Sql ANSI Padding: example

显示标签为“example”的博文。显示所有博文

2012年3月22日星期四

Anybody use the WinForms ReportViewer?

My issue is one-click printing using a programmed format. For example
I have reports that print landscape on legal paper.
I have not been able to do this from the web environment, and I'm
hoping that the WinForm ReportViewer control will allow me.
It should be simple enough to try this, but if anyone has done this yet
I would be happy to know.
JimI'm using it, and have a few reports working. However, I am now beating my
head against a wall trying to get a more complex label-printing program
going...
Walt Crosby
Walt.Crosby@.everydaywireless.com
<jhcorey@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139344808.488092.292340@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> My issue is one-click printing using a programmed format. For example
> I have reports that print landscape on legal paper.
> I have not been able to do this from the web environment, and I'm
> hoping that the WinForm ReportViewer control will allow me.
> It should be simple enough to try this, but if anyone has done this yet
> I would be happy to know.
> Jim
>

Anybody played with SmoBrowser example within smo?

I was looking at the smo examples that come with sql server 2005/VS 2005

and I have found quite interesting how it was neat and easy to load everthing in a treeview using reflection.

I come to my question:

I would like to load a treeview control that I could reuse in the same way but depending on the needs i would like only to load certain stuff not all of them.

EG (Not all objects but just DatabaseCollection,TableCollection)

Is there a way I can ovverride IsExpandablePropertyType so that i can decide what i can load?

any suggestions

I have adopted the SMOBrowser source code to upgrade one our products, SQL2000Print that prints SQL Server 2000 object information using DMO. The new product will do the same for SQL Server 2005 using SMO. I load the treeview only with the database objects that I want to load, and in a structure that is similar to Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio.

I have uploaded a development version to our website (here is the download link http://www.starprint2000.com/downloads/beta/sqlserverprint2005.msi) that prints Tables, Views and Stored Procedures from SQL Server 2005. You are welcome to download it and try it.

If you want to load your treeview the same/simliar way please let me know, I will be happy to share the code for loading the Treeview.

Regards,

Joginder Nahil
www.starprint2000.com

|||

Hi there

thanks for your reply.I would be extremely grateful if you could share the code for the treeview .

you can email it at vbjunkie@.hotmail.co.uk and let me know.

Thanks a lot

|||

I have modified the SMOBrowser example, that you download using the following link, to demonstrate how you can load the treeview with the datbase objects of your choice.

http://www.starprint2000.com/downloads/SmoBrowser.zip

The zip file contains readme.doc that documents the changes and provides information showing how I loaded the Treeview using XML to my own tree structure.

Regards,

Joginder Nahil
www.starprint2000.com

|||

Thanks a lot for your link.

One last question.In one scenario I just wanted to load one database,not all of them.

Can i do that?

thanks again

|||

I have modified the SMOBrowser example, that you download using the following link, to demonstrate how you can load the treeview with the database objects of your choice AND only the database in the list:.

http://www.starprint2000.com/downloads/SmoBrowserDBOnly.zip

I have modified the code for procedure PopulateCollectionItems to check if the item to be loaded is a Database object and its name is in the list of names to be loaded.

Private Sub PopulateCollectionItems(ByVal node As TreeNode)
Dim oldCursor As Cursor = Me.Cursor
Me.Cursor = Cursors.WaitCursor
Try
For Each item As Object In CType(node.Tag, ICollection)
Select Case TypeName(item)
Case "Database"
If DatabasesToLoadList.Contains(CType(item, Database).Name) Then
node.Nodes.Add(CreateNode(item))
End If
Case Else
node.Nodes.Add(CreateNode(item))
End Select
Next
Finally
Me.Cursor = oldCursor
End Try
End Sub

Regards,

Joginder Nahil
www.starprint2000.com

|||

http://www.starprint2000.com/downloads/SmoBrowserDBOnly.zip

I have modified the code for procedure PopulateCollectionItems to check if the item to be loaded is a Database object and its name is in the list of names to be loaded.

Regards,

Joginder Nahil
www.starprint2000.com

|||

Fantastic!!

Thanks a lot for your very good reply and quick answer!

Anybody have any luck using the Filters tab on a table

I can't get a table to return top n rows. The sorting tab works fine. Can
anyone provide a syntax example?
Thanks,
Dave=Fields!MyField.Value TopN =10
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Microsoft PrivateNews" <Dave.Troyer@.cliftoncpa.com> wrote in message
news:O4CS54noEHA.3464@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I can't get a table to return top n rows. The sorting tab works fine. Can
> anyone provide a syntax example?
> Thanks,
> Dave
>|||That's what I have but it doesn't return any rows. There is data in the
dataset.
"Lev Semenets [MSFT]" <levs@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:u7DeYfsoEHA.536@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> =Fields!MyField.Value TopN =10
> --
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
>
> "Microsoft PrivateNews" <Dave.Troyer@.cliftoncpa.com> wrote in message
> news:O4CS54noEHA.3464@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> >I can't get a table to return top n rows. The sorting tab works fine.
Can
> > anyone provide a syntax example?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dave
> >
> >
>|||I was able to get this to work. Something went flaky at one point. Thanks
again.
"Microsoft PrivateNews" <Dave.Troyer@.cliftoncpa.com> wrote in message
news:uNfExIMpEHA.644@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> That's what I have but it doesn't return any rows. There is data in the
> dataset.
> "Lev Semenets [MSFT]" <levs@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:u7DeYfsoEHA.536@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > =Fields!MyField.Value TopN =10
> >
> > --
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> >
> >
> > "Microsoft PrivateNews" <Dave.Troyer@.cliftoncpa.com> wrote in message
> > news:O4CS54noEHA.3464@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > >I can't get a table to return top n rows. The sorting tab works fine.
> Can
> > > anyone provide a syntax example?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Dave
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

2012年3月20日星期二

any way to rollback dbase

Hi just wondering if there is anyway to roll back a database? For example
the last time the database was backed up say 3 months ago and a restore was
done yesterday. Just wondering if there is anyway to undo the restore?
Thanks.
--
Paul G
Software engineer.No, a database restore can't be undone because all data in the target are
replaced during the restore.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9A8E7FFE-2DFA-4FAC-AE0F-2BB8BF026E1C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi just wondering if there is anyway to roll back a database? For example
> the last time the database was backed up say 3 months ago and a restore
> was
> done yesterday. Just wondering if there is anyway to undo the restore?
> Thanks.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.|||"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9A8E7FFE-2DFA-4FAC-AE0F-2BB8BF026E1C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi just wondering if there is anyway to roll back a database? For example
> the last time the database was backed up say 3 months ago and a restore
> was
> done yesterday. Just wondering if there is anyway to undo the restore?
> Thanks.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
Sure -- this can be easily done.
Assuming you have a backup you took immediately
prior to the restore.
What's that? You don't have one? Well, why not?
Chalk this one up as a lesson learned.
Really, there's no way without another backup
that was taken just prior to the restore.|||Hi,
No you cant do a recovery back if you restore a full database backup.
Here after please do a backup and keep yourself safe before restoring.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Paul" <Paul@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9A8E7FFE-2DFA-4FAC-AE0F-2BB8BF026E1C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi just wondering if there is anyway to roll back a database? For example
> the last time the database was backed up say 3 months ago and a restore
> was
> done yesterday. Just wondering if there is anyway to undo the restore?
> Thanks.
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.

2012年3月6日星期二

any order

quote:

> As far as the I know, the order was the same as you add the data.
> You can change the order bu add "order by" statement , I think you can get
> whole information from BOL
>

|||Hi ,
If you have a clusted index in that table database will be ordered based on
the Index key. So incase if you have a clustered index the
"select * from tablename" will return the result set based on the clustered
index key order.
If you donot have a clusted index the result set will be reurned based on
the way you inserted.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

quote:

> Hi,
> Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> select * from tablename
> what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
> any mystery?
>

|||records are sorted in ascending order by default.
"John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

quote:

> Hi,
> Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> select * from tablename
> what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
> any mystery?
>

|||Sorry

quote:

> I don't think that order depends on insertion. (unless you have clustered
> index on this column)

I meant if you don't have a clustered index on the column it depends on
insertion.
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:#JxgijW6DHA.3548@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

quote:

> Wei
> I don't think that order depends on insertion. (unless you have clustered
> index on this column)
>
> "Wei Ci Zhou" <weicizhou@.hotmail.com.discuss> wrote in message
> news:O9uMAcW6DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
get[QUOTE]
>

|||The first reply you made me shocked

|||> If you have a clusted index in that table database will be ordered based on

quote:

> the Index key.

Not necessarily. See my other post.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=...ls
erver
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uPL7gkW6DHA.2628@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

quote:

> Hi ,
> If you have a clusted index in that table database will be ordered based o
n
> the Index key. So incase if you have a clustered index the
> "select * from tablename" will return the result set based on the clustere
d
> index key order.
> If you donot have a clusted index the result set will be reurned based on
> the way you inserted.
>
> Thanks
> Hari
> MCDBA
> "John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>

|||> I meant if you don't have a clustered index on the column it depends on

quote:

> insertion.

Not correct. I'm afraid. See my other post.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=...ls
erver
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message news:%23qCR2tW6DHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...[Q
UOTE]
> Sorry
> I meant if you don't have a clustered index on the column it depends on
> insertion.
>
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:#JxgijW6DHA.3548@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> get
>[/QUOTE]|||A table, is in the relation model, an unordered set of rows. Imagine your ro
ws being notes on
paper-slips and you throw them into a bag. The back is shaken from time to t
ime. Now. try to pull
the paper-slips out of this bag "in order". The term "order" doesn't make se
nse in the relational
model.
To be more specific, if you don't have order by, the optimizer is free to re
turn the rows in any
order. It will pick the order it finds most cost-effective.
It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the rows are inserted (read ab
out IAM page etc in the
physical database chapter in Books Online). That is regardless whether you h
ave a clustered index or
not.
It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the clustered index. The index
can be heavy
fragmented, so the optimizer can decide to instead of jumping back and forth
on the disk, it will
scan the file in physical order, according to the IAM page.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=...ls
erver
"John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

quote:
[color
=darkred]
> Hi,
> Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> select * from tablename
> what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
> any mystery?
>[/color]

any order

Hi,
Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
select * from tablename
what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
any mystery?As far as the I know, the order was the same as you add the data.
You can change the order bu add "order by" statement , I think you can get
whole information from BOL|||Wei
I don't think that order depends on insertion. (unless you have clustered
index on this column)
"Wei Ci Zhou" <weicizhou@.hotmail.com.discuss> wrote in message
news:O9uMAcW6DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> As far as the I know, the order was the same as you add the data.
> You can change the order bu add "order by" statement , I think you can get
> whole information from BOL
>|||Hi ,
If you have a clusted index in that table database will be ordered based on
the Index key. So incase if you have a clustered index the
"select * from tablename" will return the result set based on the clustered
index key order.
If you donot have a clusted index the result set will be reurned based on
the way you inserted.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> select * from tablename
> what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
> any mystery?
>|||records are sorted in ascending order by default.
"John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> select * from tablename
> what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
> any mystery?
>|||Sorry
> I don't think that order depends on insertion. (unless you have clustered
> index on this column)
I meant if you don't have a clustered index on the column it depends on
insertion.
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:#JxgijW6DHA.3548@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Wei
> I don't think that order depends on insertion. (unless you have clustered
> index on this column)
>
> "Wei Ci Zhou" <weicizhou@.hotmail.com.discuss> wrote in message
> news:O9uMAcW6DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > As far as the I know, the order was the same as you add the data.
> > You can change the order bu add "order by" statement , I think you can
get
> > whole information from BOL
> >
> >
>|||The first reply you made me shocked :)|||Incorrect, I'm afraid. See my other post.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"harsh" <harshalmistry@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23RaX%23pW6DHA.2568@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> records are sorted in ascending order by default.
>
> "John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> >
> > select * from tablename
> >
> > what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
> > any mystery?
> >
> >
>|||> If you have a clusted index in that table database will be ordered based on
> the Index key.
Not necessarily. See my other post.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uPL7gkW6DHA.2628@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi ,
> If you have a clusted index in that table database will be ordered based on
> the Index key. So incase if you have a clustered index the
> "select * from tablename" will return the result set based on the clustered
> index key order.
> If you donot have a clusted index the result set will be reurned based on
> the way you inserted.
>
> Thanks
> Hari
> MCDBA
> "John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> >
> > select * from tablename
> >
> > what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
> > any mystery?
> >
> >
>|||> I meant if you don't have a clustered index on the column it depends on
> insertion.
Not correct. I'm afraid. See my other post.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message news:%23qCR2tW6DHA.1936@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sorry
> > I don't think that order depends on insertion. (unless you have clustered
> > index on this column)
> I meant if you don't have a clustered index on the column it depends on
> insertion.
>
> "Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
> news:#JxgijW6DHA.3548@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Wei
> > I don't think that order depends on insertion. (unless you have clustered
> > index on this column)
> >
> >
> >
> > "Wei Ci Zhou" <weicizhou@.hotmail.com.discuss> wrote in message
> > news:O9uMAcW6DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > As far as the I know, the order was the same as you add the data.
> > > You can change the order bu add "order by" statement , I think you can
> get
> > > whole information from BOL
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||A table, is in the relation model, an unordered set of rows. Imagine your rows being notes on
paper-slips and you throw them into a bag. The back is shaken from time to time. Now. try to pull
the paper-slips out of this bag "in order". The term "order" doesn't make sense in the relational
model.
To be more specific, if you don't have order by, the optimizer is free to return the rows in any
order. It will pick the order it finds most cost-effective.
It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the rows are inserted (read about IAM page etc in the
physical database chapter in Books Online). That is regardless whether you have a clustered index or
not.
It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the clustered index. The index can be heavy
fragmented, so the optimizer can decide to instead of jumping back and forth on the disk, it will
scan the file in physical order, according to the IAM page.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> select * from tablename
> what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same order,
> any mystery?
>|||Tibor
I have just finished to read the article, you are absolutely right. Sorry
for giniven incorrect information.
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:OS1xRJX6DHA.2712@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> A table, is in the relation model, an unordered set of rows. Imagine your
rows being notes on
> paper-slips and you throw them into a bag. The back is shaken from time to
time. Now. try to pull
> the paper-slips out of this bag "in order". The term "order" doesn't make
sense in the relational
> model.
> To be more specific, if you don't have order by, the optimizer is free to
return the rows in any
> order. It will pick the order it finds most cost-effective.
> It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the rows are inserted (read
about IAM page etc in the
> physical database chapter in Books Online). That is regardless whether you
have a clustered index or
> not.
> It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the clustered index. The
index can be heavy
> fragmented, so the optimizer can decide to instead of jumping back and
forth on the disk, it will
> scan the file in physical order, according to the IAM page.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
>
> "John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> >
> > select * from tablename
> >
> > what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same
order,
> > any mystery?
> >
> >
>|||Tibor.
Greate Poster, let me learn many thing.
I do not think you are right after you poster, but after read the
information on BOL. Yes you are right.|||>The term "order" doesn't make sense in the relational
> model.
I understand that the order and PHYSICAL placement of the data is not a
concern in the relational model but surely the RM addresses returning
ordered data? Isn't this called sort sets in the RM?
--
Ray Higdon MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
--
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:OS1xRJX6DHA.2712@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> A table, is in the relation model, an unordered set of rows. Imagine your
rows being notes on
> paper-slips and you throw them into a bag. The back is shaken from time to
time. Now. try to pull
> the paper-slips out of this bag "in order". The term "order" doesn't make
sense in the relational
> model.
> To be more specific, if you don't have order by, the optimizer is free to
return the rows in any
> order. It will pick the order it finds most cost-effective.
> It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the rows are inserted (read
about IAM page etc in the
> physical database chapter in Books Online). That is regardless whether you
have a clustered index or
> not.
> It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the clustered index. The
index can be heavy
> fragmented, so the optimizer can decide to instead of jumping back and
forth on the disk, it will
> scan the file in physical order, according to the IAM page.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
>
> "John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> >
> > select * from tablename
> >
> > what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same
order,
> > any mystery?
> >
> >
>|||As far as I know, RM does not have this concept, as this would mean that RM defines other concepts
than relations. I might be wrong, of course and I welcome (as always :-) ) pointers etc...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Ray Higdon" <sqlhigdon@.nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eNG0m9X6DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >The term "order" doesn't make sense in the relational
> > model.
> I understand that the order and PHYSICAL placement of the data is not a
> concern in the relational model but surely the RM addresses returning
> ordered data? Isn't this called sort sets in the RM?
> --
> Ray Higdon MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
> --
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
> message news:OS1xRJX6DHA.2712@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > A table, is in the relation model, an unordered set of rows. Imagine your
> rows being notes on
> > paper-slips and you throw them into a bag. The back is shaken from time to
> time. Now. try to pull
> > the paper-slips out of this bag "in order". The term "order" doesn't make
> sense in the relational
> > model.
> >
> > To be more specific, if you don't have order by, the optimizer is free to
> return the rows in any
> > order. It will pick the order it finds most cost-effective.
> >
> > It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the rows are inserted (read
> about IAM page etc in the
> > physical database chapter in Books Online). That is regardless whether you
> have a clustered index or
> > not.
> >
> > It doesn't have to be in the same sequence as the clustered index. The
> index can be heavy
> > fragmented, so the optimizer can decide to instead of jumping back and
> forth on the disk, it will
> > scan the file in physical order, according to the IAM page.
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > Archive at:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
> >
> >
> > "John" <spam@.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:OkuS1PW6DHA.1636@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Is there any sort order if we don't use order by? for example,
> > >
> > > select * from tablename
> > >
> > > what is sort order? each time, I get the same records with the same
> order,
> > > any mystery?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

2012年2月16日星期四

Any experience with really large, high transaction databases?

Most of my experience is with what I consider small, low transaction rate
databases. For example, the largest table in one DB has fewer than 100,000
rows (other tables have far fewer rows) with anywhere from 1 to 15 people
posting queries and updates at any given time. SQL Server handles this just
fine.
We are beginning to design a database for a new project. We haven't
determined how big the tables will be but at peak usage will have perhaps
100 people logged on at a time. There is pressure to use Oracle because of a
belief that SQL Server will not be up to the demands.
Solid, unbiased comparisons between Oracle and SQL Server are hard to come
by. Does anyone here have experience with large systems that would show what
SQL Server is really capable of?
Much obliged.I can't give out many proprietary details but we are a SQL Server shop and
we handle databases > 1 TB with over 1000 simultaneous connections.
IMHO, your bottleneck is going to be the architecture and design of the
database and application, and more importantly hardware. You will not be
bound by the vendor choice.
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in message
news:eJtzZ#dZEHA.3092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Most of my experience is with what I consider small, low transaction rate
> databases. For example, the largest table in one DB has fewer than 100,000
> rows (other tables have far fewer rows) with anywhere from 1 to 15 people
> posting queries and updates at any given time. SQL Server handles this
just
> fine.
> We are beginning to design a database for a new project. We haven't
> determined how big the tables will be but at peak usage will have perhaps
> 100 people logged on at a time. There is pressure to use Oracle because of
a
> belief that SQL Server will not be up to the demands.
> Solid, unbiased comparisons between Oracle and SQL Server are hard to come
> by. Does anyone here have experience with large systems that would show
what
> SQL Server is really capable of?
> Much obliged.
>|||100 concurrent users is piddly these days for SQL Server. Three years ago I
was doing over 100 Million Inserts / Updates or Deletes against a db with
over 1 Billion rows on what would be considered an obsolete box these days
with no problem what so ever. Here are some links but these are for VLDB's.
We are talking thousands of trans per second and up with Terabyte db's.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/administration/2000/scalability.asp
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in message
news:eJtzZ%23dZEHA.3092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Most of my experience is with what I consider small, low transaction rate
> databases. For example, the largest table in one DB has fewer than 100,000
> rows (other tables have far fewer rows) with anywhere from 1 to 15 people
> posting queries and updates at any given time. SQL Server handles this
just
> fine.
> We are beginning to design a database for a new project. We haven't
> determined how big the tables will be but at peak usage will have perhaps
> 100 people logged on at a time. There is pressure to use Oracle because of
a
> belief that SQL Server will not be up to the demands.
> Solid, unbiased comparisons between Oracle and SQL Server are hard to come
> by. Does anyone here have experience with large systems that would show
what
> SQL Server is really capable of?
> Much obliged.
>|||Geoff,
The best example I can think of is Monster.com. They use SQL Server for
their entire jobs database, and get a lot more traffic than 100 people
logged on at a time!
One of the reasons, IMO, Oracle is often considered to be "more scalable"
than SQL Server is that companies tend to buy cheaper servers to run SQL
Server than to run Oracle. For instance, a recent employer of mine based
their entire product on SQL Server and our servers were dual Xeons with 2 gb
of RAM. The servers ran without too many problems, but management would
never spend a cent to upgrade them when we did have issues.
A consultant was hired for a totally new project and convinced management to
take it forward with Oracle. A pair of servers was purchased (QA and
Production), each with 8 Itanium processors and 64 gb of RAM. This, for an
unproven product that was making no money.
Why? Because for some reason, due to the way SQL Server is marketed vs. the
way Oracle is marketed, it's assumed that Oracle "should" sit on a huge
server whereas SQL Server will do better on a glorified desktop box. I'm
not sure how to best convince people of the truth... Good luck!
"Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in message
news:eJtzZ%23dZEHA.3092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Most of my experience is with what I consider small, low transaction rate
> databases. For example, the largest table in one DB has fewer than 100,000
> rows (other tables have far fewer rows) with anywhere from 1 to 15 people
> posting queries and updates at any given time. SQL Server handles this
just
> fine.
> We are beginning to design a database for a new project. We haven't
> determined how big the tables will be but at peak usage will have perhaps
> 100 people logged on at a time. There is pressure to use Oracle because of
a
> belief that SQL Server will not be up to the demands.
> Solid, unbiased comparisons between Oracle and SQL Server are hard to come
> by. Does anyone here have experience with large systems that would show
what
> SQL Server is really capable of?
> Much obliged.
>|||I agree with Aaron here, the architecture and design are key. We have over
1TB of data here and tables with over 1 billion records (horizontally
partitioned.) SQL Server can handle the workload if the project is done
correctly. Make sure to note if you don't have the enterprise version of
SQL you can't use more than 2 gigs of memory.
-John Oakes
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:ui$E6CeZEHA.3304@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I can't give out many proprietary details but we are a SQL Server shop and
> we handle databases > 1 TB with over 1000 simultaneous connections.
> IMHO, your bottleneck is going to be the architecture and design of the
> database and application, and more importantly hardware. You will not be
> bound by the vendor choice.
> --
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
> (Reverse address to reply.)
>
>
> "Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in
message
> news:eJtzZ#dZEHA.3092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Most of my experience is with what I consider small, low transaction
rate
> > databases. For example, the largest table in one DB has fewer than
100,000
> > rows (other tables have far fewer rows) with anywhere from 1 to 15
people
> > posting queries and updates at any given time. SQL Server handles this
> just
> > fine.
> >
> > We are beginning to design a database for a new project. We haven't
> > determined how big the tables will be but at peak usage will have
perhaps
> > 100 people logged on at a time. There is pressure to use Oracle because
of
> a
> > belief that SQL Server will not be up to the demands.
> >
> > Solid, unbiased comparisons between Oracle and SQL Server are hard to
come
> > by. Does anyone here have experience with large systems that would show
> what
> > SQL Server is really capable of?
> >
> > Much obliged.
> >
> >
>|||Thanks Adam - Monster.com is a good example. Could you tell me how you know
they use SQL Server?
I wonder if the reason everyone thinks of SQL Server as being lower end is
two-fold: (1) it is cheaper to get a SQL license, and (2) Oracle has always
been associated with large servers, while MS is associated with the desktop.
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:eQZjlOeZEHA.2776@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Geoff,
> The best example I can think of is Monster.com. They use SQL Server for
> their entire jobs database, and get a lot more traffic than 100 people
> logged on at a time!
> One of the reasons, IMO, Oracle is often considered to be "more scalable"
> than SQL Server is that companies tend to buy cheaper servers to run SQL
> Server than to run Oracle. For instance, a recent employer of mine based
> their entire product on SQL Server and our servers were dual Xeons with 2
gb
> of RAM. The servers ran without too many problems, but management would
> never spend a cent to upgrade them when we did have issues.
> A consultant was hired for a totally new project and convinced management
to
> take it forward with Oracle. A pair of servers was purchased (QA and
> Production), each with 8 Itanium processors and 64 gb of RAM. This, for
an
> unproven product that was making no money.
> Why? Because for some reason, due to the way SQL Server is marketed vs.
the
> way Oracle is marketed, it's assumed that Oracle "should" sit on a huge
> server whereas SQL Server will do better on a glorified desktop box. I'm
> not sure how to best convince people of the truth... Good luck!
>
> "Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in
message
> news:eJtzZ%23dZEHA.3092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Most of my experience is with what I consider small, low transaction
rate
> > databases. For example, the largest table in one DB has fewer than
100,000
> > rows (other tables have far fewer rows) with anywhere from 1 to 15
people
> > posting queries and updates at any given time. SQL Server handles this
> just
> > fine.
> >
> > We are beginning to design a database for a new project. We haven't
> > determined how big the tables will be but at peak usage will have
perhaps
> > 100 people logged on at a time. There is pressure to use Oracle because
of
> a
> > belief that SQL Server will not be up to the demands.
> >
> > Solid, unbiased comparisons between Oracle and SQL Server are hard to
come
> > by. Does anyone here have experience with large systems that would show
> what
> > SQL Server is really capable of?
> >
> > Much obliged.
> >
> >
>|||"Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23RVJG9eZEHA.912@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Adam - Monster.com is a good example. Could you tell me how you
know
> they use SQL Server?
I interviewed there last year for a data architect position.|||There are many larger sites with lots of users that use SQL Server.
Dell.com, CareerBuilder.com, Barnes & Nobles etc...
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23RVJG9eZEHA.912@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Adam - Monster.com is a good example. Could you tell me how you
know
> they use SQL Server?
> I wonder if the reason everyone thinks of SQL Server as being lower end is
> two-fold: (1) it is cheaper to get a SQL license, and (2) Oracle has
always
> been associated with large servers, while MS is associated with the
desktop.
>
> "Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
> news:eQZjlOeZEHA.2776@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Geoff,
> >
> > The best example I can think of is Monster.com. They use SQL Server for
> > their entire jobs database, and get a lot more traffic than 100 people
> > logged on at a time!
> >
> > One of the reasons, IMO, Oracle is often considered to be "more
scalable"
> > than SQL Server is that companies tend to buy cheaper servers to run SQL
> > Server than to run Oracle. For instance, a recent employer of mine
based
> > their entire product on SQL Server and our servers were dual Xeons with
2
> gb
> > of RAM. The servers ran without too many problems, but management would
> > never spend a cent to upgrade them when we did have issues.
> >
> > A consultant was hired for a totally new project and convinced
management
> to
> > take it forward with Oracle. A pair of servers was purchased (QA and
> > Production), each with 8 Itanium processors and 64 gb of RAM. This, for
> an
> > unproven product that was making no money.
> >
> > Why? Because for some reason, due to the way SQL Server is marketed vs.
> the
> > way Oracle is marketed, it's assumed that Oracle "should" sit on a huge
> > server whereas SQL Server will do better on a glorified desktop box.
I'm
> > not sure how to best convince people of the truth... Good luck!
> >
> >
> > "Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in
> message
> > news:eJtzZ%23dZEHA.3092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Most of my experience is with what I consider small, low transaction
> rate
> > > databases. For example, the largest table in one DB has fewer than
> 100,000
> > > rows (other tables have far fewer rows) with anywhere from 1 to 15
> people
> > > posting queries and updates at any given time. SQL Server handles this
> > just
> > > fine.
> > >
> > > We are beginning to design a database for a new project. We haven't
> > > determined how big the tables will be but at peak usage will have
> perhaps
> > > 100 people logged on at a time. There is pressure to use Oracle
because
> of
> > a
> > > belief that SQL Server will not be up to the demands.
> > >
> > > Solid, unbiased comparisons between Oracle and SQL Server are hard to
> come
> > > by. Does anyone here have experience with large systems that would
show
> > what
> > > SQL Server is really capable of?
> > >
> > > Much obliged.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||SQL Server is not a punk anymore.
many of the ORACLE Folks still think of SQL Server as SQL Server 6.5.
if you want a Non-Biased opinion check out the TPC site.
www.tpc.org
The results speak for themselves (SQL Server can DEFINATELY Hold it's own AS
Can ORACLE and DB2).
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon|||We HAVE had performance issues. HOWEVER every one of them were
"Architectural" in nature.
Cheers
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon|||Thanks in particular for the TPC link, the references to companies that are
using SQL Server for large apps, and to everyone for pointing out the
importance of design. I was also able to find some case-study "success
stories" of companies using SQL Server. Now we'll see how the argument
proceeeds on my project...
"Geoff Pennington" <Geoffrey.Pennington@.tma.osd.mil.nospam> wrote in message
news:eJtzZ%23dZEHA.3092@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Most of my experience is with what I consider small, low transaction rate
> databases. For example, the largest table in one DB has fewer than 100,000
> rows (other tables have far fewer rows) with anywhere from 1 to 15 people
> posting queries and updates at any given time. SQL Server handles this
just
> fine.
> We are beginning to design a database for a new project. We haven't
> determined how big the tables will be but at peak usage will have perhaps
> 100 people logged on at a time. There is pressure to use Oracle because of
a
> belief that SQL Server will not be up to the demands.
> Solid, unbiased comparisons between Oracle and SQL Server are hard to come
> by. Does anyone here have experience with large systems that would show
what
> SQL Server is really capable of?
> Much obliged.
>

any easy way to modify string in dbase

HI I have a database with a string as one of the fields and I need to modify
only a portion of the string. For example below is a record in the database
old string
server1/folder1
want to change to
server2/folder1
Paul G
Software engineer.
REPLACE is one good option. Here is an example:
create table #test111
(scode int,
sdesc varchar(30))
insert into #test111 values (1,'server1/folder1')
insert into #test111 values (2,'server1/folder1')
update #test111 set sdesc = replace(sdesc,'server1/','server2/')
where scode = 1
select * from #test111
"Paul" wrote:

> HI I have a database with a string as one of the fields and I need to modify
> only a portion of the string. For example below is a record in the database
> old string
> server1/folder1
> want to change to
> server2/folder1
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.
|||ok thanks for the information
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Absar Ahmad" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> REPLACE is one good option. Here is an example:
> create table #test111
> (scode int,
> sdesc varchar(30))
> insert into #test111 values (1,'server1/folder1')
> insert into #test111 values (2,'server1/folder1')
> update #test111 set sdesc = replace(sdesc,'server1/','server2/')
> where scode = 1
> select * from #test111
> "Paul" wrote:

any easy way to modify string in dbase

HI I have a database with a string as one of the fields and I need to modify
only a portion of the string. For example below is a record in the database
old string
server1/folder1
want to change to
server2/folder1
--
Paul G
Software engineer.REPLACE is one good option. Here is an example:
create table #test111
(scode int,
sdesc varchar(30))
insert into #test111 values (1,'server1/folder1')
insert into #test111 values (2,'server1/folder1')
update #test111 set sdesc = replace(sdesc,'server1/','server2/')
where scode = 1
select * from #test111
"Paul" wrote:

> HI I have a database with a string as one of the fields and I need to modi
fy
> only a portion of the string. For example below is a record in the databa
se
> old string
> server1/folder1
> want to change to
> server2/folder1
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.|||ok thanks for the information
--
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Absar Ahmad" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> REPLACE is one good option. Here is an example:
> create table #test111
> (scode int,
> sdesc varchar(30))
> insert into #test111 values (1,'server1/folder1')
> insert into #test111 values (2,'server1/folder1')
> update #test111 set sdesc = replace(sdesc,'server1/','server2/')
> where scode = 1
> select * from #test111
> "Paul" wrote:
>

any easy way to modify string in dbase

HI I have a database with a string as one of the fields and I need to modify
only a portion of the string. For example below is a record in the database
old string
server1/folder1
want to change to
server2/folder1
--
Paul G
Software engineer.REPLACE is one good option. Here is an example:
create table #test111
(scode int,
sdesc varchar(30))
insert into #test111 values (1,'server1/folder1')
insert into #test111 values (2,'server1/folder1')
update #test111 set sdesc = replace(sdesc,'server1/','server2/')
where scode = 1
select * from #test111
"Paul" wrote:
> HI I have a database with a string as one of the fields and I need to modify
> only a portion of the string. For example below is a record in the database
> old string
> server1/folder1
> want to change to
> server2/folder1
> --
> Paul G
> Software engineer.|||ok thanks for the information
--
Paul G
Software engineer.
"Absar Ahmad" wrote:
> REPLACE is one good option. Here is an example:
> create table #test111
> (scode int,
> sdesc varchar(30))
> insert into #test111 values (1,'server1/folder1')
> insert into #test111 values (2,'server1/folder1')
> update #test111 set sdesc = replace(sdesc,'server1/','server2/')
> where scode = 1
> select * from #test111
> "Paul" wrote:
> > HI I have a database with a string as one of the fields and I need to modify
> > only a portion of the string. For example below is a record in the database
> >
> > old string
> > server1/folder1
> > want to change to
> > server2/folder1
> > --
> > Paul G
> > Software engineer.

订阅：博文 (Atom)

2012年3月22日星期四

Anybody use the WinForms ReportViewer?

Anybody played with SmoBrowser example within smo?

Anybody have any luck using the Filters tab on a table

2012年3月20日星期二

any way to rollback dbase

2012年3月6日星期二

any order

any order

2012年2月16日星期四

Any experience with really large, high transaction databases?

Any experience with really large, high transaction databases?

Any experience with really large, high transaction databases?

any easy way to modify string in dbase

any easy way to modify string in dbase

any easy way to modify string in dbase

Sql ANSI Padding

Blog Archive

About Me