sql record counts: asp

Showing posts with label asp. Show all posts

Thursday, March 29, 2012

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?

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.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Diff betw Clustered and Non-Clustered Index and their Applicat

Hi,
Thanks for the reply. One of the article
(http://www.sql-server-performance.c...red_indexes.asp) was the exact
one that confuses me.
It mentions...
"As a rule of thumb, every table should have a clustered index. Generally,
but not always, the clustered index should be on a column that monotonically
increases--such as an identity column, or some other column where the value
is increasing--and is unique. In many cases, the primary key is the ideal
column for a clustered index."
Which in my understanding basically says... Primary key should use clustered
index.
But in another paragraph...
"The primary key you select for your table should not always be a clustered
index. If you create the primary key and don't specify otherwise, this is th
e
default. Only make the primary key a clustered index if you will be regularl
y
performing range queries on the primary key or need your results sorted by
the primary key. [6.5, 7.0, 2000] Updated 3-5-2004"
They sound contradictory to me.
And on (http://www.sql-server-performance.c...red_indexes.asp), it
states
"If a column in a table is not at least 95% unique, then most likely the
query optimizer will not use a non-clustered index based on that column.
Because of this, don't add non-clustered indexes to columns that aren't at
least 95% unique. For example, a column with "yes" or "no" as the data won't
be at least 95% unique. [6.5, 7.0, 2000] Updated 3-4-2004"
Which sounds more logical to me.
1) Do you have general rule of thumb on this matter:
- clustered or non-clustered index for primary key?
- clustered or non-clustered index for foreign key?
2) Also does my understanding of the functions of clustered and
non-clustered index correct?
Could u please kindly advise. TQ again.
"Uri Dimant" wrote:

> Hi
> This is very,very big and important issue.
> Start with
> http://www.sql-server-performance.c...red_indexes.asp
> http://www.sql-server-performance.c...red_indexes.asp
> http://www.sql-server-performance.c...ing_indexes.asp
> "HardKhor" <HardKhor@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BABFB6D4-09F7-482B-89F9-DF10DFCF1242@.microsoft.com...
> the
> to
> clustered
> So
> column.
>
>1) Do you have general rule of thumb on this matter:
- clustered or non-clustered index for primary key?
- clustered or non-clustered index for foreign key?
It depends on your tables, data, and business requirements. In my opinion CI
is more efficient on a range queries as BETWEEN and greater,lower that
returns a set of data.NCI is more effcient to retrieve a few rows or single
row from the table.
You have to choose what column to be defined as primary key and on what
column create CI.
Yes, it is considered a good practice to create a NCI on foreign key to
improve JOIN performance.
2) Also does my understanding of the functions of clustered and
non-clustered index correct?

> Which in my understanding basically says... Primary key should use
clustered
> index.
Up to you.
"HardKhor" <HardKhor@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:05A5C898-E9AD-4B0F-9F43-E0E0BA75A9EA@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Thanks for the reply. One of the article
> (http://www.sql-server-performance.c...red_indexes.asp) was the
exact
> one that confuses me.
> It mentions...
> "As a rule of thumb, every table should have a clustered index. Generally,
> but not always, the clustered index should be on a column that
monotonically
> increases--such as an identity column, or some other column where the
value
> is increasing--and is unique. In many cases, the primary key is the ideal
> column for a clustered index."
> Which in my understanding basically says... Primary key should use
clustered
> index.
> But in another paragraph...
> "The primary key you select for your table should not always be a
clustered
> index. If you create the primary key and don't specify otherwise, this is
the
> default. Only make the primary key a clustered index if you will be
regularly
> performing range queries on the primary key or need your results sorted by
> the primary key. [6.5, 7.0, 2000] Updated 3-5-2004"
> They sound contradictory to me.
> And on (http://www.sql-server-performance.c...red_indexes.asp),
it
> states
> "If a column in a table is not at least 95% unique, then most likely the
> query optimizer will not use a non-clustered index based on that column.
> Because of this, don't add non-clustered indexes to columns that aren't at
> least 95% unique. For example, a column with "yes" or "no" as the data
won't
> be at least 95% unique. [6.5, 7.0, 2000] Updated 3-4-2004"
> Which sounds more logical to me.
> 1) Do you have general rule of thumb on this matter:
> - clustered or non-clustered index for primary key?
> - clustered or non-clustered index for foreign key?
> 2) Also does my understanding of the functions of clustered and
> non-clustered index correct?
> Could u please kindly advise. TQ again.
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>
a
However
or
value
index
directly
I
clustered
index.
key,
child
clustered|||Watch out for rule-of-thumbs!
You have to weigh in both retrieval and inserting of data. The part about cr
eating cl ix on a column
which is monotonically increasing is all about inserting data. This is so th
at all data goes to the
end of the table and you don't get page split in your data (remember that cl
ix = data). But it
doesn't address how you search data. Fine, cluster on your identify PK, but
perhaps it is more
important to support range queries on a datetime or lastname column? Also, r
emember that page splits
can be handled using index defragmentation, and perhaps the table isn't that
insert intensitive in
the first place?
I don't know where they get the 95% unique number. It is all about selectivi
ty. Understand how SQL
Server can use a clustered index and also non-clustered indexes (navigate th
e index then bookmark
lookups). Also remember that the optimizer is cost based.
Based on above, you should be able to make informed decisions of what to clu
ster on.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"HardKhor" <HardKhor@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:05A5C898-E9AD-4B0F-9F43-E0E0BA75A9EA@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Thanks for the reply. One of the article
> (http://www.sql-server-performance.c...red_indexes.asp) was the exac
t
> one that confuses me.
> It mentions...
> "As a rule of thumb, every table should have a clustered index. Generally,
> but not always, the clustered index should be on a column that monotonical
ly
> increases--such as an identity column, or some other column where the valu
e
> is increasing--and is unique. In many cases, the primary key is the ideal
> column for a clustered index."
> Which in my understanding basically says... Primary key should use cluster
ed
> index.
> But in another paragraph...
> "The primary key you select for your table should not always be a clustere
d
> index. If you create the primary key and don't specify otherwise, this is
the
> default. Only make the primary key a clustered index if you will be regula
rly
> performing range queries on the primary key or need your results sorted by
> the primary key. [6.5, 7.0, 2000] Updated 3-5-2004"
> They sound contradictory to me.
> And on (http://www.sql-server-performance.c...red_indexes.asp), i
t
> states
> "If a column in a table is not at least 95% unique, then most likely the
> query optimizer will not use a non-clustered index based on that column.
> Because of this, don't add non-clustered indexes to columns that aren't at
> least 95% unique. For example, a column with "yes" or "no" as the data won
't
> be at least 95% unique. [6.5, 7.0, 2000] Updated 3-4-2004"
> Which sounds more logical to me.
> 1) Do you have general rule of thumb on this matter:
> - clustered or non-clustered index for primary key?
> - clustered or non-clustered index for foreign key?
> 2) Also does my understanding of the functions of clustered and
> non-clustered index correct?
> Could u please kindly advise. TQ again.
> "Uri Dimant" wrote:
>|||On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:57:06 +0300, "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote:
in <uqvI#jQjFHA.4000@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>

>Yes, it is considered a good practice to create a NCI on foreign key to
>improve JOIN performance.
Is it better, worse, or no difference if the foreign key is also a CI on its
own
PK?
Consider the following:
CREATE TABLE ShowTime.dbo.Countries (
CountryID TINYINT NOT NULL CONSTRAINT PK_Countries PRIMARY KEY,
CountryCode CHAR(3) NOT NULL,
Country VARCHAR(45) NOT NULL)
CREATE TABLE ShowTime.dbo.States (
StateID TINYINT NOT NULL CONSTRAINT PK_States PRIMARY KEY,
CountryID TINYINT NOT NULL CONSTRAINT FK_States_Country FOREIGN KEY
(CountryID) REFERENCES ShowTime.dbo.Countries(CountryID),
State CHAR(2) NOT NULL)
I'm interpreting your remark to mean in the absence of an index on the forei
gn
key it would be considered to be good practice to create a NCI?
Stefan Berglund|||Tibor Karaszi wrote:
> Watch out for rule-of-thumbs!
> You have to weigh in both retrieval and inserting of data. The part
> about creating cl ix on a column which is monotonically increasing is
> all about inserting data. This is so that all data goes to the end of
> the table and you don't get page split in your data (remember that cl
> ix = data). But it doesn't address how you search data. Fine, cluster
> on your identify PK, but perhaps it is more important to support
> range queries on a datetime or lastname column? Also, remember that
> page splits can be handled using index defragmentation, and perhaps
> the table isn't that insert intensitive in the first place?
> I don't know where they get the 95% unique number. It is all about
> selectivity. Understand how SQL Server can use a clustered index and
> also non-clustered indexes (navigate the index then bookmark
> lookups). Also remember that the optimizer is cost based.
> Based on above, you should be able to make informed decisions of what
> to cluster on.
I would add that clustered index keys are stored internally by SQL
Server as unique values and the clustered index key values are the
pointers in all non-clustered indexes. This has a couple implications:
1- Your clustered index key should be small if your table contains
non-clustered indexes. If you cluster on a large key (say 100 bytes),
then you've added 100 bytes to each key value in every non-clustered
index.
2- If you cluster on a non-unique column, SQL Server will make it
unique internally. While this is transparent to database users, it
further increases the size of the index and all non-clustered indexes.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com|||"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> Watch out for rule-of-thumbs!
>
1) TQ for ur reply.
Yes I understand that is no one-size-fits-all approach to this. Which is why
I am trying to understand from a conceptual point of view, difference betwee
n
clustered and non-clustered index and their application, before I can make
informed decisions on how they fit into my application.
However I don't believe anyone has given a clear answer on whether my
understanding on them is correct. I.e. essentially, a clustered index is a
sorted group of rows under a common index value (1 index value = M rows).
Whereas a non-clustered index is, basically 1 index value = 1 row. Could u
pls kindly advise, essentially, is my understanding correct?
2) My database has plenty of parent-and-child tables, e.g. Invoice and
Invoice Item. So the child table [InvoiceItem] has a foreign key
[InvoiceCode] referring back to the primary key [Code] of [Invoice] table
(1-M relationship).
So when query the database to populate my biz reports, a very common
requirement is to join the parent and child tables along their keys.
Also in a typical requirement, I will need join the results from the
parent-child join, with other tables, such as [Item] which contains details
on the [InvoiceItem], E.g. [Item].[Code] = [InvoiceItem].[ItemCode].
Therefore there is a lot of 1-M joins.
So based on my understanding of clustered and non-clustered indexes and how
SQL Server uses them to search for data, at least in the case of parent-chil
d
relationship, it makes more sense to set a clustered index at child's foreig
n
key column, i.e. [InvoiceItem].[InvoiceCode], and non-clustered index at the
parent's primary key column, i.e. [Invoice].[Code]. Do u agree?

> You have to weigh in both retrieval and inserting of data. The part about
creating cl ix on a column
> which is monotonically increasing is all about inserting data. This is so
that all data goes to the
> end of the table and you don't get page split in your data (remember that
cl ix = data). But it
> doesn't address how you search data. Fine, cluster on your identify PK, bu
t perhaps it is more
> important to support range queries on a datetime or lastname column?
3) Based on ur explaination, the majority of range queries that I do is
along the date fields of various transaction tables, e.g. finding the
invoices for this mth, last mth, last year, 10 years ago, etc. So it is also
POSSIBLE to consider [TransactionDate] as a candidate for cluster index? Do u
agree?

> I don't know where they get the 95% unique number. It is all about selecti
vity. Understand how SQL
> Server can use a clustered index and also non-clustered indexes (navigate
the index then bookmark
> lookups). Also remember that the optimizer is cost based.
3) My understanding of selectivity means how fast data can be uniquely
identified. So it implies a preference towards a field with 95% unqiue
values. Hence the 95% unique number thingy. Is that true?

> Based on above, you should be able to make informed decisions of what to c
luster on.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "HardKhor" <HardKhor@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:05A5C898-E9AD-4B0F-9F43-E0E0BA75A9EA@.microsoft.com...
>|||Inline...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"HardKhor" <HardKhor@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D5D39394-6183-46E5-B6FA-40B5957CB882@.microsoft.com...
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>
> 1) TQ for ur reply.
You're welcome :-)

> Yes I understand that is no one-size-fits-all approach to this. Which is w
hy
> I am trying to understand from a conceptual point of view, difference betw
een
> clustered and non-clustered index and their application, before I can make
> informed decisions on how they fit into my application.
> However I don't believe anyone has given a clear answer on whether my
> understanding on them is correct. I.e. essentially, a clustered index is a
> sorted group of rows under a common index value (1 index value = M rows).
> Whereas a non-clustered index is, basically 1 index value = 1 row. Could u
> pls kindly advise, essentially, is my understanding correct?
SQL Server does not store the value once and the number of occurances as a n
umber, if that is what
you mean. Bot cl and nc indexes are b-trees (there are good drawings on this
in Books Online).
For a cl ix, the leaf level *is the data*. I.e., it is sorted (the linked li
st) according to the
index key and the pages contains all the columns.
An nc ix leaf level only contains the index key and a "row locator"/bookmark
. This is used to
navigate to the corresponding page and row number on that pag.

>
> 2) My database has plenty of parent-and-child tables, e.g. Invoice and
> Invoice Item. So the child table [InvoiceItem] has a foreign key
> [InvoiceCode] referring back to the primary key [Code] of [Invoice] table
> (1-M relationship).
> So when query the database to populate my biz reports, a very common
> requirement is to join the parent and child tables along their keys.
> Also in a typical requirement, I will need join the results from the
> parent-child join, with other tables, such as [Item] which contains details
> on the [InvoiceItem], E.g. [Item].[Code] = [InvoiceItem].[ItemCode].
> Therefore there is a lot of 1-M joins.
> So based on my understanding of clustered and non-clustered indexes and ho
w
> SQL Server uses them to search for data, at least in the case of parent-ch
ild
> relationship, it makes more sense to set a clustered index at child's fore
ign
> key column, i.e. [InvoiceItem].[InvoiceCode], and non-clustered index at the
> parent's primary key column, i.e. [Invoice].[Code]. Do u agree?
Yes, cl on fk can often ba a good candidate. You still have to weigh in othe
r candidates as well as
consider fragmentation aspects.

>
> 3) Based on ur explaination, the majority of range queries that I do is
> along the date fields of various transaction tables, e.g. finding the
> invoices for this mth, last mth, last year, 10 years ago, etc. So it is al
so
> POSSIBLE to consider [TransactionDate] as a candidate for cluster index? Do u
> agree?
Yes.

>
> 3) My understanding of selectivity means how fast data can be uniquely
> identified. So it implies a preference towards a field with 95% unqiue
> values. Hence the 95% unique number thingy. Is that true?
Selectivity is quite simply for a certain table and a certain restriction (c
ondition in the WHERE
clause), how many percent of the total number of rows. 1000 rows in table, c
ondition returns 100
rows = 10% selectivity.
Density is another term we use. Here we *do not* involve a query or search c
ondition. We only look
at the data. Say you have a column named gender. Say we only have two possib
le values (male and
female). Say that both are represented in the table. We now have a density o
f 1/2 = 0.5. Or say that
we do business with 20 other companies. These 10 companies are all represent
ed in the table. For the
"company column", we have a density of 0.05 (1/20). When we calculatye densi
ty, we do not care about
the number of rows in the table.
>

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Developing WAP using ASP.NET and Web Services

Hi all,

I would like to develop WAP using ASP.NET which can connect to the Database( MS SQL Server ). Is it possible to do it? I try to find the tutorial but I cannot find it.

Another thing I want to ask is can I connect the WAP to the web services that I create using ASP.NET, anyone can tell me how to do it.

Thanks, Regards.

REDWAP is something that is sent to and displayed on the client. ASP.NET and Web Services are server side technologies. You can certainly have your ASP.NET application call out to a Web service, and then send the results to your WAP device.

Developing a SQL server DB (noob question)

I'm beginning development on a medium/ sized in-house web based system. Well moving from asp/mysql to asp.net/sql server. Re-doing DB design as well.

My question is does it make sense for me to develop the SQL DB in Visual Studio 2005 pro, and then later move it to a real SQL server? Or basically what is the best and/or most practical way to do this development. Any other IDE's out there?

Thanks

I'd just use SQL Server from the outset. I find Entreprise Manager cumbersome to use, so I just use it to create the database, then create an Access adp file as my main interface to create tables, views and stored procedures. adp files give you the speed and functionality of Access when manipulating SQL Server DB's. I do go back to Entreprise Manager to do things like create table relationships.

|||

So you're basically suggesting developing the DB using the Access IDE, correct? I fail to see how that would be beneficial, Access has different data types than SQL server. When using an ADP file would Access then know the correct column types? Also, how would that ease the development of my web application?

Does anyone else agree with the above comment? The lack of responses makes me feel like everyone else thinks that is the best answer.

|||

With an adp file, you are essentially using the interface of Access to manage your SQL Database. It is still a full SQL Server database; it is not an mdb with native Access types. This means that the datatypes available and field options are all from SQL Server, (e.g. you have VARCHAR instead of Text, etc). You can also do things that create Stored Procedures. It has most of the functionality of Entreprise Manager for creating and maintaining your database.

Reasons I like adp files over Entreprise Manager:

1. adp files allow you to build forms for basic data entry / editing

2. Entreprise Manager Stored Procedure windows are modal. If you are writing a procedure and need to look up a field name in a table, you have to close the window (which you can't do with partially written syntax) first. with an adp the Procedure window can be minimized or tiled.

3. adp files allow you to sort and filter tables in datasheet view. Entreprise Manager doesn't.

4. Speed. adp files are faster for looking up data.

adp files do lack some features, such as the ability to build relationships or triggers. For this use Entreprise Manager.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Developer Edition Install

Hi, folks.
I've just reached the end of my frustration with trying to learn MSDE with no interface (in addition to ASP.NET), so I'm going to install 2K Developer Edition. However, I'd like to know if it's safe install it on top of MSDE. I'm currently running XP Pr
o, VS.NET, IIS 5.x, so I'm afraid that if I have uninstall MSDE that I'll break a bunch things that I've painstakingly configured. ;-)
Advice?
TIA,
Bob
What have you painstakingly configured? You might be able to easily =
configure these within SQL Server Developer Edition. =20
The other option: install the Developer Edition of SQL Server as a named =
instance. That will allow you to keep MSDE installed as well as give =
you the ability to use SQL Server (Developer Edition) on your computer.
--=20
Keith
"WebGuyBob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =
news:1BD19D74-8A5A-4F9C-8FD6-D013309B7A45@.microsoft.com...
> Hi, folks.
>=20
> I've just reached the end of my frustration with trying to learn MSDE =
with no interface (in addition to ASP.NET), so I'm going to install 2K =
Developer Edition. However, I'd like to know if it's safe install it on =
top of MSDE. I'm currently running XP Pro, VS.NET, IIS 5.x, so I'm =
afraid that if I have uninstall MSDE that I'll break a bunch things that =
I've painstakingly configured. ;-)
>=20
> Advice?
>=20
> TIA,
>=20
> Bob
|||Keith,
The configuration statement actually refers to the installation and configuration of IIS and VS.NET. I feared that when I installed MSDE, it dug its hooks into those applications (inherent in many MS apps) and that uninstalling MSDE would "break" things.
I would prefer to have only one DB application on my machine. With that said, since it appears from your comments, because SQL2k DevEd does not install "on top" of MSDE, I will attempt to uninstall it and then install SQL2k DevEd.
I have developed any databases yet, but either VS.NET, MSDE, or the .NET SDK installed various sample databases. I was hoping to use those to learn from. If those happen to get deleted resulting from the uninstall, at least I've found a place where I ca
n get updated ones.
Any parting words of wisdom before I do the uninstall of MSDE and install of SQL2k DevEd?
Thanks,
Bob
|||The many "sample" databases should still exist -- in mdf and ldf form. =
Hopefully you will be able to use sp_attach_db to attach those databases =
to SQL Server Developer Edition.
Words of wisdom: Just do it.
Good luck. Post back if you have any questions along the way. There =
are many helpful people in the newsgroups that should be able to provide =
assistance should you need it.
--=20
Keith
"WebGuyBob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =
news:4A5D898D-9A17-4C87-8554-AF6EFBF0F4DB@.microsoft.com...
> Keith,
>=20
> The configuration statement actually refers to the installation and =
configuration of IIS and VS.NET. I feared that when I installed MSDE, =
it dug its hooks into those applications (inherent in many MS apps) and =
that uninstalling MSDE would "break" things.
>=20
> I would prefer to have only one DB application on my machine. With =
that said, since it appears from your comments, because SQL2k DevEd does =
not install "on top" of MSDE, I will attempt to uninstall it and then =
install SQL2k DevEd.
>=20
> I have developed any databases yet, but either VS.NET, MSDE, or the =
..NET SDK installed various sample databases. I was hoping to use those =
to learn from. If those happen to get deleted resulting from the =
uninstall, at least I've found a place where I can get updated ones.
>=20
> Any parting words of wisdom before I do the uninstall of MSDE and =
install of SQL2k DevEd?
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> Bob
|||Or you could run the pubsinst.sql scripts from another sql server standard
install.
Vikram Jayaram
Microsoft, SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.

Developer Edition Install

Hi, folks
I've just reached the end of my frustration with trying to learn MSDE with no interface (in addition to ASP.NET), so I'm going to install 2K Developer Edition. However, I'd like to know if it's safe install it on top of MSDE. I'm currently running XP Pro, VS.NET, IIS 5.x, so I'm afraid that if I have uninstall MSDE that I'll break a bunch things that I've painstakingly configured. ;-
Advice
TIA
BobWhat have you painstakingly configured? You might be able to easily =configure these within SQL Server Developer Edition.
The other option: install the Developer Edition of SQL Server as a named =instance. That will allow you to keep MSDE installed as well as give =you the ability to use SQL Server (Developer Edition) on your computer.
-- Keith
"WebGuyBob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =news:1BD19D74-8A5A-4F9C-8FD6-D013309B7A45@.microsoft.com...
> Hi, folks.
> > I've just reached the end of my frustration with trying to learn MSDE =with no interface (in addition to ASP.NET), so I'm going to install 2K =Developer Edition. However, I'd like to know if it's safe install it on =top of MSDE. I'm currently running XP Pro, VS.NET, IIS 5.x, so I'm =afraid that if I have uninstall MSDE that I'll break a bunch things that =I've painstakingly configured. ;-)
> > Advice?
> > TIA,
> > Bob|||Keith
The configuration statement actually refers to the installation and configuration of IIS and VS.NET. I feared that when I installed MSDE, it dug its hooks into those applications (inherent in many MS apps) and that uninstalling MSDE would "break" things
I would prefer to have only one DB application on my machine. With that said, since it appears from your comments, because SQL2k DevEd does not install "on top" of MSDE, I will attempt to uninstall it and then install SQL2k DevEd
I have developed any databases yet, but either VS.NET, MSDE, or the .NET SDK installed various sample databases. I was hoping to use those to learn from. If those happen to get deleted resulting from the uninstall, at least I've found a place where I can get updated ones
Any parting words of wisdom before I do the uninstall of MSDE and install of SQL2k DevEd
Thanks
Bob|||The many "sample" databases should still exist -- in mdf and ldf form. =Hopefully you will be able to use sp_attach_db to attach those databases =to SQL Server Developer Edition.
Words of wisdom: Just do it.
Good luck. Post back if you have any questions along the way. There =are many helpful people in the newsgroups that should be able to provide =assistance should you need it.
-- Keith
"WebGuyBob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =news:4A5D898D-9A17-4C87-8554-AF6EFBF0F4DB@.microsoft.com...
> Keith,
> > The configuration statement actually refers to the installation and =configuration of IIS and VS.NET. I feared that when I installed MSDE, =it dug its hooks into those applications (inherent in many MS apps) and =that uninstalling MSDE would "break" things.
> > I would prefer to have only one DB application on my machine. With =that said, since it appears from your comments, because SQL2k DevEd does =not install "on top" of MSDE, I will attempt to uninstall it and then =install SQL2k DevEd.
> > I have developed any databases yet, but either VS.NET, MSDE, or the =.NET SDK installed various sample databases. I was hoping to use those =to learn from. If those happen to get deleted resulting from the =uninstall, at least I've found a place where I can get updated ones.
> > Any parting words of wisdom before I do the uninstall of MSDE and =install of SQL2k DevEd?
> > Thanks,
> > Bob|||Or you could run the pubsinst.sql scripts from another sql server standard
install.
Vikram Jayaram
Microsoft, SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.

Developer Edition Install

Hi, folks.
I've just reached the end of my frustration with trying to learn MSDE with n
o interface (in addition to ASP.NET), so I'm going to install 2K Developer E
dition. However, I'd like to know if it's safe install it on top of MSDE.
I'm currently running XP Pr
o, VS.NET, IIS 5.x, so I'm afraid that if I have uninstall MSDE that I'll br
eak a bunch things that I've painstakingly configured. ;-)
Advice?
TIA,
BobWhat have you painstakingly configured? You might be able to easily =
configure these within SQL Server Developer Edition. =20
The other option: install the Developer Edition of SQL Server as a named =
instance. That will allow you to keep MSDE installed as well as give =
you the ability to use SQL Server (Developer Edition) on your computer.
--=20
Keith
"WebGuyBob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =
news:1BD19D74-8A5A-4F9C-8FD6-D013309B7A45@.microsoft.com...
> Hi, folks.
>=20
> I've just reached the end of my frustration with trying to learn MSDE =
with no interface (in addition to ASP.NET), so I'm going to install 2K =
Developer Edition. However, I'd like to know if it's safe install it on =
top of MSDE. I'm currently running XP Pro, VS.NET, IIS 5.x, so I'm =
afraid that if I have uninstall MSDE that I'll break a bunch things that =
I've painstakingly configured. ;-)
>=20
> Advice?
>=20
> TIA,
>=20
> Bob|||Keith,
The configuration statement actually refers to the installation and configur
ation of IIS and VS.NET. I feared that when I installed MSDE, it dug its ho
oks into those applications (inherent in many MS apps) and that uninstalling
MSDE would "break" things.
I would prefer to have only one DB application on my machine. With that sai
d, since it appears from your comments, because SQL2k DevEd does not install
"on top" of MSDE, I will attempt to uninstall it and then install SQL2k Dev
Ed.
I have developed any databases yet, but either VS.NET, MSDE, or the .NET SDK
installed various sample databases. I was hoping to use those to learn fro
m. If those happen to get deleted resulting from the uninstall, at least I'
ve found a place where I ca
n get updated ones.
Any parting words of wisdom before I do the uninstall of MSDE and install of
SQL2k DevEd?
Thanks,
Bob|||The many "sample" databases should still exist -- in mdf and ldf form. =
Hopefully you will be able to use sp_attach_db to attach those databases =
to SQL Server Developer Edition.
Words of wisdom: Just do it.
Good luck. Post back if you have any questions along the way. There =
are many helpful people in the newsgroups that should be able to provide =
assistance should you need it.
--=20
Keith
"WebGuyBob" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =
news:4A5D898D-9A17-4C87-8554-AF6EFBF0F4DB@.microsoft.com...
> Keith,
>=20
> The configuration statement actually refers to the installation and =
configuration of IIS and VS.NET. I feared that when I installed MSDE, =
it dug its hooks into those applications (inherent in many MS apps) and =
that uninstalling MSDE would "break" things.
>=20
> I would prefer to have only one DB application on my machine. With =
that said, since it appears from your comments, because SQL2k DevEd does =
not install "on top" of MSDE, I will attempt to uninstall it and then =
install SQL2k DevEd.
>=20
> I have developed any databases yet, but either VS.NET, MSDE, or the =
.NET SDK installed various sample databases. I was hoping to use those =
to learn from. If those happen to get deleted resulting from the =
uninstall, at least I've found a place where I can get updated ones.
>=20
> Any parting words of wisdom before I do the uninstall of MSDE and =
install of SQL2k DevEd?
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> Bob|||Or you could run the pubsinst.sql scripts from another sql server standard
install.
Vikram Jayaram
Microsoft, SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Develope Pending > Activate

Hi,

I have an application (Asp.net + c#).There is a SQL table called 'Status' it is used to store pending and activated events.

There is a field called 'Complete'.

So when user register I want to add recored to 'Complete' field as 'Pending'

But I cant understand how to do this.

Plese help me

It would have been helpful if you describrd your Registration form page...

One way could be, considering you have a Submit button on your registration form, is to update your Status table while the user presses the submit button during registration.

Hope that helps.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

difference between table relations and foreign keys?

difference between table relations and foreign keys?

difference between table relations and foreign keys?

difference between SQL standard Edition and Enterprise Edition

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Diff betw Clustered and Non-Clustered Index and their Applicat

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Developing WAP using ASP.NET and Web Services

Developing a SQL server DB (noob question)

Friday, February 24, 2012

Developer Edition Install

Developer Edition Install

Developer Edition Install

Friday, February 17, 2012

Develope Pending > Activate

sql record counts

Blog Archive

About Me