sql record counts: instead

Showing posts with label instead. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Difference between Personal Edition and Standard Edition

We had a vendor install SQL Server Personal Edition
instead of the Standard Edition on one of our servers.
When we asked them "what is the difference" they did not
know. Can someone tell me what it is? We paid for the
Standard (FULL) install..Refer to this url
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_
ar_ts_1cdv.asp
--
-Vishal
"Ed" <fsankey@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:00a501c3634f$9fba9fc0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> We had a vendor install SQL Server Personal Edition
> instead of the Standard Edition on one of our servers.
> When we asked them "what is the difference" they did not
> know. Can someone tell me what it is? We paid for the
> Standard (FULL) install..

Sunday, March 25, 2012

difference between count(1) and count(*)

Hi,
Can you explain me the advantages of using one of these
statements?
I usually use the count(*) but i would like to know why
should we use one instead of the other.
Thanks a lot,
Best regardsIt's a purely syntactic difference. Use whatever one you like.
COUNT(*) is probably somewhat easier to read... but you could even use
COUNT(2349082349082398) if you felt like it.
"CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:27d5a01c46356$61150000$a301280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Hi,
> Can you explain me the advantages of using one of these
> statements?
> I usually use the count(*) but i would like to know why
> should we use one instead of the other.
> Thanks a lot,
> Best regards|||The only instance where you could get different results would be where you
specify an actual column name instead of *. Using count(*) will return the
count of the number of rows, whilst count(<ColumnName> ) will return the
number of rows where <ColumnName> is not null.
R
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:exvVSq1YEHA.2868@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> It's a purely syntactic difference. Use whatever one you like.
> COUNT(*) is probably somewhat easier to read... but you could even use
> COUNT(2349082349082398) if you felt like it.
> "CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:27d5a01c46356$61150000$a301280a@.phx
.gbl...
>

difference between count(1) and count(*)

Hi,
Can you explain me the advantages of using one of these
statements?
I usually use the count(*) but i would like to know why
should we use one instead of the other.
Thanks a lot,
Best regards
It's a purely syntactic difference. Use whatever one you like.
COUNT(*) is probably somewhat easier to read... but you could even use
COUNT(2349082349082398) if you felt like it.
"CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:27d5a01c46356$61150000$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Can you explain me the advantages of using one of these
> statements?
> I usually use the count(*) but i would like to know why
> should we use one instead of the other.
> Thanks a lot,
> Best regards
|||The only instance where you could get different results would be where you
specify an actual column name instead of *. Using count(*) will return the
count of the number of rows, whilst count(<ColumnName>) will return the
number of rows where <ColumnName> is not null.
R
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:exvVSq1YEHA.2868@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> It's a purely syntactic difference. Use whatever one you like.
> COUNT(*) is probably somewhat easier to read... but you could even use
> COUNT(2349082349082398) if you felt like it.
> "CC&JM" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:27d5a01c46356$61150000$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>
sql

difference between 'Backup' and DB maint. plan backup?

hi.
ive not setup any backups under 'Management' -> 'Backup' on my SQL2000 box.
instead ive used the 'Complete Backup' and ' Transaction Log Backup' tab
under Database Maintenance Plans -> 'NonSystemDatabaseMaintenance'.
is setting up a backup using a maintenance plan the same as setting up a
full backup under the 'Backup' tab?
thanks.Hi,
Backup tab is just creating the Logical Backup device. What you are doing is
exacltly the right procedure to take Full database
and Transaction log backup.
Looks like you are performing backup only for non system database backup,
But i recomend you to do the backup for all the system
databases as well. This will help you in the eve of crash.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"mb" <mb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C67C8B52-07C6-40D0-A722-2BCE97582372@.microsoft.com...
> hi.
> ive not setup any backups under 'Management' -> 'Backup' on my SQL2000
> box.
> instead ive used the 'Complete Backup' and ' Transaction Log Backup' tab
> under Database Maintenance Plans -> 'NonSystemDatabaseMaintenance'.
> is setting up a backup using a maintenance plan the same as setting up a
> full backup under the 'Backup' tab?
> thanks.|||hmm, yes, but i dont believe i have the option of 'remove inactive entries
from transaction log' when creating transaction logs from the maintenance
plans. true?
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> Backup tab is just creating the Logical Backup device. What you are doing is
> exacltly the right procedure to take Full database
> and Transaction log backup.
> Looks like you are performing backup only for non system database backup,
> But i recomend you to do the backup for all the system
> databases as well. This will help you in the eve of crash.
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "mb" <mb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C67C8B52-07C6-40D0-A722-2BCE97582372@.microsoft.com...
> > hi.
> >
> > ive not setup any backups under 'Management' -> 'Backup' on my SQL2000
> > box.
> > instead ive used the 'Complete Backup' and ' Transaction Log Backup' tab
> > under Database Maintenance Plans -> 'NonSystemDatabaseMaintenance'.
> >
> > is setting up a backup using a maintenance plan the same as setting up a
> > full backup under the 'Backup' tab?
> >
> > thanks.
>
>|||Btw, I've written an article about this:
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_restore_no_truncate.asp
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"mb" <mb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5E78EC73-4EBA-4DAD-836E-3EBAD9D3BFA8@.microsoft.com...
> hmm, yes, but i dont believe i have the option of 'remove inactive entries
> from transaction log' when creating transaction logs from the maintenance
> plans. true?
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Backup tab is just creating the Logical Backup device. What you are doing is
>> exacltly the right procedure to take Full database
>> and Transaction log backup.
>> Looks like you are performing backup only for non system database backup,
>> But i recomend you to do the backup for all the system
>> databases as well. This will help you in the eve of crash.
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>> SQL Server MVP
>>
>>
>> "mb" <mb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C67C8B52-07C6-40D0-A722-2BCE97582372@.microsoft.com...
>> > hi.
>> >
>> > ive not setup any backups under 'Management' -> 'Backup' on my SQL2000
>> > box.
>> > instead ive used the 'Complete Backup' and ' Transaction Log Backup' tab
>> > under Database Maintenance Plans -> 'NonSystemDatabaseMaintenance'.
>> >
>> > is setting up a backup using a maintenance plan the same as setting up a
>> > full backup under the 'Backup' tab?
>> >
>> > thanks.
>>|||Maint plan will not add the NO_TRUNCATE option for the backup log command. This option is what
empties the log and when you uncheck in the backup dialog, this option is added. Terrible GUI design
in the backup dialog (not maint wiz) IMO, and this option has a very special purpose and is only
used for disaster scenarios.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"mb" <mb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5E78EC73-4EBA-4DAD-836E-3EBAD9D3BFA8@.microsoft.com...
> hmm, yes, but i dont believe i have the option of 'remove inactive entries
> from transaction log' when creating transaction logs from the maintenance
> plans. true?
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Backup tab is just creating the Logical Backup device. What you are doing is
>> exacltly the right procedure to take Full database
>> and Transaction log backup.
>> Looks like you are performing backup only for non system database backup,
>> But i recomend you to do the backup for all the system
>> databases as well. This will help you in the eve of crash.
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>> SQL Server MVP
>>
>>
>> "mb" <mb@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C67C8B52-07C6-40D0-A722-2BCE97582372@.microsoft.com...
>> > hi.
>> >
>> > ive not setup any backups under 'Management' -> 'Backup' on my SQL2000
>> > box.
>> > instead ive used the 'Complete Backup' and ' Transaction Log Backup' tab
>> > under Database Maintenance Plans -> 'NonSystemDatabaseMaintenance'.
>> >
>> > is setting up a backup using a maintenance plan the same as setting up a
>> > full backup under the 'Backup' tab?
>> >
>> > thanks.
>>

difference between 'Backup' and DB maint. plan backup?

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Diagrams a tool anyone can recommend

Hi want to produce a DB diagram on MSQSL 2000.
all I want to do is create links which exist diagrammatically only.
Instead as I UNDERSTAND it the SQL wants to physically create these
constraints on the DB. I DO NOT WANT THIS.
Pls don't answer that I should be using constraints, FK etcs. Not my
call and too late.
Is it possible to simply produce a diagram where I draw links between
fields without effecting underlying DB.
Is there a tool that will do this? Or should I just throw it into word
and make the links myself or use Visio. Preferably would like to
create diagram in MMSQL but which didn't change underlying DB.
Itzik, shalom
I'm afraid you are not able to do that with SQL Server.
Perhaps , there are some third part software to be able to do it for you.
"Yitzak" <terryshamir@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b73ddf3c.0503290417.8baa183@.posting.google.co m...
> Hi want to produce a DB diagram on MSQSL 2000.
> all I want to do is create links which exist diagrammatically only.
> Instead as I UNDERSTAND it the SQL wants to physically create these
> constraints on the DB. I DO NOT WANT THIS.
> Pls don't answer that I should be using constraints, FK etcs. Not my
> call and too late.
> Is it possible to simply produce a diagram where I draw links between
> fields without effecting underlying DB.
> Is there a tool that will do this? Or should I just throw it into word
> and make the links myself or use Visio. Preferably would like to
> create diagram in MMSQL but which didn't change underlying DB.
|||I generally use Visio for this... But you could use any 3rd party modelling
tool like Erwin, you'd have to set up the PK, FK etc in the logical
model... Just don't push it out to the physical database
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Yitzak" <terryshamir@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b73ddf3c.0503290417.8baa183@.posting.google.co m...
> Hi want to produce a DB diagram on MSQSL 2000.
> all I want to do is create links which exist diagrammatically only.
> Instead as I UNDERSTAND it the SQL wants to physically create these
> constraints on the DB. I DO NOT WANT THIS.
> Pls don't answer that I should be using constraints, FK etcs. Not my
> call and too late.
> Is it possible to simply produce a diagram where I draw links between
> fields without effecting underlying DB.
> Is there a tool that will do this? Or should I just throw it into word
> and make the links myself or use Visio. Preferably would like to
> create diagram in MMSQL but which didn't change underlying DB.

Diagrams a tool anyone can recommend

Hi want to produce a DB diagram on MSQSL 2000.
all I want to do is create links which exist diagrammatically only.
Instead as I UNDERSTAND it the SQL wants to physically create these
constraints on the DB. I DO NOT WANT THIS.
Pls don't answer that I should be using constraints, FK etcs. Not my
call and too late.
Is it possible to simply produce a diagram where I draw links between
fields without effecting underlying DB.
Is there a tool that will do this? Or should I just throw it into word
and make the links myself or use Visio. Preferably would like to
create diagram in MMSQL but which didn't change underlying DB.Itzik, shalom
I'm afraid you are not able to do that with SQL Server.
Perhaps , there are some third part software to be able to do it for you.
"Yitzak" <terryshamir@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b73ddf3c.0503290417.8baa183@.posting.google.com...
> Hi want to produce a DB diagram on MSQSL 2000.
> all I want to do is create links which exist diagrammatically only.
> Instead as I UNDERSTAND it the SQL wants to physically create these
> constraints on the DB. I DO NOT WANT THIS.
> Pls don't answer that I should be using constraints, FK etcs. Not my
> call and too late.
> Is it possible to simply produce a diagram where I draw links between
> fields without effecting underlying DB.
> Is there a tool that will do this? Or should I just throw it into word
> and make the links myself or use Visio. Preferably would like to
> create diagram in MMSQL but which didn't change underlying DB.|||I generally use visio for this... But you could use any 3rd party modelling
tool like Erwin, you'd have to set up the PK, FK etc in the logical
model... Just don't push it out to the physical database
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Yitzak" <terryshamir@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b73ddf3c.0503290417.8baa183@.posting.google.com...
> Hi want to produce a DB diagram on MSQSL 2000.
> all I want to do is create links which exist diagrammatically only.
> Instead as I UNDERSTAND it the SQL wants to physically create these
> constraints on the DB. I DO NOT WANT THIS.
> Pls don't answer that I should be using constraints, FK etcs. Not my
> call and too late.
> Is it possible to simply produce a diagram where I draw links between
> fields without effecting underlying DB.
> Is there a tool that will do this? Or should I just throw it into word
> and make the links myself or use Visio. Preferably would like to
> create diagram in MMSQL but which didn't change underlying DB.

Diagrams a tool anyone can recommend

Hi want to produce a DB diagram on MSQSL 2000.
all I want to do is create links which exist diagrammatically only.
Instead as I UNDERSTAND it the SQL wants to physically create these
constraints on the DB. I DO NOT WANT THIS.
Pls don't answer that I should be using constraints, FK etcs. Not my
call and too late.
Is it possible to simply produce a diagram where I draw links between
fields without effecting underlying DB.
Is there a tool that will do this? Or should I just throw it into word
and make the links myself or use Visio. Preferably would like to
create diagram in MMSQL but which didn't change underlying DB.Itzik, shalom
I'm afraid you are not able to do that with SQL Server.
Perhaps , there are some third part software to be able to do it for you.
"Yitzak" <terryshamir@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b73ddf3c.0503290417.8baa183@.posting.google.com...
> Hi want to produce a DB diagram on MSQSL 2000.
> all I want to do is create links which exist diagrammatically only.
> Instead as I UNDERSTAND it the SQL wants to physically create these
> constraints on the DB. I DO NOT WANT THIS.
> Pls don't answer that I should be using constraints, FK etcs. Not my
> call and too late.
> Is it possible to simply produce a diagram where I draw links between
> fields without effecting underlying DB.
> Is there a tool that will do this? Or should I just throw it into word
> and make the links myself or use Visio. Preferably would like to
> create diagram in MMSQL but which didn't change underlying DB.|||I generally use Visio for this... But you could use any 3rd party modelling
tool like Erwin, you'd have to set up the PK, FK etc in the logical
model... Just don't push it out to the physical database
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Yitzak" <terryshamir@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b73ddf3c.0503290417.8baa183@.posting.google.com...
> Hi want to produce a DB diagram on MSQSL 2000.
> all I want to do is create links which exist diagrammatically only.
> Instead as I UNDERSTAND it the SQL wants to physically create these
> constraints on the DB. I DO NOT WANT THIS.
> Pls don't answer that I should be using constraints, FK etcs. Not my
> call and too late.
> Is it possible to simply produce a diagram where I draw links between
> fields without effecting underlying DB.
> Is there a tool that will do this? Or should I just throw it into word
> and make the links myself or use Visio. Preferably would like to
> create diagram in MMSQL but which didn't change underlying DB.|||I have used Erwin for several years. I have created
diagrams of what the database I am working on should look
like when I am done with it. Just reverse engineer it and
make all the connections.
Gary.
>--Original Message--
>Hi want to produce a DB diagram on MSQSL 2000.
>all I want to do is create links which exist
diagrammatically only.
>Instead as I UNDERSTAND it the SQL wants to physically
create these
>constraints on the DB. I DO NOT WANT THIS.
>Pls don't answer that I should be using constraints, FK
etcs. Not my
>call and too late.
>Is it possible to simply produce a diagram where I draw
links between
>fields without effecting underlying DB.
>Is there a tool that will do this? Or should I just throw
it into word
>and make the links myself or use Visio. Preferably would
like to
>create diagram in MMSQL but which didn't change underlying DB.
>.
>

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Difference between Personal Edition and Standard Edition

Sunday, March 25, 2012

difference between count(1) and count(*)

difference between count(1) and count(*)

difference between 'Backup' and DB maint. plan backup?

difference between 'Backup' and DB maint. plan backup?

difference between 'Backup' and DB maint. plan backup?

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Diagrams a tool anyone can recommend

Diagrams a tool anyone can recommend

Diagrams a tool anyone can recommend

sql record counts

Blog Archive

About Me