Difference between these two SQL Express

Anyone can tell me the difference between

Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Express Edition with Advanced Services

and

Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Express Edition Toolkit

I am wondering which one should i install

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

difference between the versions of SQL server

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SQL Server Express with Advanced Services contains the following features:

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

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

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

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

HTH, jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

Are there instructions for upgrading to the SP1 version?

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

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

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

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

HTH, jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.desql

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

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

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

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

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

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

SQL Server Express with Advanced Services contains the following features:

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

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

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

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

HTH, jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

Are there instructions for upgrading to the SP1 version?

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

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

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

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

HTH, jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

Difference between the querries.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by getmeidea

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by getmeidea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

difference between the fuzzy lookup and fuzzy grouping in ssis

Dear Friends,

i think fuzzy lookup

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

what is fuzzy grouping ? please explain

regards

koti

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

|||

Koti,

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

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

Thanks for your time.

Eric

Difference between the estimated size and size given by sp_spaceus

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