sql record counts: bit

Showing posts with label bit. Show all posts

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Difference between SQL 2000 st. and SQL 2000 Enterprise

Hi there
I feel a bit silly here. If spent the last 45 mins searching the web trying
to find a definite list of the differences between SQL 2000 Standard and SQL
2000 Enterprise. All the links at microsoft.com seem to redirect to the 2005
version. If anyone can link me to a feature comparison or know the numbers
off the top of their head I would be grateful. The most pressing question is
this:
What if I buy a standard edition and install it on a server with 4Gb RAM,
would I:
Violate my license since standard only supports up to 2 Gb?
or would the SQL server simply just use only 2Gb RAM and work just fine and
no license would be violated?
Thanks in advance
IbIb,
In your SQL Server 2000 Books Online is a topic "Features Supported by the
Editions of SQL Server 2000" that will give general guidance on features.
Installing standard edition on a server with more RAM will not violate a
license. SQL Server will only use as much memory as it can.
RLF
"Ib Schrader" <ibschrader@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e1LaFcw6HHA.2632@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi there
> I feel a bit silly here. If spent the last 45 mins searching the web
> trying to find a definite list of the differences between SQL 2000
> Standard and SQL 2000 Enterprise. All the links at microsoft.com seem to
> redirect to the 2005 version. If anyone can link me to a feature
> comparison or know the numbers off the top of their head I would be
> grateful. The most pressing question is this:
> What if I buy a standard edition and install it on a server with 4Gb RAM,
> would I:
> Violate my license since standard only supports up to 2 Gb?
> or would the SQL server simply just use only 2Gb RAM and work just fine
> and no license would be violated?
> Thanks in advance
> Ib
>|||The information is in Books on Line, the documentation. You could
download and install that from the Microsoft site, or read it on the
web.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa175266(SQL.80).aspx
That should put you int he neighborhood.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:09:36 +0200, "Ib Schrader"
<ibschrader@.gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi there
>I feel a bit silly here. If spent the last 45 mins searching the web trying
>to find a definite list of the differences between SQL 2000 Standard and SQL
>2000 Enterprise. All the links at microsoft.com seem to redirect to the 2005
>version. If anyone can link me to a feature comparison or know the numbers
>off the top of their head I would be grateful. The most pressing question is
>this:
>What if I buy a standard edition and install it on a server with 4Gb RAM,
>would I:
>Violate my license since standard only supports up to 2 Gb?
>or would the SQL server simply just use only 2Gb RAM and work just fine and
>no license would be violated?
>Thanks in advance
>Ib
>|||Books online..never knew something like that existed.
Thanks to both of you
"Roy Harvey" <roy_harvey@.snet.net> wrote in message
news:nmidd351bfo31q14ee6hufgq5jf75r2e89@.4ax.com...
> The information is in Books on Line, the documentation. You could
> download and install that from the Microsoft site, or read it on the
> web.
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa175266(SQL.80).aspx
> That should put you int he neighborhood.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:09:36 +0200, "Ib Schrader"
> <ibschrader@.gmail.com> wrote:
>>Hi there
>>I feel a bit silly here. If spent the last 45 mins searching the web
>>trying
>>to find a definite list of the differences between SQL 2000 Standard and
>>SQL
>>2000 Enterprise. All the links at microsoft.com seem to redirect to the
>>2005
>>version. If anyone can link me to a feature comparison or know the numbers
>>off the top of their head I would be grateful. The most pressing question
>>is
>>this:
>>What if I buy a standard edition and install it on a server with 4Gb RAM,
>>would I:
>>Violate my license since standard only supports up to 2 Gb?
>>or would the SQL server simply just use only 2Gb RAM and work just fine
>>and
>>no license would be violated?
>>Thanks in advance
>>Ib

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

diferent between sql 2005 x86 and x64 ?

I have AMD X2 64 bit processor, and try to install sql server 2005 developer edition. Which one should I choose x86 or x64 ?

Is there a problems if I migrating file database from x86 platform to x64 and from x64 to x86 ?

thanx

There is a great explanation for these architectures (processor types) on wikipedia:

X86:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86

X64:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X64

Thanks

|||

I'm not asking about processor but about MSSQL 2005 x86 and MSSQL x64 is it different in database architecture or platform only ?

|||

Check if this helps:http://search.techrepublic.com.com/search/64-bit+and+Microsoft+SQL+Server+and+benefit.html

sql

Friday, February 24, 2012

Developer limitation under SQL 2005 under Vista Ultimate 64 bit

Just to be clear, I would like to know if a problem I face is due to an error on my part or a limitation on Microsoft's. In my experience (several hours-long installations, removals, reinstallations, using the skuupgrade=1 parameter from the command line, ad nauseum) I have concluded that the best one can do installing SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition from the Visual Studio 2005 Professional Edition package is to get the Express Edition, (actually styled MSSMLBIZ). In particular, what I'm hoping to be able to do is program to a test database that I have from my client, which I was able to do on my XP Professional machine. But on my new Vista Ultimate 64 bit machine (which will only let me install the x64 version of SQL Server 2005), I get an instance that is characterized as SQL Server Express and generates the following error message when I try to attach to the same MDF file to which I was able to attach under my prior, XP-Pro based configuration:

TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio

Attach database failed for Server 'ZAPHOD42\MSSMLBIZ'. (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)

For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=9.00.3042.00&EvtSrc=Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.ExceptionTemplates.FailedOperationExceptionText&EvtID=Attach+database+Server&LinkId=20476

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

An exception occurred while executing a Transact-SQL statement or batch. (Microsoft.SqlServer.ConnectionInfo)

CREATE DATABASE or ALTER DATABASE failed because the resulting cumulative database size would exceed your licensed limit of 4096 MB per database. (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 1827)

For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=09.00.3054&EvtSrc=MSSQLServer&EvtID=1827&LinkId=20476

BUTTONS:

===================================================================================
The following is the Help obtained when clicking on the button on the error msg and the references in the error msg:
===================================================================================
Details
ID: Attach database Server
Source: Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.ExceptionTemplates.FailedOperationExceptionText

Thank you for searching on this message; your search helps us identify those areas for which we need to provide more information.

Currently there are no Microsoft Knowledge Base articles available for this specific error or event message. For information about other support options you can use to find answers online, see http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx.

==================

Details
ID: 1827
Source: MSSQLServer

We're sorry
There is no additional information about this issue in the Error and Event Log Messages or Knowledge Base databases at this time. You can use the links in the Support area to determine whether any additional information might be available elsewhere.
Thank you for searching on this message; your search helps us identify those areas for which we need to provide more information.

==========End of reproduction of error messages and help text ====================================

The Developer Edition, of course, is supposed to enable us to program to all levels of the database, and I would hate to think it is really crippled in this way, but after uninstalling everything, reinstalling multiple times (devoting several days to the process), it sure beats me how I can overcome this problem short of going back to my old machine. Any definitive answers on this apparent limitation, or useful procedural advice on installation quirks, would be appreciated (and, yes, I've spent a lot of time going through the installation/setup forum -- if the answer is there I can't find it).

Seems as you want to attach a user database to a Express instance ? What is the output if you connect to the mentioned server and execute the following command: SELECT @.@.Version ?

Jens K. Suessmeyer

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||The server is my local machine, and I cannot attach to the database on it, as I tried to explain above, because the database is too big. When I run the command you suggest without attaching a specific database, the following output is obtained:

I must say the X86 reference surprises me. I hope this means more to you than it does to me.
Bob

|||

Using a SQL Server Express edition you are limited to 4GB database size (all databases in sum of the instance)

Jens K. Suessmeyer

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

I face the same problem... I have a Vista ultimate x64 and I tried to attach a small MDF to SQLexpress and I had an error. It's the same if I try to create a new db?

could you give me some help

Developer limitation under SQL 2005 under Vista Ultimate 64 bit

TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio

Attach database failed for Server 'ZAPHOD42\MSSMLBIZ'. (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

An exception occurred while executing a Transact-SQL statement or batch. (Microsoft.SqlServer.ConnectionInfo)

CREATE DATABASE or ALTER DATABASE failed because the resulting cumulative database size would exceed your licensed limit of 4096 MB per database. (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 1827)

For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=09.00.3054&EvtSrc=MSSQLServer&EvtID=1827&LinkId=20476

BUTTONS:

Thank you for searching on this message; your search helps us identify those areas for which we need to provide more information.

==================

Details
ID: 1827
Source: MSSQLServer

==========End of reproduction of error messages and help text ====================================

Seems as you want to attach a user database to a Express instance ? What is the output if you connect to the mentioned server and execute the following command: SELECT @.@.Version ?

Jens K. Suessmeyer

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

I must say the X86 reference surprises me. I hope this means more to you than it does to me.
Bob

|||

Using a SQL Server Express edition you are limited to 4GB database size (all databases in sum of the instance)

Jens K. Suessmeyer

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

I face the same problem... I have a Vista ultimate x64 and I tried to attach a small MDF to SQLexpress and I had an error. It's the same if I try to create a new db?

could you give me some help

Friday, February 17, 2012

developed in 2005, need to go back to 2000

I've developed a web application and to be honest I've been a bit dumb and not checked with my hosts. I assumed they used SQL Server 2005. But no, they only use 2000.

I'm sure I'll come across more problems but the first I'm having is I've used the ROW_NUMBER() function in a few stored procedures, but in 2000 I'm getting this error message

'ROW_NUMBER' is not a recognized function name.

Here is the stored procedure for reference

SELECT RowNumFROM (SELECT id, category, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY id) as RowNum FROM custrecords ) as CustRecord

anyone know the SQL Server 2000 equivalent?

Regrettably ROW_NUMBER is a new feature with SQL2005.

What precisely are you trying to achive with your SELECT statement?

|||

there isn't a equivalent of row_number() in SQL Server 2000. Depending on your requirement, you can use a subquery something like

select count(*) from tbl where <condition>

to do it.

Maybe you can explain what are you trying to do here. Or alternatively do the row numbering in your ASP.NET

|||

khtan:
there isn't a equivalent of row_number() in SQL Server 2000. Depending on your requirement, you can use a subquery something like
select count(*) from tbl where <condition>?
to do it.
Maybe you can explain what are you trying to do here. Or alternatively do the row numbering in your ASP.NET
?

thanks khtan, I'll try using the Count keyword method instead|||

Provided you read the dataset first, you can also have output parameters on the stored procedure that gets your batch size. Have a look at http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/webtech/041206-1.shtml (Efficiently Paging Through Large Result Sets in SQL Server 2000)

|||

TATWORTH:
Provided you read the dataset first, you can also have output parameters on the stored procedure that gets your batch size. Have a look at http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/webtech/041206-1.shtml ( Efficiently Paging Through Large Result Sets in SQL Server 2000)

wow, thanks tatworth. I started on the tutorial link you supplied above and eventually found myself doing the tutorial (A more efficent method for paging through large result sets : link below)

http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/webtech/042606-1.shtml

But I've hit a problem. Like I say I've done the tut above and it works great...if you only want the results to be in order of id.

I'm trying to change the order by other fields (name, date of birth) but I'm not getting anywhere.

Any one any tips?

|||

Please always remember when using output parameters and a dataset, to read the dataset before the output parameters - there is a "bug"/"feature" that only populates the output parameters after the dataset has been read.

As to your sort problem, the solution pobably lies along using "date of birth and id" instead of just "date of birth" - please post an example of the revised TSQL together with a script to create the table. I will look at it and attempt a fix the problem; however it may not be until next weekend that I can look at it.

|||

TATWORTH:
Please always remember when using output parameters and a dataset, to read the dataset before the output parameters - there is a "bug"/"feature" that only populates the output parameters after the dataset has been read.
As to your sort problem, the solution pobably lies along using "date of birth and id" instead of just "date of birth" - please post an example of the revised TSQL together with a script to create the table. I will look at it and attempt a fix the problem; however it may not be until next weekend that I can look at it.

wow, thanks tatworth

This is the stored procedure I created from the tutorial above, like I say it works if the order by is id, anything else and it doesn't work

ALTER PROCEDURE uk_members
(
@.username VarChar(20),
@.startRowIndex int,
@.maximumRows int
)
AS
DECLARE @.first_id int

SET ROWCOUNT @.startRowIndex
SELECT @.first_id = id FROM uk_orders
WHERE (username=@.username) AND (itemstat <> 'DELETE') ORDER BY id
SET ROWCOUNT @.maximumRows
SELECT id, username, suppliername, product, quantity
FROM uk_orders WHERE
(id >= @.first_id) AND (username=@.username) AND (suppliername <> 'SMITHS') ORDER BY id
SET ROWCOUNT 0

I've been messing around with the code but not got anywhere.

I really appreciate your help and of course anyone else offering any help is also really appreciated.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Difference between SQL 2000 st. and SQL 2000 Enterprise

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

diferent between sql 2005 x86 and x64 ?

Friday, February 24, 2012

Developer limitation under SQL 2005 under Vista Ultimate 64 bit

Developer limitation under SQL 2005 under Vista Ultimate 64 bit

Friday, February 17, 2012

developed in 2005, need to go back to 2000

sql record counts

Blog Archive

About Me