article "Estimating the Size of a Table" gives you the
> method to estimate the size of a table. Using this method I estimated the
> size for one table. However after populating that table with data, I used
> sp_spaceused to find out the space used by this particular table, but to
my
> surprise I found big difference between the value given by method
"Estimating
> the Size of a Table" and sp_spaceused stored procedure. I also passed
> updateusage parameter as true. Can anybody throw some light on why such
> difference is found between these values?
> Regards,
> Vaibhav

difference between table relations and foreign keys?

I've bought a book about ASP.NET with SQL Server 2000.
In one chapter, they talk about setting relations between tables, and in
another, about setting foreign keys.
But I can't understand the difference, as the purpose seems to be the same:
navigating from a parent table to a child one, and vice-versa.
Am I missing something?
Thanks!
HenriUnless you can show more detailed context, I think they are talking about
the exact same thing. A relationship is a bit more abstract; a foreign key
represents the implementation-specific way that a child row is connected to
a parent row.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Henri" <hmfireball@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23nSPik0TEHA.3828@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I've bought a book about ASP.NET with SQL Server 2000.
> In one chapter, they talk about setting relations between tables, and in
> another, about setting foreign keys.
> But I can't understand the difference, as the purpose seems to be the
> same:
> navigating from a parent table to a child one, and vice-versa.
> Am I missing something?
> Thanks!
> Henri
>
>|||Actually, the first chapter is about the DataRelation class, and
DataTable.ChildRelations(String) and DataRow.GetChildRows(DataRelation).
The second chapter is about ForeignKeyConstraint Class
The only difference I see is that a foreign key allows to define cascade
update and delete rules.
Actually, ASP.NET permits to define many things like indexes, primary keys,
relations, etc. but I thought that this had to be done on SQL Server, not
from ASP.NET.
That's why I'm a bit lost :-)
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> a crit dans le messag
e de
news:ORWb%23o0TEHA.2416@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Unless you can show more detailed context, I think they are talking about
> the exact same thing. A relationship is a bit more abstract; a foreign
key
> represents the implementation-specific way that a child row is connected
to
> a parent row.
> --
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
> (Reverse address to reply.)
>
>
> "Henri" <hmfireball@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23nSPik0TEHA.3828@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>|||What you are reading about is Data Sets in ADO.Net. The
relations and constraints you define in a data set are
different and separate from relations and constraints in the
database. In ADO.Net, you can create something similar to a
database - tables (data tables), relationships (using the
DataRelation class), constraints (such as with the
ForeignKeyConstraint class). It's not the same thing as the
database you may be accessing for the data in the data sets.
For ADO.Net, you can find more information on how relations
and constraints work together, differently in .Net Framework
documentation. Check the remarks section of the definition
of the DataRelation class.
-Sue
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:40:00 +0200, "Henri"
<hmfireball@.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Actually, the first chapter is about the DataRelation class, and
>DataTable.ChildRelations(String) and DataRow.GetChildRows(DataRelation).
>The second chapter is about ForeignKeyConstraint Class
>The only difference I see is that a foreign key allows to define cascade
>update and delete rules.
>Actually, ASP.NET permits to define many things like indexes, primary keys,
>relations, etc. but I thought that this had to be done on SQL Server, not
>from ASP.NET.
>That's why I'm a bit lost :-)
>
>"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> a crit dans le messa
ge de
>news:ORWb%23o0TEHA.2416@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>key
>to
>|||Hi,
Within ADO.Net, a Foreign Key Constaint is a subtype of the Data Relation. T
he FKC in ADO.Net behaves in a similar manner to a FKC within SQL Server, bu
t it is a constraint on the Data Set, not the database, which can be an impo
rtant consideration.
A Data Relation has additonal functionality that is not provided by the FKC,
( I think one is providing the Child Rows in the Data Set to a particular M
aster row.) I suggest you have a look at the class definitions and examine t
he different methods and pr
operties each suppiles

difference between table relations and foreign keys?

I've bought a book about ASP.NET with SQL Server 2000.
In one chapter, they talk about setting relations between tables, and in
another, about setting foreign keys.
But I can't understand the difference, as the purpose seems to be the same:
navigating from a parent table to a child one, and vice-versa.
Am I missing something?
Thanks!
HenriUnless you can show more detailed context, I think they are talking about
the exact same thing. A relationship is a bit more abstract; a foreign key
represents the implementation-specific way that a child row is connected to
a parent row.
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Henri" <hmfireball@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23nSPik0TEHA.3828@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I've bought a book about ASP.NET with SQL Server 2000.
> In one chapter, they talk about setting relations between tables, and in
> another, about setting foreign keys.
> But I can't understand the difference, as the purpose seems to be the
> same:
> navigating from a parent table to a child one, and vice-versa.
> Am I missing something?
> Thanks!
> Henri
>
>|||Actually, the first chapter is about the DataRelation class, and
DataTable.ChildRelations(String) and DataRow.GetChildRows(DataRelation).
The second chapter is about ForeignKeyConstraint Class
The only difference I see is that a foreign key allows to define cascade
update and delete rules.
Actually, ASP.NET permits to define many things like indexes, primary keys,
relations, etc. but I thought that this had to be done on SQL Server, not
from ASP.NET.
That's why I'm a bit lost :-)
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> a écrit dans le message de
news:ORWb%23o0TEHA.2416@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Unless you can show more detailed context, I think they are talking about
> the exact same thing. A relationship is a bit more abstract; a foreign
key
> represents the implementation-specific way that a child row is connected
to
> a parent row.
> --
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
> (Reverse address to reply.)
>
>
> "Henri" <hmfireball@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23nSPik0TEHA.3828@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > I've bought a book about ASP.NET with SQL Server 2000.
> > In one chapter, they talk about setting relations between tables, and in
> > another, about setting foreign keys.
> > But I can't understand the difference, as the purpose seems to be the
> > same:
> > navigating from a parent table to a child one, and vice-versa.
> > Am I missing something?
> > Thanks!
> > Henri
> >
> >
> >
>
>|||What you are reading about is Data Sets in ADO.Net. The
relations and constraints you define in a data set are
different and separate from relations and constraints in the
database. In ADO.Net, you can create something similar to a
database - tables (data tables), relationships (using the
DataRelation class), constraints (such as with the
ForeignKeyConstraint class). It's not the same thing as the
database you may be accessing for the data in the data sets.
For ADO.Net, you can find more information on how relations
and constraints work together, differently in .Net Framework
documentation. Check the remarks section of the definition
of the DataRelation class.
-Sue
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:40:00 +0200, "Henri"
<hmfireball@.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Actually, the first chapter is about the DataRelation class, and
>DataTable.ChildRelations(String) and DataRow.GetChildRows(DataRelation).
>The second chapter is about ForeignKeyConstraint Class
>The only difference I see is that a foreign key allows to define cascade
>update and delete rules.
>Actually, ASP.NET permits to define many things like indexes, primary keys,
>relations, etc. but I thought that this had to be done on SQL Server, not
>from ASP.NET.
>That's why I'm a bit lost :-)
>
>"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> a écrit dans le message de
>news:ORWb%23o0TEHA.2416@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Unless you can show more detailed context, I think they are talking about
>> the exact same thing. A relationship is a bit more abstract; a foreign
>key
>> represents the implementation-specific way that a child row is connected
>to
>> a parent row.
>> --
>> http://www.aspfaq.com/
>> (Reverse address to reply.)
>>
>>
>> "Henri" <hmfireball@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23nSPik0TEHA.3828@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> > I've bought a book about ASP.NET with SQL Server 2000.
>> > In one chapter, they talk about setting relations between tables, and in
>> > another, about setting foreign keys.
>> > But I can't understand the difference, as the purpose seems to be the
>> > same:
>> > navigating from a parent table to a child one, and vice-versa.
>> > Am I missing something?
>> > Thanks!
>> > Henri
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>|||Hi
Within ADO.Net, a Foreign Key Constaint is a subtype of the Data Relation. The FKC in ADO.Net behaves in a similar manner to a FKC within SQL Server, but it is a constraint on the Data Set, not the database, which can be an important consideration
A Data Relation has additonal functionality that is not provided by the FKC, ( I think one is providing the Child Rows in the Data Set to a particular Master row.) I suggest you have a look at the class definitions and examine the different methods and properties each suppiles|||Thanks for your help to both of you :-)
Just one last question:
If I define constraints and relations(diagrams) within SQL Server, can
ADO.NET retrieve them, so that I can use them without having to redefine
them when declaring the DataSet?
I'm currently checking the.NET doc and might find the answer by myself, but
if you know it, thank you for telling me :-)
Henri
"Henri" <hmfireball@.hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:%23nSPik0TEHA.3828@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I've bought a book about ASP.NET with SQL Server 2000.
> In one chapter, they talk about setting relations between tables, and in
> another, about setting foreign keys.
> But I can't understand the difference, as the purpose seems to be the
same:
> navigating from a parent table to a child one, and vice-versa.
> Am I missing something?
> Thanks!
> Henri
>
>|||AFAIK, not by itself. I'd be surprised if there weren't utilities available out there to generate this stuff
for you, though.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Henri" <hmfireball@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uvGyEt5TEHA.3420@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for your help to both of you :-)
> Just one last question:
> If I define constraints and relations(diagrams) within SQL Server, can
> ADO.NET retrieve them, so that I can use them without having to redefine
> them when declaring the DataSet?
> I'm currently checking the.NET doc and might find the answer by myself, but
> if you know it, thank you for telling me :-)
> Henri
> "Henri" <hmfireball@.hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:%23nSPik0TEHA.3828@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > I've bought a book about ASP.NET with SQL Server 2000.
> > In one chapter, they talk about setting relations between tables, and in
> > another, about setting foreign keys.
> > But I can't understand the difference, as the purpose seems to be the
> same:
> > navigating from a parent table to a child one, and vice-versa.
> > Am I missing something?
> > Thanks!
> > Henri
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>|||Thanks :)
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> a écrit
dans le message de news:eljMa15TEHA.1012@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> AFAIK, not by itself. I'd be surprised if there weren't utilities
available out there to generate this stuff
> for you, though.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Henri" <hmfireball@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uvGyEt5TEHA.3420@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Thanks for your help to both of you :-)
> > Just one last question:
> > If I define constraints and relations(diagrams) within SQL Server, can
> > ADO.NET retrieve them, so that I can use them without having to redefine
> > them when declaring the DataSet?
> > I'm currently checking the.NET doc and might find the answer by myself,
but
> > if you know it, thank you for telling me :-)
> > Henri
> >
> > "Henri" <hmfireball@.hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
> > news:%23nSPik0TEHA.3828@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > I've bought a book about ASP.NET with SQL Server 2000.
> > > In one chapter, they talk about setting relations between tables, and
in
> > > another, about setting foreign keys.
> > > But I can't understand the difference, as the purpose seems to be the
> > same:
> > > navigating from a parent table to a child one, and vice-versa.
> > > Am I missing something?
> > > Thanks!
> > > Henri
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

difference between table relations and foreign keys?

I've bought a book about ASP.NET with SQL Server 2000.
In one chapter, they talk about setting relations between tables, and in
another, about setting foreign keys.
But I can't understand the difference, as the purpose seems to be the same:
navigating from a parent table to a child one, and vice-versa.
Am I missing something?
Thanks!
Henri
Unless you can show more detailed context, I think they are talking about
the exact same thing. A relationship is a bit more abstract; a foreign key
represents the implementation-specific way that a child row is connected to
a parent row.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Henri" <hmfireball@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23nSPik0TEHA.3828@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I've bought a book about ASP.NET with SQL Server 2000.
> In one chapter, they talk about setting relations between tables, and in
> another, about setting foreign keys.
> But I can't understand the difference, as the purpose seems to be the
> same:
> navigating from a parent table to a child one, and vice-versa.
> Am I missing something?
> Thanks!
> Henri
>
>
|||Actually, the first chapter is about the DataRelation class, and
DataTable.ChildRelations(String) and DataRow.GetChildRows(DataRelation).
The second chapter is about ForeignKeyConstraint Class
The only difference I see is that a foreign key allows to define cascade
update and delete rules.
Actually, ASP.NET permits to define many things like indexes, primary keys,
relations, etc. but I thought that this had to be done on SQL Server, not
from ASP.NET.
That's why I'm a bit lost :-)
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> a crit dans le message de
news:ORWb%23o0TEHA.2416@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Unless you can show more detailed context, I think they are talking about
> the exact same thing. A relationship is a bit more abstract; a foreign
key
> represents the implementation-specific way that a child row is connected
to
> a parent row.
> --
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
> (Reverse address to reply.)
>
>
> "Henri" <hmfireball@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23nSPik0TEHA.3828@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>
|||What you are reading about is Data Sets in ADO.Net. The
relations and constraints you define in a data set are
different and separate from relations and constraints in the
database. In ADO.Net, you can create something similar to a
database - tables (data tables), relationships (using the
DataRelation class), constraints (such as with the
ForeignKeyConstraint class). It's not the same thing as the
database you may be accessing for the data in the data sets.
For ADO.Net, you can find more information on how relations
and constraints work together, differently in .Net Framework
documentation. Check the remarks section of the definition
of the DataRelation class.
-Sue
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:40:00 +0200, "Henri"
<hmfireball@.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Actually, the first chapter is about the DataRelation class, and
>DataTable.ChildRelations(String) and DataRow.GetChildRows(DataRelation).
>The second chapter is about ForeignKeyConstraint Class
>The only difference I see is that a foreign key allows to define cascade
>update and delete rules.
>Actually, ASP.NET permits to define many things like indexes, primary keys,
>relations, etc. but I thought that this had to be done on SQL Server, not
>from ASP.NET.
>That's why I'm a bit lost :-)
>
>"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> a crit dans le message de
>news:ORWb%23o0TEHA.2416@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>key
>to
>
|||Hi,
Within ADO.Net, a Foreign Key Constaint is a subtype of the Data Relation. The FKC in ADO.Net behaves in a similar manner to a FKC within SQL Server, but it is a constraint on the Data Set, not the database, which can be an important consideration.
A Data Relation has additonal functionality that is not provided by the FKC, ( I think one is providing the Child Rows in the Data Set to a particular Master row.) I suggest you have a look at the class definitions and examine the different methods and pr
operties each suppiles

difference between SYSTEM_USER and USER

Excuse me, what is the difference between user and system_user and which
function should be used in audit trail table ?
Thanks.Hi

From BOL:
"If the current user is logged in to Microsoft SQL ServerT using Windows
Authentication, SYSTEM_USER returns the Windows 2000 or Windows NT 4.0 login
identification name, for example, DOMAIN\user_login_name. However, if the
current user is logged in to SQL Server using SQL Server Authentication,
SYSTEM_USER returns the SQL Server login identification name, for example,
sa for a user logged in as sa."

USER only works with SQL Security.
--
----------
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland

IM: mike@.epprecht.net

MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp

Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/

"Zlatko Mati" <zlatko.matic1@.sb.t-com.hr> wrote in message
news:d1i9uh$j37$1@.ls219.htnet.hr...
> Excuse me, what is the difference between user and system_user and which
> function should be used in audit trail table ?
> Thanks.|||I have noticed that system_user returns "sa" while user returns "dbo". What
is the difference and which to use in audit trail table?
Thanks.

"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> je napisao u poruci interesnoj
grupi:423cc1f1_3@.news.bluewin.ch...
> Hi
> From BOL:
> "If the current user is logged in to Microsoft SQL ServerT using Windows
> Authentication, SYSTEM_USER returns the Windows 2000 or Windows NT 4.0
> login
> identification name, for example, DOMAIN\user_login_name. However, if the
> current user is logged in to SQL Server using SQL Server Authentication,
> SYSTEM_USER returns the SQL Server login identification name, for example,
> sa for a user logged in as sa."
> USER only works with SQL Security.
> --
> ----------
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Zlatko Mati" <zlatko.matic1@.sb.t-com.hr> wrote in message
> news:d1i9uh$j37$1@.ls219.htnet.hr...
>> Excuse me, what is the difference between user and system_user and which
>> function should be used in audit trail table ?
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>|||Zlatko Mati (zlatko.matic1@.sb.t-com.hr) writes:
> Excuse me, what is the difference between user and system_user and which
> function should be used in audit trail table ?

Depends on your business requirements.

SYSTEM_USER returns the server login, USER returns the database user. Often
a login maps to a database user with the same name, but at least for SQL
logins this does not have to be the case. (And I think it can happen with
Window logins as well, if you move a database from one server to
another.)

As a general answer, I would recommend SYSTEM_USER, unless there are some
special requirements that calls for something else.

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

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.aspsql

Difference between supress and hide

When we write ckick on the crystal report-insert-section we will have several option to choose but what is the difference between Hide(Driil=Down ok) and Supress(No Drill-Down)??
I tried the help but I did'nt get the idea...good question!!! I've already search that but still no answer. They are the same in function, the only difference is the group tree when you view the report.|||I thought the help was quite clear - suppress if you don't want it at all, hide if you don't want it displayed initially but do want to be able to click on the item in the group tree and see the data therein.|||Ok,Igot the point:
if ur secton detail is between a group header and a group footer ,when u hide the section detail at run time if u double-click a ligne u will have the detail but if u supressed u will not have the detail,,try it u will understand better....

Difference between STDEV & STDEVP

Can somebody please compare these 2 functions for me and explain with an example?

Thank You

You can find detailed description here (the second article has an example):

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/assistance/HP010322691033.aspx

http://www.beyondtechnology.com/tips016.shtml

Quote:

STDEV is used when the group of numbers being evaluated are only a partial sampling of the whole population. The denominator for dividing the sum of squared deviations is N-1, where N is the number of observations ( a count of items in the data set ). Technically, subtracting the 1 is referred to as "non-biased."
STDEVP is used when the group of numbers being evaluated is complete - it's the entire population of values. In this case, the 1 is NOT subtracted and the denominator for dividing the sum of squared deviations is simply N itself, the number of observations ( a count of items in the data set ). Technically, this is referred to as "biased." Remembering that the P in STDEVP stands for "population" may be helpful. Since the data set is not a mere sample, but constituted of ALL the actual values, this standard deviation function can return a more precise result.

Difference between Standard and Enterprise Edition

Where can I find about differences between two edition. I need to advise thi
s
for a customer who would be quering over the WANHi
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editio...rd/default.mspx
"Tariq" <Tariq@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FF73CE26-9939-4621-83B9-67222E648CE9@.microsoft.com...
> Where can I find about differences between two edition. I need to advise
> this
> for a customer who would be quering over the WAN

Difference between Standard and Enterprise Edition

Where can I find about differences between two edition. I need to advise this
for a customer who would be quering over the WANHi
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/standard/default.mspx
"Tariq" <Tariq@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FF73CE26-9939-4621-83B9-67222E648CE9@.microsoft.com...
> Where can I find about differences between two edition. I need to advise
> this
> for a customer who would be quering over the WANsql

Difference between Standard and Enterprise Edition

Where can I find about differences between two edition. I need to advise this
for a customer who would be quering over the WAN
Hi
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/edition...d/default.mspx
"Tariq" <Tariq@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FF73CE26-9939-4621-83B9-67222E648CE9@.microsoft.com...
> Where can I find about differences between two edition. I need to advise
> this
> for a customer who would be quering over the WAN

Difference between SSIS and Biztalk

Hi

Can anybody please tell me the basic differences between Biztalk and SSIS and when to choose which technology over other?

Regards,

Sandeep Saran

SSIS is just a small piece of BizTalk. BizTalk is more Business to Business (B2B). SSIS is more simply, data integration.

I suggest you read the documentation for each on Microsoft's site to make your own judgments:
BizTalk
SSIS|||

I asked this question from a Microsoft tech evangelist and I will try and paraphrase the reply:

Biztalk is a "messaging" application basically. It is designed and optomized to move single transactions (called "messages", and consisting of relatively tiny amounts of data in each discrete "message") between different systems or processes in real time. It wraps all user data in XML. As a result, it is extremely verbose during the data movement. It is not fast and would not be very satisfactory to manipulate large data sets using batch processing. Performance would be abysmal most likely.

Whereas SSIS _is_ designed specifically to move and manipulate large datasets using extremely high performance batch processing...

|||

kenambrose wrote:

I asked this question from a Microsoft tech evangelist and I will try and paraphrase the reply:

Biztalk is a "messaging" application basically. It is designed and optomized to move single transactions (called "messages", and consisting of relatively tiny amounts of data in each discrete "message") between different systems or processes in real time. It wraps all user data in XML. As a result, it is extremely verbose during the data movement. It is not fast and would not be very satisfactory to manipulate large data sets using batch processing. Performance would be abysmal most likely.

Whereas SSIS _is_ designed specifically to move and manipulate large datasets using extremely high performance batch processing...

Think EDI - Electronic Data Interchange|||

Sandeep Saran wrote:

Hi

Can anybody please tell me the basic differences between Biztalk and SSIS and when to choose which technology over other?

Start with this whitepaper describing possible approaches:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/biztalk/2004/whitepapers/integration.mspx

Difference between SQL2k Enterprise & Developer editions?

What are the Differences between those two SQL versions
i mean except that with in the developer edition only 1 user can login

on what version is it better to develop ?
does the developer ver. include something that the entprise does not ? (or vice versa)
(say in theory i can choose on which version to work ;-))

thanx, max.Directly from Microsoft's site:

Developer edition is designed to allow developers to build any type of application on top of SQL Server. It includes all the functionality of Enterprise Edition but with a special development and test end-user license agreement (EULA) that prohibits production deployment. It is the ideal choice for Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), consultants, system integrators, solution providers, and corporate developers developing and testing applications because it is cost effective, runs on a variety of platforms, and can be upgraded for production use to SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition.

It is the only edition of SQL Server 2000 that gives the licensee the right to download and install SQL Server 2000 Windows CE Edition (SQL Server CE). The Developer Edition licensee also has the right to redistribute SQL Server CE-based applications to an unlimited number of devices at no additional cost beyond the purchase price of SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition.|||SQL Server 2000 has the following editions:

Personal Edition
Standard Edition
Enterprise Edition
Developer Edition
Desktop Engine
SQL Server CE
Evaluation Edition

Personal Edition can work on the Windows 98, Windows NT Server 4.0 with Service Pack 5 or later, Windows NT Workstation 4.0 with Service Pack 5 or later and on the all editions of Windows 2000. This edition is related to SQL Server 7.0 Desktop Edition.

This edition has some restrictions:

maximum 2 CPU
no Distributed Partitioned Views
no Log Shipping
no Parallel DBCC
no Parallel index creation
no Failover clustering
no publishing for transaction replication
maximum 2Gb RAM

Standard Edition can work on the Windows NT Server 4.0 with Service Pack 5, Windows NT Server 4.0 Enterprise Edition and on the Windows 2000 Server/Advanced Server/DataCenter.

This edition has the following restrictions:

maximum 4 CPU (up to 8 CPU on the Windows NT Enterprise Edition)
no Distributed Partitioned Views
no Log Shipping
no Parallel index creation
no Failover clustering
maximum 2Gb RAM

Enterprise Edition can work on the Windows NT Server 4.0 with Service Pack 5, Windows NT Server 4.0 Enterprise Edition and on the Windows 2000 Server/Advanced Server/DataCenter.

This edition can use:

up to 32 CPU on the Windows 2000 DataCenter up to 8 CPU on the Windows 2000 Advanced Server and on the Windows NT Server 4.0 Enterprise Edition up to 4 CPU on the Windows NT Server 4.0 and on the Windows 2000 Server
up to 64Gb RAM on the Windows 2000 DataCenter up to 8 Gb RAM on the Windows 2000 Advanced Server up to 4 Gb RAM on the Windows 2000 Server up to 3 Gb RAM on the Windows NT Server 4.0 Enterprise Edition up to 2 Gb RAM on the Windows NT Server 4.0
Distributed Partitioned Views
Log Shipping
Parallel index creation
Failover clustering
The Developer Edition can be used by developers to create and debug stored procedures and triggers. This edition comes with its own compact disc and can be upgraded to SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition.

The Desktop Engine has no graphical user interface and is related to the MSDE, not to the SQL Server 7.0 Desktop Edition. The size of Desktop Engine databases cannot exceed 2 GB. The Desktop Engine can use maximum 2 CPU.

The SQL Server CE edition can work only on the Microsoft Windows CE, so it has all restrictions of this operation system (can use only 1 CPU, no Parallel index creation, no Full-Text Search and so on).

The Evaluation Edition can be used only for the test purposes to learn more about the new features and enhancements and should be uninstalled after a 120-day evaluation period.

difference between sql2k and sql2005

is there a good article or book or faq which highlights the
differences between sql2k and sql2005?
tia,
dkYes. 2005 Books Online details the differences pretty explicitly. Be
prepared to spend several hours, because the information is several hundred
pages deep.
--
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.
"dk" <dk@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:215A1B80-81D1-4788-96A2-A63153EEB5C1@.microsoft.com...
> is there a good article or book or faq which highlights the
> differences between sql2k and sql2005?
> tia,
> dk|||There is no simple answer as 2005 is a major upgrade and there are lots of
new features. One of the most interesting features involves CLR integration,
which lets you can code your stored procedures, functions, and triggers in
the .NET Framework language of your choice. Microsoft Visual Basic .NET and
the C#. Another major new feature is Database Mirroring and a complete
rewrite of DTS. DTS is now called SSIS (SQL Server Integration Services )
Lots of new features in reporting services and Business Intelligence. See
www.sqlservercentral for a bunch of great articles on 2005.
For the Microsoft perspective see
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/overview/whats-new-in-sqlserver2005.mspx
"dk" wrote:
> is there a good article or book or faq which highlights the
> differences between sql2k and sql2005?
> tia,
> dk|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--020109090507080508080807
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In addition, Michael Otey (the Technical Director for SQLMag) wrote a
book about a year & a half ago (so it will be based on a Beta version I
think) published by Osborne called Microsoft SQL Server 2005 New
Features
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0072227761/sr=1-1/qid=1138921308/ref=sr_1_1/102-3661316-4174542?%5Fencoding=UTF8>.
I haven't read it myself but it sounds like it might be right up your alley.
--
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
Michael Hotek wrote:
>Yes. 2005 Books Online details the differences pretty explicitly. Be
>prepared to spend several hours, because the information is several hundred
>pages deep.
>
>
--020109090507080508080807
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>In addition, Michael Otey (the Technical Director for </tt><tt>SQLMag</tt><tt>)
wrote a book about a year & a half ago (so it will be based on a
Beta version I think) published by Osborne called <a
href="http://links.10026.com/?link=Microsoft">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0072227761/sr=1-1/qid=1138921308/ref=sr_1_1/102-3661316-4174542?%5Fencoding=UTF8">Microsoft
SQL Server 2005 New Features</a>. I haven't read it myself but it
sounds like it might be right up your alley.</tt><br>
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<p><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">--<br>
</font></span> <b><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">mike
hodgson</font></span></b><span lang="en-au"><br>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>
</p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
Michael Hotek wrote:
<blockquote cite="midesC9ngBKGHA.3728@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Yes. 2005 Books Online details the differences pretty explicitly. Be
prepared to spend several hours, because the information is several hundred
pages deep.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--020109090507080508080807--

difference between sql2k and sql2005

is there a good article or book or faq which highlights the
differences between sql2k and sql2005?
tia,
dkYes. 2005 Books Online details the differences pretty explicitly. Be
prepared to spend several hours, because the information is several hundred
pages deep.
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.
"dk" <dk@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:215A1B80-81D1-4788-96A2-A63153EEB5C1@.microsoft.com...
> is there a good article or book or faq which highlights the
> differences between sql2k and sql2005?
> tia,
> dk|||There is no simple answer as 2005 is a major upgrade and there are lots of
new features. One of the most interesting features involves CLR integration
,
which lets you can code your stored procedures, functions, and triggers in
the .NET Framework language of your choice. Microsoft Visual Basic .NET and
the C#. Another major new feature is Database Mirroring and a complete
rewrite of DTS. DTS is now called SSIS (SQL Server Integration Services )
Lots of new features in reporting services and Business Intelligence. See
www.sqlservercentral for a bunch of great articles on 2005.
For the Microsoft perspective see
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/overview/whats-new-in-sqlserver2005.mspx[/ur
l]
"dk" wrote:

> is there a good article or book or faq which highlights the
> differences between sql2k and sql2005?
> tia,
> dk|||In addition, Michael Otey (the Technical Director for SQLMag) wrote a
book about a year & a half ago (so it will be based on a Beta version I
think) published by Osborne called Microsoft SQL Server 2005 New
Features
<3661316-4174542?%5Fencoding=UTF8" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/00...5Fencoding=UTF8>.
I haven't read it myself but it sounds like it might be right up your alley.
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
Michael Hotek wrote:

>Yes. 2005 Books Online details the differences pretty explicitly. Be
>prepared to spend several hours, because the information is several hundred
>pages deep.
>
>sql

difference between sql2k and sql2005

is there a good article or book or faq which highlights the
differences between sql2k and sql2005?
tia,
dk
Yes. 2005 Books Online details the differences pretty explicitly. Be
prepared to spend several hours, because the information is several hundred
pages deep.
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.
"dk" <dk@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:215A1B80-81D1-4788-96A2-A63153EEB5C1@.microsoft.com...
> is there a good article or book or faq which highlights the
> differences between sql2k and sql2005?
> tia,
> dk
|||There is no simple answer as 2005 is a major upgrade and there are lots of
new features. One of the most interesting features involves CLR integration,
which lets you can code your stored procedures, functions, and triggers in
the .NET Framework language of your choice. Microsoft Visual Basic .NET and
the C#. Another major new feature is Database Mirroring and a complete
rewrite of DTS. DTS is now called SSIS (SQL Server Integration Services )
Lots of new features in reporting services and Business Intelligence. See
www.sqlservercentral for a bunch of great articles on 2005.
For the Microsoft perspective see
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...erver2005.mspx
"dk" wrote:

> is there a good article or book or faq which highlights the
> differences between sql2k and sql2005?
> tia,
> dk
|||In addition, Michael Otey (the Technical Director for SQLMag) wrote a
book about a year & a half ago (so it will be based on a Beta version I
think) published by Osborne called Microsoft SQL Server 2005 New
Features
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/007...Fencoding=UTF8>.
I haven't read it myself but it sounds like it might be right up your alley.
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
Michael Hotek wrote:

>Yes. 2005 Books Online details the differences pretty explicitly. Be
>prepared to spend several hours, because the information is several hundred
>pages deep.
>
>

difference between SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS and Latin1_General

Hello
I need to know the difference between SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS and
Latin1_General_CI_AS please. which is better?
Thank for any help.
Hi,
these two collation are simply different. Collation is an order
classification.
Just try the following to have an idea of one difference between the
two orders :
SELECT case when ('ab' COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS) > ('a-b'
COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS) then 0 else 1 end
SELECT case when ('ab' COLLATE Latin1_General_CI_AS) > ('a-b' COLLATE
Latin1_General_CI_AS) then 0 else 1 end
None is better, just the one you need ;).
Enjoy,
Cdric Del Nibbio
MCP since 2003
MCAD .NET
MCTS SQL Server 2005
On 15 dc, 15:24, sqlextreme <sqlextr...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
> Hello
> I need to know the difference between SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS and
> Latin1_General_CI_AS please. which is better?
> Thank for any help.
|||Hi thank you,
This is the only difference? nothig about location or language?
Thank again
"Cédric Del Nibbio" wrote:

> Hi,
> these two collation are simply different. Collation is an order
> classification.
> Just try the following to have an idea of one difference between the
> two orders :
> SELECT case when ('ab' COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS) > ('a-b'
> COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS) then 0 else 1 end
> SELECT case when ('ab' COLLATE Latin1_General_CI_AS) > ('a-b' COLLATE
> Latin1_General_CI_AS) then 0 else 1 end
> None is better, just the one you need ;).
> Enjoy,
> Cédric Del Nibbio
> MCP since 2003
> MCAD .NET
> MCTS SQL Server 2005
>
> On 15 déc, 15:24, sqlextreme <sqlextr...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
|||Well, as far as I know, the two standards are kept for compatibility
reasons.
Both collations seem to allow every western europe character sets.
Using french character sets and english ones, I've never noticed any
problem in either one or the other collation.
However, I know that, according to the localization, you should get the
"-" before the "a" or after the "z"... Thus, the choice is linked to
the localization...
As an example, in France, we consider the "-" as a space so before the
"a".
Hope this will help you.
Cdric Del Nibbio
MCP since 2003
MCAD .NET
MCTS SQL Server 2005
sqlextreme a crit :
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi thank you,
> This is the only difference? nothig about location or language?
> Thank again
> "Cdric Del Nibbio" wrote:
|||Thank you very much for any help.
"sqlextreme" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi thank you,
> This is the only difference? nothig about location or language?
> Thank again
> "Cédric Del Nibbio" wrote:

difference between SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS and Latin1_General

Hello
I need to know the difference between SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS and
Latin1_General_CI_AS please. which is better?
Thank for any help.Hi,
these two collation are simply different. Collation is an order
classification.
Just try the following to have an idea of one difference between the
two orders :
SELECT case when ('ab' COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS) > ('a-b'
COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS) then 0 else 1 end
SELECT case when ('ab' COLLATE Latin1_General_CI_AS) > ('a-b' COLLATE
Latin1_General_CI_AS) then 0 else 1 end
None is better, just the one you need ;).
Enjoy,
C=E9dric Del Nibbio
MCP since 2003
MCAD .NET
MCTS SQL Server 2005
On 15 d=E9c, 15:24, sqlextreme <sqlextr...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
> Hello
> I need to know the difference between SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS and
> Latin1_General_CI_AS please. which is better?
>=20
> Thank for any help.

difference between SQL standard Edition and Enterprise Edition

Hi, there,

We are running SQL 2000 & SP4 with our ASP.NET application, now we plan to upgrade to Enterprise Edition due to the huge diffirence in price. Can any one of u give an brief introduction of the difference between these two, and what is the advantages of enterprise edition?

Any suggestion will greately appreciated.

Shermaine

There's a good comparison of the various versions of SQL Server here:-

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx

|||

shermaine wrote:

now we plan to upgrade to Enterprise Edition due to the huge diffirence in price.

That seems logical.

Difference between SQL Server Express Utility and SQL Server ServerManagement Studio Expre

What is the main difference between SQL Server Express Utility and SQL
Server Server Management Studio Express? Can they both be used to
connect to SQL Server 2005 databases? Which one do you folks prefer?
Thanks,
J.S.
J.S. wrote:
> What is the main difference between SQL Server Express Utility and SQL
> Server Server Management Studio Express? Can they both be used to
> connect to SQL Server 2005 databases? Which one do you folks prefer?
> Thanks,
> J.S.
I think the overview on this page says it all:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=C243A5AE-4BD1-4E3D-94B8-5A0F62BF7796
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com
|||Tracy McKibben wrote:
> I think the overview on this page says it all:
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=C243A5AE-4BD1-4E3D-94B8-5A0F62BF7796
It mentions about the SSMSE but not about the SQL Server Express Utility.
Thanks,
J.S.
|||J.S. wrote:
> Tracy McKibben wrote:
>
> It mentions about the SSMSE but not about the SQL Server Express Utility.
> Thanks,
> J.S.
My mistake, I thought you were comparing the Express GUI to the full
product. Isn't the Utility product a command-line tool?
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com
|||Tracy McKibben wrote:
> My mistake, I thought you were comparing the Express GUI to the full
> product. Isn't the Utility product a command-line tool?
It might well be. I have only been using SSMSE but I'll install the
utility tool and see how it works.
Thanks,
J.S.
|||SSEUtil is a command line tool designed mainly to allow you to work with
User Instances. The other tools can't start up a user instance for example
but must attach to a running instance so if you are going to use the
standard SQL Server tools you may have to use SSEUtil to start up the user
instance first. There's more information on user instances here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsse/html/sqlexpuserinst.asp
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"J.S." <jss@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ot3c83JGHHA.2464@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Tracy McKibben wrote:
> It might well be. I have only been using SSMSE but I'll install the
> utility tool and see how it works.
> Thanks,
> J.S.
sql

Difference between SQL Server Express Utility and SQL Server Server

What is the main difference between SQL Server Express Utility and SQL
Server Server Management Studio Express? Can they both be used to
connect to SQL Server 2005 databases? Which one do you folks prefer?
Thanks,
J.S.J.S. wrote:
> What is the main difference between SQL Server Express Utility and SQL
> Server Server Management Studio Express? Can they both be used to
> connect to SQL Server 2005 databases? Which one do you folks prefer?
> Thanks,
> J.S.
I think the overview on this page says it all:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=C243A5AE-4BD1-4E3D-94B8-5A0F62BF7796
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Tracy McKibben wrote:
> I think the overview on this page says it all:
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=C243A5AE-4BD1-4E3D-94B8-5A0F62BF7796
It mentions about the SSMSE but not about the SQL Server Express Utility.
Thanks,
J.S.|||J.S. wrote:
> Tracy McKibben wrote:
>> I think the overview on this page says it all:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=C243A5AE-4BD1-4E3D-94B8-5A0F62BF7796
>
> It mentions about the SSMSE but not about the SQL Server Express Utility.
> Thanks,
> J.S.
My mistake, I thought you were comparing the Express GUI to the full
product. Isn't the Utility product a command-line tool?
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Tracy McKibben wrote:
> My mistake, I thought you were comparing the Express GUI to the full
> product. Isn't the Utility product a command-line tool?
It might well be. I have only been using SSMSE but I'll install the
utility tool and see how it works.
Thanks,
J.S.|||SSEUtil is a command line tool designed mainly to allow you to work with
User Instances. The other tools can't start up a user instance for example
but must attach to a running instance so if you are going to use the
standard SQL Server tools you may have to use SSEUtil to start up the user
instance first. There's more information on user instances here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsse/html/sqlexpuserinst.asp
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"J.S." <jss@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ot3c83JGHHA.2464@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Tracy McKibben wrote:
>> My mistake, I thought you were comparing the Express GUI to the full
>> product. Isn't the Utility product a command-line tool?
> It might well be. I have only been using SSMSE but I'll install the
> utility tool and see how it works.
> Thanks,
> J.S.

Difference between SQL Server 2000 and 2005

Hi,
I would like to know new features available in SQL Server 2005, compared to
those available in SQL Server 2000.See the SQL 2005 Books Online topic "What's New in SQL Server 2005":
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms130214.aspx
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Viraj Rao" <Viraj Rao@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6DE0DDDD-FBF2-43D4-84D0-3954BC17AC87@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I would like to know new features available in SQL Server 2005, compared
> to
> those available in SQL Server 2000.|||http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms170363.aspx
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Viraj Rao" <Viraj Rao@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6DE0DDDD-FBF2-43D4-84D0-3954BC17AC87@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I would like to know new features available in SQL Server 2005, compared t
o
> those available in SQL Server 2000.

Difference between SQL Server 2000 and 2005

Hi,
I would like to know new features available in SQL Server 2005, compared to
those available in SQL Server 2000.See the SQL 2005 Books Online topic "What's New in SQL Server 2005":
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms130214.aspx
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Viraj Rao" <Viraj Rao@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6DE0DDDD-FBF2-43D4-84D0-3954BC17AC87@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I would like to know new features available in SQL Server 2005, compared
> to
> those available in SQL Server 2000.|||http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms170363.aspx
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Viraj Rao" <Viraj Rao@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6DE0DDDD-FBF2-43D4-84D0-3954BC17AC87@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I would like to know new features available in SQL Server 2005, compared to
> those available in SQL Server 2000.

Difference between SQL Server 2000 and 2005

Hi,
I would like to know new features available in SQL Server 2005, compared to
those available in SQL Server 2000.
See the SQL 2005 Books Online topic "What's New in SQL Server 2005":
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms130214.aspx
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Viraj Rao" <Viraj Rao@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6DE0DDDD-FBF2-43D4-84D0-3954BC17AC87@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I would like to know new features available in SQL Server 2005, compared
> to
> those available in SQL Server 2000.
|||http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms170363.aspx
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Viraj Rao" <Viraj Rao@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6DE0DDDD-FBF2-43D4-84D0-3954BC17AC87@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I would like to know new features available in SQL Server 2005, compared to
> those available in SQL Server 2000.

Difference between sql 6.5 and 7.0

Hi,
I have a sql server 7.0 with some databases with
compatibility level 6.5.
I want to "upgrade" those databases to compatibility level
7.0. What kind of problems should i expect ?
My developers are asking me for some document with the
programming differences between 6.5 and 7.0, something
that works fine in 6.5 but doesn't work in 7.0.
Thanks,
JCI think that there are about 90 pages in SQL Server 7.0 Books Online about compatibility issues
between 6.5 and 7.0. This is the place for your developers.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Julio Carvalho" <jc.carvalho@.terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:0d7501c3664e$cb490b70$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I have a sql server 7.0 with some databases with
> compatibility level 6.5.
> I want to "upgrade" those databases to compatibility level
> 7.0. What kind of problems should i expect ?
> My developers are asking me for some document with the
> programming differences between 6.5 and 7.0, something
> that works fine in 6.5 but doesn't work in 7.0.
> Thanks,
> JC|||Of course, the 90 pages covers lots of issues that don't apply in this case
since the database is already in SQL Server 7.0. The issues of importance
are those covered by sp_dbcmptlevel 65, and it's a pretty small list, though
it could be a lot of work to address the issues in some applications. Books
Online is definitely the place to go for this information.
--
Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
True Mountain Group LLC
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor.please_reply_to_public_forum.karaszi@.cornerstone.se>
wrote in message news:%23v4dzMlZDHA.388@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I think that there are about 90 pages in SQL Server 7.0 Books Online about
compatibility issues
> between 6.5 and 7.0. This is the place for your developers.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as
ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
>
> "Julio Carvalho" <jc.carvalho@.terra.com.br> wrote in message
> news:0d7501c3664e$cb490b70$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a sql server 7.0 with some databases with
> > compatibility level 6.5.
> >
> > I want to "upgrade" those databases to compatibility level
> > 7.0. What kind of problems should i expect ?
> >
> > My developers are asking me for some document with the
> > programming differences between 6.5 and 7.0, something
> > that works fine in 6.5 but doesn't work in 7.0.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > JC
>|||Ahh, thanks for catching that, Hal. Somewhere I missed the fact that it was already on 7.0...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Hal Berenson" <haroldb@.truemountainconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:%23kTObZtZDHA.1492@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Of course, the 90 pages covers lots of issues that don't apply in this case
> since the database is already in SQL Server 7.0. The issues of importance
> are those covered by sp_dbcmptlevel 65, and it's a pretty small list, though
> it could be a lot of work to address the issues in some applications. Books
> Online is definitely the place to go for this information.
> --
> Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
> True Mountain Group LLC
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor.please_reply_to_public_forum.karaszi@.cornerstone.se>
> wrote in message news:%23v4dzMlZDHA.388@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > I think that there are about 90 pages in SQL Server 7.0 Books Online about
> compatibility issues
> > between 6.5 and 7.0. This is the place for your developers.
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as
> ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
> >
> >
> > "Julio Carvalho" <jc.carvalho@.terra.com.br> wrote in message
> > news:0d7501c3664e$cb490b70$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have a sql server 7.0 with some databases with
> > > compatibility level 6.5.
> > >
> > > I want to "upgrade" those databases to compatibility level
> > > 7.0. What kind of problems should i expect ?
> > >
> > > My developers are asking me for some document with the
> > > programming differences between 6.5 and 7.0, something
> > > that works fine in 6.5 but doesn't work in 7.0.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > JC
> >
> >
>sql