sql record counts: available

Showing posts with label available. Show all posts

Thursday, March 29, 2012

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.

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Diagram of Master DB

Is there a way to get the diagram of the MASTER Db in MS-SQL? When i
right click on Enterprise Manager that option is not available but it
is available in any other database (Model Db acts the same).

Thanks,

GentI don't know why that option is disabled for system DBs, but you can
get a full diagram of all the system tables here:

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...0/systables.asp

Simon|||I'm new here. Sorry if this has already been covered. Is there a way to
generate full diagrams for the tables you create? Thanks.

- Bob

"Simon Hayes" <sql@.hayes.ch> wrote in message
news:1114159237.222700.21110@.g14g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> I don't know why that option is disabled for system DBs, but you can
> get a full diagram of all the system tables here:
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...0/systables.asp
> Simon|||farrell77 (farrell77@.spamfree.yahoo.com) writes:
> I'm new here. Sorry if this has already been covered. Is there a way to
> generate full diagrams for the tables you create? Thanks.

You can generate diagrams of your database from Enterprise Manager.
Right-click your database and select New->Database diagram.

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

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

Diagram Editor in SQL Server Management Studio

Hi,

I was playing with the diagram editor and I was wondering if that was a component available for other developers to use. We're using a similar control for our product, but that control is pretty slow and a little dumb, it displays overlapped tables and doesn't have the "arrange tables" feature that I really like in the Sql Server Management Studio.

So my question is, how could we get this control, is it available for purchase? Any suggestions to similar available controls? Basically, we need a diagram editor in which the objects and the relations are selectable.

Any help would be highly appreciated.

Thanks, Florin

That is a part of client tools to be installed and cannot be seperated as a component.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Developing the clever backup strategy

? What do I do with the *.bak and *.trn when they are
over
two days old?
I doubt, therefore I might be.I'd suggest a good, thorough read through of books on line to make sure you
understand things like truncating the logs, full recovery more, simple
recovery mode, etc.
Truncating the logs should probably never be done which is why I suggest thi
s.
burt_king@.yahoo.com
"Kim Noer" wrote:

> Hi there...
> I've been reading around in the BOL to figure out what backup strategy is
the
> "best" available. The database I want to backup, is ~4.5 after a shrink, b
ut it
> of course grows after a while. Same with the log.
> The database runs in "full recovery" mode currently, and it is being used
during
> a normal workday, by around 15 people. What backup setup is the recommende
d in
> this situation?
>
> I've tried setting it up to backup the database every 4 hours, and the log
every
> 30 minutes. This generates a /lot/ of *.trn files, is there anyway to
> "consolidate" those after a day? Secondly, when I do a database backup eve
ry 24
> hours, does that mean that I can then afterward safely truncate the log (I
like
> keeping things neat

? What do I do with the *.bak and *.trn when they ar
e over
> two days old?
> --
> I doubt, therefore I might be.
>|||I definitely agree. Also, be restrictive using shrink, for more info, see
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"burt_king" <burt_king@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:193B7308-3D54-426E-AF7A-B9983D509983@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'd suggest a good, thorough read through of books on line to make sure yo
u
> understand things like truncating the logs, full recovery more, simple
> recovery mode, etc.
> Truncating the logs should probably never be done which is why I suggest t
his.
>
> --
> burt_king@.yahoo.com
>
> "Kim Noer" wrote:
>|||Usually in a smaller environment like you describe I reccomend a daily full
backup and then differential backups throughout the day. With this scenario
you can put the database in simple recovery mode and not have to worry about
log file growth. I have seen too many environments where they left the
databases in Full Recovery (default) and never back up the logs. A couple
weeks go by and the database is refusing transactions because the disk is
full.
I truncate and shrink the logs every night to make sure it gets done. One
big Insert or something else can throw your log files out of whack. With
this you should make sure your minimum log file is big enough that it does
not have to grow signifigantly during a normal work day.
When you say your DB is 4.5G (I assume G) after the shrink, how big is it
before the shrink? If your database files are shrinking signifigantly
(>20%) every night you need to look at your clustered indexes and fill
factors to make sure there is enough room that the database is not having to
auto grow throughout the day. Also, if you have not done reindexed in a
while, you should look at doing that - see DBCC Reindex (note that this
should be done when the database is not being accessed).
"Kim Noer" <kn@.nospam.dk> wrote in message
news:%231ouK%2327FHA.2816@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi there...
> I've been reading around in the BOL to figure out what backup strategy is
> the "best" available. The database I want to backup, is ~4.5 after a
> shrink, but it of course grows after a while. Same with the log.
> The database runs in "full recovery" mode currently, and it is being used
> during a normal workday, by around 15 people. What backup setup is the
> recommended in this situation?
>
> I've tried setting it up to backup the database every 4 hours, and the log
> every 30 minutes. This generates a /lot/ of *.trn files, is there anyway
> to "consolidate" those after a day? Secondly, when I do a database backup
> every 24 hours, does that mean that I can then afterward safely truncate
> the log (I like keeping things neat

? What do I do with the *.bak and
> *.trn when they are over two days old?
> --
> I doubt, therefore I might be.|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
wrote in message news:uHbwqP37FHA.1140@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl
> I definitely agree. Also, be restrictive using shrink, for more info,
> see http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp
I've read your excellent guide, and I think I actually more now than before

.
Anyway. Currently the database runs in "full recovery" mode. Then I did a
complete backup of the database, and then I tried a dbcc loginfo('database')
Now, according to your guide, status 2 means the VLF is in use. The result i
s
this -
2 253952 8192 65770 0 64 0
2 253952 262144 65769 0 64 0
2 253952 516096 65768 0 128 0
2 278528 770048 65771 0 64 0
2 262144 1048576 65772 0 128 40875000000042200043
...
And this continues all the way to row 308 (your guide tells me I should set
the
allocated size way above the current) -
2 27000832 2188771328 65773 2 64 65760000004588300008
2 27000832 2215772160 65766 0 64 65760000004588300008
As you might be able to see, row 308 have the status 2. Doesn't this mean th
at
this logfile will never go below 2.06GB unless I truncate it manually? Secon
dly,
what about the VLF's below, since they are unused will this cause SQL Server
to
reuse the VLF, or will it proceed from CreateLSN 65760000004588300008?
I doubt, therefore I might be.|||"Kim Noer" <kn@.nospam.dk> wrote in message
news:OZD%23gFE8FHA.1140@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl

> Secondly, what about the VLF's below, since they are
> unused will this cause SQL Server to reuse the VLF, or will it
> proceed from CreateLSN 65760000004588300008?
Nevermind, I decided to use your guide as test, that is, create a table, the
n
insert a lot of records, which showed me that SQL Server reuses unused VLF,
even
when they are "before" used VLF's.
I doubt, therefore I might be.

Developing the clever backup strategy

? What do I do with the *.bak and *.trn when they are over
two days old?
I doubt, therefore I might be.
I'd suggest a good, thorough read through of books on line to make sure you
understand things like truncating the logs, full recovery more, simple
recovery mode, etc.
Truncating the logs should probably never be done which is why I suggest this.
burt_king@.yahoo.com
"Kim Noer" wrote:

> Hi there...
> I've been reading around in the BOL to figure out what backup strategy is the
> "best" available. The database I want to backup, is ~4.5 after a shrink, but it
> of course grows after a while. Same with the log.
> The database runs in "full recovery" mode currently, and it is being used during
> a normal workday, by around 15 people. What backup setup is the recommended in
> this situation?
>
> I've tried setting it up to backup the database every 4 hours, and the log every
> 30 minutes. This generates a /lot/ of *.trn files, is there anyway to
> "consolidate" those after a day? Secondly, when I do a database backup every 24
> hours, does that mean that I can then afterward safely truncate the log (I like
> keeping things neat

? What do I do with the *.bak and *.trn when they are over
> two days old?
> --
> I doubt, therefore I might be.
>
|||I definitely agree. Also, be restrictive using shrink, for more info, see
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"burt_king" <burt_king@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:193B7308-3D54-426E-AF7A-B9983D509983@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'd suggest a good, thorough read through of books on line to make sure you
> understand things like truncating the logs, full recovery more, simple
> recovery mode, etc.
> Truncating the logs should probably never be done which is why I suggest this.
>
> --
> burt_king@.yahoo.com
>
> "Kim Noer" wrote:
|||Usually in a smaller environment like you describe I reccomend a daily full
backup and then differential backups throughout the day. With this scenario
you can put the database in simple recovery mode and not have to worry about
log file growth. I have seen too many environments where they left the
databases in Full Recovery (default) and never back up the logs. A couple
weeks go by and the database is refusing transactions because the disk is
full.
I truncate and shrink the logs every night to make sure it gets done. One
big Insert or something else can throw your log files out of whack. With
this you should make sure your minimum log file is big enough that it does
not have to grow signifigantly during a normal work day.
When you say your DB is 4.5G (I assume G) after the shrink, how big is it
before the shrink? If your database files are shrinking signifigantly
(>20%) every night you need to look at your clustered indexes and fill
factors to make sure there is enough room that the database is not having to
auto grow throughout the day. Also, if you have not done reindexed in a
while, you should look at doing that - see DBCC Reindex (note that this
should be done when the database is not being accessed).
"Kim Noer" <kn@.nospam.dk> wrote in message
news:%231ouK%2327FHA.2816@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi there...
> I've been reading around in the BOL to figure out what backup strategy is
> the "best" available. The database I want to backup, is ~4.5 after a
> shrink, but it of course grows after a while. Same with the log.
> The database runs in "full recovery" mode currently, and it is being used
> during a normal workday, by around 15 people. What backup setup is the
> recommended in this situation?
>
> I've tried setting it up to backup the database every 4 hours, and the log
> every 30 minutes. This generates a /lot/ of *.trn files, is there anyway
> to "consolidate" those after a day? Secondly, when I do a database backup
> every 24 hours, does that mean that I can then afterward safely truncate
> the log (I like keeping things neat

? What do I do with the *.bak and
> *.trn when they are over two days old?
> --
> I doubt, therefore I might be.
|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
wrote in message news:uHbwqP37FHA.1140@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl
> I definitely agree. Also, be restrictive using shrink, for more info,
> see http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp
I've read your excellent guide, and I think I actually more now than before

.
Anyway. Currently the database runs in "full recovery" mode. Then I did a
complete backup of the database, and then I tried a dbcc loginfo('database')
Now, according to your guide, status 2 means the VLF is in use. The result is
this -
2 253952 8192 65770 0 64 0
2 253952 262144 65769 0 64 0
2 253952 516096 65768 0 128 0
2 278528 770048 65771 0 64 0
2 262144 1048576 65772 0 128 40875000000042200043
...
And this continues all the way to row 308 (your guide tells me I should set the
allocated size way above the current) -
2 27000832 2188771328 65773 2 64 65760000004588300008
2 27000832 2215772160 65766 0 64 65760000004588300008
As you might be able to see, row 308 have the status 2. Doesn't this mean that
this logfile will never go below 2.06GB unless I truncate it manually? Secondly,
what about the VLF's below, since they are unused will this cause SQL Server to
reuse the VLF, or will it proceed from CreateLSN 65760000004588300008?
I doubt, therefore I might be.
|||"Kim Noer" <kn@.nospam.dk> wrote in message
news:OZD%23gFE8FHA.1140@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl

> Secondly, what about the VLF's below, since they are
> unused will this cause SQL Server to reuse the VLF, or will it
> proceed from CreateLSN 65760000004588300008?
Nevermind, I decided to use your guide as test, that is, create a table, then
insert a lot of records, which showed me that SQL Server reuses unused VLF, even
when they are "before" used VLF's.
I doubt, therefore I might be.

Developing the clever backup strategy

Hi there...
I've been reading around in the BOL to figure out what backup strategy is the
"best" available. The database I want to backup, is ~4.5 after a shrink, but it
of course grows after a while. Same with the log.
The database runs in "full recovery" mode currently, and it is being used during
a normal workday, by around 15 people. What backup setup is the recommended in
this situation?
I've tried setting it up to backup the database every 4 hours, and the log every
30 minutes. This generates a /lot/ of *.trn files, is there anyway to
"consolidate" those after a day? Secondly, when I do a database backup every 24
hours, does that mean that I can then afterward safely truncate the log (I like
keeping things neat :)? What do I do with the *.bak and *.trn when they are over
two days old?
--
I doubt, therefore I might be.I'd suggest a good, thorough read through of books on line to make sure you
understand things like truncating the logs, full recovery more, simple
recovery mode, etc.
Truncating the logs should probably never be done which is why I suggest this.
burt_king@.yahoo.com
"Kim Noer" wrote:
> Hi there...
> I've been reading around in the BOL to figure out what backup strategy is the
> "best" available. The database I want to backup, is ~4.5 after a shrink, but it
> of course grows after a while. Same with the log.
> The database runs in "full recovery" mode currently, and it is being used during
> a normal workday, by around 15 people. What backup setup is the recommended in
> this situation?
>
> I've tried setting it up to backup the database every 4 hours, and the log every
> 30 minutes. This generates a /lot/ of *.trn files, is there anyway to
> "consolidate" those after a day? Secondly, when I do a database backup every 24
> hours, does that mean that I can then afterward safely truncate the log (I like
> keeping things neat :)? What do I do with the *.bak and *.trn when they are over
> two days old?
> --
> I doubt, therefore I might be.
>|||I definitely agree. Also, be restrictive using shrink, for more info, see
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"burt_king" <burt_king@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:193B7308-3D54-426E-AF7A-B9983D509983@.microsoft.com...
> I'd suggest a good, thorough read through of books on line to make sure you
> understand things like truncating the logs, full recovery more, simple
> recovery mode, etc.
> Truncating the logs should probably never be done which is why I suggest this.
>
> --
> burt_king@.yahoo.com
>
> "Kim Noer" wrote:
>> Hi there...
>> I've been reading around in the BOL to figure out what backup strategy is the
>> "best" available. The database I want to backup, is ~4.5 after a shrink, but it
>> of course grows after a while. Same with the log.
>> The database runs in "full recovery" mode currently, and it is being used during
>> a normal workday, by around 15 people. What backup setup is the recommended in
>> this situation?
>>
>> I've tried setting it up to backup the database every 4 hours, and the log every
>> 30 minutes. This generates a /lot/ of *.trn files, is there anyway to
>> "consolidate" those after a day? Secondly, when I do a database backup every 24
>> hours, does that mean that I can then afterward safely truncate the log (I like
>> keeping things neat :)? What do I do with the *.bak and *.trn when they are over
>> two days old?
>> --
>> I doubt, therefore I might be.
>>|||Usually in a smaller environment like you describe I reccomend a daily full
backup and then differential backups throughout the day. With this scenario
you can put the database in simple recovery mode and not have to worry about
log file growth. I have seen too many environments where they left the
databases in Full Recovery (default) and never back up the logs. A couple
weeks go by and the database is refusing transactions because the disk is
full.
I truncate and shrink the logs every night to make sure it gets done. One
big Insert or something else can throw your log files out of whack. With
this you should make sure your minimum log file is big enough that it does
not have to grow signifigantly during a normal work day.
When you say your DB is 4.5G (I assume G) after the shrink, how big is it
before the shrink? If your database files are shrinking signifigantly
(>20%) every night you need to look at your clustered indexes and fill
factors to make sure there is enough room that the database is not having to
auto grow throughout the day. Also, if you have not done reindexed in a
while, you should look at doing that - see DBCC Reindex (note that this
should be done when the database is not being accessed).
"Kim Noer" <kn@.nospam.dk> wrote in message
news:%231ouK%2327FHA.2816@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi there...
> I've been reading around in the BOL to figure out what backup strategy is
> the "best" available. The database I want to backup, is ~4.5 after a
> shrink, but it of course grows after a while. Same with the log.
> The database runs in "full recovery" mode currently, and it is being used
> during a normal workday, by around 15 people. What backup setup is the
> recommended in this situation?
>
> I've tried setting it up to backup the database every 4 hours, and the log
> every 30 minutes. This generates a /lot/ of *.trn files, is there anyway
> to "consolidate" those after a day? Secondly, when I do a database backup
> every 24 hours, does that mean that I can then afterward safely truncate
> the log (I like keeping things neat :)? What do I do with the *.bak and
> *.trn when they are over two days old?
> --
> I doubt, therefore I might be.|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com>
wrote in message news:uHbwqP37FHA.1140@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl
> I definitely agree. Also, be restrictive using shrink, for more info,
> see http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp
I've read your excellent guide, and I think I actually more now than before :).
Anyway. Currently the database runs in "full recovery" mode. Then I did a
complete backup of the database, and then I tried a dbcc loginfo('database')
Now, according to your guide, status 2 means the VLF is in use. The result is
this -
2 253952 8192 65770 0 64 0
2 253952 262144 65769 0 64 0
2 253952 516096 65768 0 128 0
2 278528 770048 65771 0 64 0
2 262144 1048576 65772 0 128 40875000000042200043
...
And this continues all the way to row 308 (your guide tells me I should set the
allocated size way above the current) -
2 27000832 2188771328 65773 2 64 65760000004588300008
2 27000832 2215772160 65766 0 64 65760000004588300008
As you might be able to see, row 308 have the status 2. Doesn't this mean that
this logfile will never go below 2.06GB unless I truncate it manually? Secondly,
what about the VLF's below, since they are unused will this cause SQL Server to
reuse the VLF, or will it proceed from CreateLSN 65760000004588300008?
--
I doubt, therefore I might be.|||"Kim Noer" <kn@.nospam.dk> wrote in message
news:OZD%23gFE8FHA.1140@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl
> Secondly, what about the VLF's below, since they are
> unused will this cause SQL Server to reuse the VLF, or will it
> proceed from CreateLSN 65760000004588300008?
Nevermind, I decided to use your guide as test, that is, create a table, then
insert a lot of records, which showed me that SQL Server reuses unused VLF, even
when they are "before" used VLF's.
--
I doubt, therefore I might be.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Developer 2005 Connection Limit

Hi Jim
Maximum Capacity specifications are available at
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx You can have 32,767
user connections.
John
"Jim Norton" wrote:

> I have looked online but cannot find a clear answer to whether Microsoft S
QL
> Server 2005 Developer Edition has a maximum connection limit? I see that
> SQL Express has 25 maximum connections.
> If anyone knows that answer it would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks!
>
>Hi Jim
I would be interested where you got 25 connections from!
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...sqlexpress.mspx
states
Note: If SQL Server 2005 Express is running on Windows XP Home, it is
limited to five simultaneous connections. If it is running on Windows 2000 o
r
Windows XP Professional, it is limited to 10 simultaneous connections.
However, these are limitations of the operating system and not of SQL Server
2005 Express.
But nothing about any other limit!
John
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Jim
> Maximum Capacity specifications are available at
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx You can have 32,767
> user connections.
> John
> "Jim Norton" wrote:
>|||Hi John,
Funny, I can't find where I found that but it appears you are correct. I
saw some references online that the Devloper edition of SQL may or may not
have a CAL or connection limit imposed because it is intended for
development purposes only and I am trying to determine if that will impact
my test environment before I set it up. The Max Capacity specs dont really
break down the different versions so I am still a little nervous.
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:81BA8EF8-E085-4377-BC85-68F5722434E7@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Jim
> I would be interested where you got 25 connections from!
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...sqlexpress.mspx
> states
> Note: If SQL Server 2005 Express is running on Windows XP Home, it is
> limited to five simultaneous connections. If it is running on Windows 2000
> or
> Windows XP Professional, it is limited to 10 simultaneous connections.
> However, these are limitations of the operating system and not of SQL
> Server
> 2005 Express.
> But nothing about any other limit!
> John
> "John Bell" wrote:
>|||I have looked online but cannot find a clear answer to whether Microsoft SQL
Server 2005 Developer Edition has a maximum connection limit? I see that
SQL Express has 25 maximum connections.
If anyone knows that answer it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!|||Hi Jim
Maximum Capacity specifications are available at
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx You can have 32,767
user connections.
John
"Jim Norton" wrote:

> I have looked online but cannot find a clear answer to whether Microsoft S
QL
> Server 2005 Developer Edition has a maximum connection limit? I see that
> SQL Express has 25 maximum connections.
> If anyone knows that answer it would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks!
>
>|||Hi Jim
I would be interested where you got 25 connections from!
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...sqlexpress.mspx
states
Note: If SQL Server 2005 Express is running on Windows XP Home, it is
limited to five simultaneous connections. If it is running on Windows 2000 o
r
Windows XP Professional, it is limited to 10 simultaneous connections.
However, these are limitations of the operating system and not of SQL Server
2005 Express.
But nothing about any other limit!
John
"John Bell" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Jim
> Maximum Capacity specifications are available at
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx You can have 32,767
> user connections.
> John
> "Jim Norton" wrote:
>|||Hi John,
Funny, I can't find where I found that but it appears you are correct. I
saw some references online that the Devloper edition of SQL may or may not
have a CAL or connection limit imposed because it is intended for
development purposes only and I am trying to determine if that will impact
my test environment before I set it up. The Max Capacity specs dont really
break down the different versions so I am still a little nervous.
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:81BA8EF8-E085-4377-BC85-68F5722434E7@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Jim
> I would be interested where you got 25 connections from!
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...sqlexpress.mspx
> states
> Note: If SQL Server 2005 Express is running on Windows XP Home, it is
> limited to five simultaneous connections. If it is running on Windows 2000
> or
> Windows XP Professional, it is limited to 10 simultaneous connections.
> However, these are limitations of the operating system and not of SQL
> Server
> 2005 Express.
> But nothing about any other limit!
> John
> "John Bell" wrote:
>|||"Jim Norton" <joe@.joe.com> wrote in message
news:%23dETmctmGHA.4728@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hi John,
> Funny, I can't find where I found that but it appears you are correct. I
> saw some references online that the Devloper edition of SQL may or may not
> have a CAL or connection limit imposed because it is intended for
> development purposes only and I am trying to determine if that will impact
> my test environment before I set it up. The Max Capacity specs dont
really
> break down the different versions so I am still a little nervous.
The Developer edition is "basically" the Enterprise Edition, but licensed
for developer use only.
I haven't heard about SQL 2005 Express having any inherent limits itself.

> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:81BA8EF8-E085-4377-BC85-68F5722434E7@.microsoft.com...
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...sqlexpress.mspx[vbcol=seagreen]
2000[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||"Jim Norton" <joe@.joe.com> wrote in message
news:%23dETmctmGHA.4728@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hi John,
> Funny, I can't find where I found that but it appears you are correct. I
> saw some references online that the Devloper edition of SQL may or may not
> have a CAL or connection limit imposed because it is intended for
> development purposes only and I am trying to determine if that will impact
> my test environment before I set it up. The Max Capacity specs dont
really
> break down the different versions so I am still a little nervous.
The Developer edition is "basically" the Enterprise Edition, but licensed
for developer use only.
I haven't heard about SQL 2005 Express having any inherent limits itself.

> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:81BA8EF8-E085-4377-BC85-68F5722434E7@.microsoft.com...
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...sqlexpress.mspx[vbcol=seagreen]
2000[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||Hi Jim
You could look at SELECT @.@.MAX_CONNECTIONS to see what value you have! It
could be that your system is overloaded in other areas before the maximim
number of connections is reached.
John
"Jim Norton" wrote:

> Hi John,
> Funny, I can't find where I found that but it appears you are correct. I
> saw some references online that the Devloper edition of SQL may or may not
> have a CAL or connection limit imposed because it is intended for
> development purposes only and I am trying to determine if that will impact
> my test environment before I set it up. The Max Capacity specs dont reall
y
> break down the different versions so I am still a little nervous.
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:81BA8EF8-E085-4377-BC85-68F5722434E7@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Determining what causes tempdb to autogrow

I have a SQL server with over 15 user databases on it. Tempdb autogrows to
the point that it monopolizes all available disk space (I just recently
shrank it from 36 GB to free up space). Does anyone have any tips on how to
determine what process are causing so much space usage for my tempdb? It is
perplexing...I used sysmon to track when log usage increases and I try to
correlate that with profile traces in which I capture 'text like '%#%'.
This is not the best way to do this so I was wondering if anyone had any
suggestions.
Rod,
Use perfmonitor.
Performance object - "SQLServer: Access methods"
Counters - Workfiles Created/sec,Worktables created/sec,Worktables From
cache Ratio and also anything related.
Performance object - "SQLServer:databases"
Counters - Active transactions, datafile size and also anything related.
Here is some related info:
'TechNet Support WebCast: Administering and maintaining the tempdb system
database in Microsoft SQL Server'
http://support.microsoft.com/default...&Product=sql2k
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
"Rod Bautista" <rod.bautista@.adam-us.com> wrote in message
news:uLrNl#GOEHA.2716@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I have a SQL server with over 15 user databases on it. Tempdb autogrows
to
> the point that it monopolizes all available disk space (I just recently
> shrank it from 36 GB to free up space). Does anyone have any tips on how
to
> determine what process are causing so much space usage for my tempdb? It
is
> perplexing...I used sysmon to track when log usage increases and I try to
> correlate that with profile traces in which I capture 'text like '%#%'.
> This is not the best way to do this so I was wondering if anyone had any
> suggestions.
>
|||Some information here as well
http://www.aspfaq.com/2446
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"Rod Bautista" <rod.bautista@.adam-us.com> wrote in message
news:uLrNl%23GOEHA.2716@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I have a SQL server with over 15 user databases on it. Tempdb autogrows to
> the point that it monopolizes all available disk space (I just recently
> shrank it from 36 GB to free up space). Does anyone have any tips on how
> to
> determine what process are causing so much space usage for my tempdb? It
> is
> perplexing...I used sysmon to track when log usage increases and I try to
> correlate that with profile traces in which I capture 'text like '%#%'.
> This is not the best way to do this so I was wondering if anyone had any
> suggestions.
>

Determining what causes tempdb to autogrow

I have a SQL server with over 15 user databases on it. Tempdb autogrows to
the point that it monopolizes all available disk space (I just recently
shrank it from 36 GB to free up space). Does anyone have any tips on how to
determine what process are causing so much space usage for my tempdb? It is
perplexing...I used sysmon to track when log usage increases and I try to
correlate that with profile traces in which I capture 'text like '%#%'.
This is not the best way to do this so I was wondering if anyone had any
suggestions.Rod,
Use perfmonitor.
Performance object - "SQLServer: Access methods"
Counters - Workfiles Created/sec,Worktables created/sec,Worktables From
cache Ratio and also anything related.
Performance object - "SQLServer:databases"
Counters - Active transactions, datafile size and also anything related.
Here is some related info:
'TechNet Support WebCast: Administering and maintaining the tempdb system
database in Microsoft SQL Server'
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;834846&Product=sql2k
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
"Rod Bautista" <rod.bautista@.adam-us.com> wrote in message
news:uLrNl#GOEHA.2716@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I have a SQL server with over 15 user databases on it. Tempdb autogrows
to
> the point that it monopolizes all available disk space (I just recently
> shrank it from 36 GB to free up space). Does anyone have any tips on how
to
> determine what process are causing so much space usage for my tempdb? It
is
> perplexing...I used sysmon to track when log usage increases and I try to
> correlate that with profile traces in which I capture 'text like '%#%'.
> This is not the best way to do this so I was wondering if anyone had any
> suggestions.
>|||Some information here as well
http://www.aspfaq.com/2446
--
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"Rod Bautista" <rod.bautista@.adam-us.com> wrote in message
news:uLrNl%23GOEHA.2716@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I have a SQL server with over 15 user databases on it. Tempdb autogrows to
> the point that it monopolizes all available disk space (I just recently
> shrank it from 36 GB to free up space). Does anyone have any tips on how
> to
> determine what process are causing so much space usage for my tempdb? It
> is
> perplexing...I used sysmon to track when log usage increases and I try to
> correlate that with profile traces in which I capture 'text like '%#%'.
> This is not the best way to do this so I was wondering if anyone had any
> suggestions.
>

Determining what causes tempdb to autogrow

I have a SQL server with over 15 user databases on it. Tempdb autogrows to
the point that it monopolizes all available disk space (I just recently
shrank it from 36 GB to free up space). Does anyone have any tips on how to
determine what process are causing so much space usage for my tempdb? It is
perplexing...I used sysmon to track when log usage increases and I try to
correlate that with profile traces in which I capture 'text like '%#%'.
This is not the best way to do this so I was wondering if anyone had any
suggestions.Rod,
Use perfmonitor.
Performance object - "SQLServer: Access methods"
Counters - Workfiles Created/sec,Worktables created/sec,Worktables From
cache Ratio and also anything related.
Performance object - "SQLServer:databases"
Counters - Active transactions, datafile size and also anything related.
Here is some related info:
'TechNet Support WebCast: Administering and maintaining the tempdb system
database in Microsoft SQL Server'
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...6&Product=sql2k
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
"Rod Bautista" <rod.bautista@.adam-us.com> wrote in message
news:uLrNl#GOEHA.2716@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I have a SQL server with over 15 user databases on it. Tempdb autogrows
to
> the point that it monopolizes all available disk space (I just recently
> shrank it from 36 GB to free up space). Does anyone have any tips on how
to
> determine what process are causing so much space usage for my tempdb? It
is
> perplexing...I used sysmon to track when log usage increases and I try to
> correlate that with profile traces in which I capture 'text like '%#%'.
> This is not the best way to do this so I was wondering if anyone had any
> suggestions.
>|||Some information here as well
http://www.aspfaq.com/2446
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"Rod Bautista" <rod.bautista@.adam-us.com> wrote in message
news:uLrNl%23GOEHA.2716@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I have a SQL server with over 15 user databases on it. Tempdb autogrows to
> the point that it monopolizes all available disk space (I just recently
> shrank it from 36 GB to free up space). Does anyone have any tips on how
> to
> determine what process are causing so much space usage for my tempdb? It
> is
> perplexing...I used sysmon to track when log usage increases and I try to
> correlate that with profile traces in which I capture 'text like '%#%'.
> This is not the best way to do this so I was wondering if anyone had any
> suggestions.
>

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Difference between SQL Server 2000 and 2005

Difference between SQL Server 2000 and 2005

Difference between SQL Server 2000 and 2005

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Diagram of Master DB

Diagram Editor in SQL Server Management Studio

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Developing the clever backup strategy

Developing the clever backup strategy

Developing the clever backup strategy

Friday, February 17, 2012

Developer 2005 Connection Limit

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Determining what causes tempdb to autogrow

Determining what causes tempdb to autogrow

Determining what causes tempdb to autogrow

sql record counts

Blog Archive

About Me