Anyone got sqlexec v.2.01 ?

We got our own key. but i lost this software...
My company dont' want to upgrade it.
Any people can give a help ?
The simplest way would be to contact "SnoopSoft" the company that produces
SqlExec http://www.snoopsoft.com/sqlexec/index.html
Cristian Lefter, SQL Server MVP
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
news:utLx4mGVFHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> We got our own key. but i lost this software...
> My company dont' want to upgrade it.
> Any people can give a help ?
>
|||You might mean SQLExecMS from laplas-soft, if this is the case then an
upgrade within any major version is free for that product, just ask for a
new key.
"Agnes" <agnes@.dynamictech.com.hk> wrote in message
news:utLx4mGVFHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> We got our own key. but i lost this software...
> My company dont' want to upgrade it.
> Any people can give a help ?
>

Any setting that would reduce locking during a SQL script?

I am running an upgrade script to update a database from one release to
another. There are a lot of SQL scripts that run during this process.
While this process is running - there should be no other users accessing the
database.
With this in mind - I am hoping to reduce the amount of locking that occurs.
Since no one else will be accessing the system - I don't need all of the
locks at the granular level (I am fine with table locks). Is there some way
that I could make it so that I get table locks instead of row-level locking?
Thanks in advance.You can specify the TABLOCKX hint to acquire an exclusive table lock. For
example:
INSERT INTO MyTable WITH (TABLOCKX)
SELECT * FROM MyOtherTable WITH (TABLOCKX)
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"TJTODD" <Thxomasx.Toddy@.Siemensx.com> wrote in message
news:%23yBrPIH4DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

quote:

---

> I am running an upgrade script to update a database from one release to
> another. There are a lot of SQL scripts that run during this process.
> While this process is running - there should be no other users accessing

---

the

quote:

---

> database.
> With this in mind - I am hoping to reduce the amount of locking that

---

occurs.

quote:

---

> Since no one else will be accessing the system - I don't need all of the
> locks at the granular level (I am fine with table locks). Is there some

---

way

quote:

---

> that I could make it so that I get table locks instead of row-level

---

locking?

quote:

---

> Thanks in advance.
>

---

|||One to look at will be setting the database into single user mode.
I'm not sure whether it causes locks to escalate, but admin work such as
you're performing is one of it's indended usage scenarios.
You can set a db into single_user by using the alter database command, eg:
alter database [dbname] set single_user
Regards,
Greg Linwood
"TJTODD" <Thxomasx.Toddy@.Siemensx.com> wrote in message
news:%23yBrPIH4DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

quote:

---

> I am running an upgrade script to update a database from one release to
> another. There are a lot of SQL scripts that run during this process.
> While this process is running - there should be no other users accessing

---

the

quote:

---

> database.
> With this in mind - I am hoping to reduce the amount of locking that

---

occurs.

quote:

---

> Since no one else will be accessing the system - I don't need all of the
> locks at the granular level (I am fine with table locks). Is there some

---

way

quote:

---

> that I could make it so that I get table locks instead of row-level

---

locking?

quote:

---

> Thanks in advance.
>

---

Any setting that would reduce locking during a SQL script?

I am running an upgrade script to update a database from one release to
another. There are a lot of SQL scripts that run during this process.
While this process is running - there should be no other users accessing the
database.
With this in mind - I am hoping to reduce the amount of locking that occurs.
Since no one else will be accessing the system - I don't need all of the
locks at the granular level (I am fine with table locks). Is there some way
that I could make it so that I get table locks instead of row-level locking?
Thanks in advance.You can specify the TABLOCKX hint to acquire an exclusive table lock. For
example:
INSERT INTO MyTable WITH (TABLOCKX)
SELECT * FROM MyOtherTable WITH (TABLOCKX)
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"TJTODD" <Thxomasx.Toddy@.Siemensx.com> wrote in message
news:%23yBrPIH4DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I am running an upgrade script to update a database from one release to
> another. There are a lot of SQL scripts that run during this process.
> While this process is running - there should be no other users accessing
the
> database.
> With this in mind - I am hoping to reduce the amount of locking that
occurs.
> Since no one else will be accessing the system - I don't need all of the
> locks at the granular level (I am fine with table locks). Is there some
way
> that I could make it so that I get table locks instead of row-level
locking?
> Thanks in advance.
>|||One to look at will be setting the database into single user mode.
I'm not sure whether it causes locks to escalate, but admin work such as
you're performing is one of it's indended usage scenarios.
You can set a db into single_user by using the alter database command, eg:
alter database [dbname] set single_user
Regards,
Greg Linwood
"TJTODD" <Thxomasx.Toddy@.Siemensx.com> wrote in message
news:%23yBrPIH4DHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I am running an upgrade script to update a database from one release to
> another. There are a lot of SQL scripts that run during this process.
> While this process is running - there should be no other users accessing
the
> database.
> With this in mind - I am hoping to reduce the amount of locking that
occurs.
> Since no one else will be accessing the system - I don't need all of the
> locks at the granular level (I am fine with table locks). Is there some
way
> that I could make it so that I get table locks instead of row-level
locking?
> Thanks in advance.
>

Any retired syntax for SQL 2008?

We're in the process of making SQL syntax changes to prepare for an upgrade to SQL 2005, and I don't want to go through this particular exercise again if we can get everything compliant for SQL 2008 while we're making the current changes.

Thank you,

Rob

The BOL from the actual June CTP release contains a list of deprecated keywords and commands.

Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2008.de
|||

Hi Rob

It's good to see that you're thinking ahead regarding usage of deprecated features. SQL Server 2005 Books Online topic Deprecated Database Engine Features in SQL Server 2005, section Features Not Supported in the Next Version of SQL Server, already lists all functionality that is expected to be removed in SQL Server 2008 and future releases. I'd recommend that you consider using suggested alternatives for the syntax that has been announced for deprecation while making your syntax changes.

You can also refer to SQL Server 2008 June CTP Books Online topic Discontinued Database Engine Functionality in SQL Server "Katmai" for features that are no longer supported in SQL Server 2008. Please also take a look at topic Deprecated Database Engine Features in SQL Server "Katmai" in SQL Server 2008 June CTP Books Online for Database Engine features that will be removed in the next release after SQL Server 2008. We’ve made a lot of effort in SQL Server 2008 to provide additional support to track usage of deprecated features via deprecation performance counters and trace events. For details, see topic SQL Server, Deprecated Features Object.

Thanks

Sara

|||

Thank you very much.

Rob

Any plans by MS to discontinue support for SQL Server 2000?

We're contemplating an upgrade to SQL Server 2005 but I'd like to know if
ongoing support for SQL Server 2000 is a potential issue.
Thanks!Josh wrote:
> We're contemplating an upgrade to SQL Server 2005 but I'd like to know if
> ongoing support for SQL Server 2000 is a potential issue.
> Thanks!
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselectindex#S
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Thanks for the link!
"Tracy McKibben" wrote:

> Josh wrote:
> http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselectindex#S
>
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com
>

Any plans by MS to discontinue support for SQL Server 2000?

We're contemplating an upgrade to SQL Server 2005 but I'd like to know if
ongoing support for SQL Server 2000 is a potential issue.
Thanks!Josh wrote:
> We're contemplating an upgrade to SQL Server 2005 but I'd like to know if
> ongoing support for SQL Server 2000 is a potential issue.
> Thanks!
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselectindex#S
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Thanks for the link!
"Tracy McKibben" wrote:
> Josh wrote:
> > We're contemplating an upgrade to SQL Server 2005 but I'd like to know if
> > ongoing support for SQL Server 2000 is a potential issue.
> >
> > Thanks!
> http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselectindex#S
>
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com
>

Any performance benefits using Windows 2003 ?

Currently using Windows 2000 AS and SQL 2000 EE. Would we get any
performance benefits if we upgrade the OS to Windows 2003 ? If so , what are
the benefits if any with regards to SQL ServerTry this URL
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/winsvr2003benefits.asp
HTH
--
Ray Higdon MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
--
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23PaMDpMlDHA.684@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Currently using Windows 2000 AS and SQL 2000 EE. Would we get any
> performance benefits if we upgrade the OS to Windows 2003 ? If so , what
are
> the benefits if any with regards to SQL Server
>|||In article <#PaMDpMlDHA.684@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, "Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Currently using Windows 2000 AS and SQL 2000 EE. Would we get any
>performance benefits if we upgrade the OS to Windows 2003 ? If so , what are
>the benefits if any with regards to SQL Server
>
I don't recall exactly where, but there was a review written recently that
indicated an average 20% performance increase just from upgrading an existing
Win2k SQL 2k box to Win2003.
Apparantly, this had to do with VASTLY improved file i/o and network interface
implementation.
Anyone here rmember this review and/or have the link to it?|||Hi,
Here's a list of what is changed:
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/operating_system_tuning_w2003.asp
--
Regards,
Kristofer Gafvert - IIS MVP
http://www.ilopia.com - FAQ & Tutorials for Windows Server 2003, and SQL
Server 2000
Reply to newsgroup only. Remove NEWS if you must reply by email, but please
do not.
Problems with spam and viruses? See
http://www.ilopia.com/security/newsposting.aspx
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23PaMDpMlDHA.684@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Currently using Windows 2000 AS and SQL 2000 EE. Would we get any
> performance benefits if we upgrade the OS to Windows 2003 ? If so , what
are
> the benefits if any with regards to SQL Server
>

Any one who knows this error about SQL 65 upgrade? its urgent, thanks.

Hi All,

I am doing the upgrade from SQL6.5 to SQL2K, the server version is:
SQL 6.5 English SP5 on WinNT Enterprise 4.0 English SP6,
new server is SQL 2K standard English SP1 on WinNT Enterprise 4.0 English SP6.

When I use SQL upgrade wizard to perform a two server upgrade, all steps seems ok, when move to the step of "Export & Import Via Name Pipe" I got a error. Pls see the below error. Pls let me know the reason and how to resolve it.

log file: Export and Import via Named Pipe - 007test.err

############# Log file content ############
Export.exe on the remote machine was hung...

Export Exit Code: 259 - export.exe -CodePage 1252 -DeviceType Pipe -AllTables yes -MasterPath D:\MSSQL\DATA\MASTER.DAT -DatabaseName test -DevicePath \\.\pipe\~cnvpipe0

Import Exit Code: -1 - ~cnvpipe0

Msg 4854, Level 21, State 1, Server NTAPPLIX02, Procedure , Line 1

[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]****

Time:12-03-2003 17:05:04.433

Error return from function CreateFile

in file CnvPipe.cpp

Line=142

rc=1326

Msg=Logon failure: unknown user name or bad password.

****
######################################Create/use a domain account for both sql server's service startup account. Make sure to add this domain account to the local admin group. Lastly, login using this domain account to run the upgrade.|||Originally posted by rnealejr
Create/use a domain account for both sql server's service startup account. Make sure to add this domain account to the local admin group. Lastly, login using this domain account to run the upgrade.

Hi,

Thanks, because the SQL65 server does not join any domain just a stand alone server, and i can not join this SQL server to any existing domain, but the SQL2K server is in a NT domain. Any solution for this situation ? One more problem, is the name pipe only connection method when perform a two server SQL upgrade?

Many thanks,

Zhanlan

any issues with sql2k on win2k3?

we're about to upgrade from
win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
to
win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
2gb ram
the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
and the two logical processors?
"ch" <ch@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:41A36D56.E36EF4A7@.dontemailme.com...
> we're about to upgrade from
> win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
> to
> win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
> 2gb ram
> the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
> where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
I think you're covered, operating systems are comparable? In otherwords,
Windows 2000 Standard and Windows 2003 Standard?

> do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
> only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
> and the two logical processors?
I prefer not to tinker with processor settings, rather allow the operating
system to manage the processors. in addition, Windows Server 2003 and SQL
Server 2000 does a fairly good job of dynamic memory and interfacing with
the processors. You could always run some benchmarks as there are always
certain situations, applications, etc where manual intervention may be
warranted.
Steve

any issues with sql2k on win2k3?

we're about to upgrade from
win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
to
win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
2gb ram
the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
and the two logical processors?"ch" <ch@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:41A36D56.E36EF4A7@.dontemailme.com...
> we're about to upgrade from
> win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
> to
> win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
> 2gb ram
> the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
> where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
I think you're covered, operating systems are comparable? In otherwords,
Windows 2000 Standard and Windows 2003 Standard?

> do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
> only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
> and the two logical processors?
I prefer not to tinker with processor settings, rather allow the operating
system to manage the processors. in addition, Windows Server 2003 and SQL
Server 2000 does a fairly good job of dynamic memory and interfacing with
the processors. You could always run some benchmarks as there are always
certain situations, applications, etc where manual intervention may be
warranted.
Steve

any issues with sql2k on win2k3?

we're about to upgrade from
win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
to
win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
2gb ram
the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
and the two logical processors?"ch" <ch@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:41A36D56.E36EF4A7@.dontemailme.com...
> we're about to upgrade from
> win2000, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual p3 900mhz, 2gb ram
> to
> win2003, sql2000 sp3a standard edition, dual xeon 3ghz hyperthreaded,
> 2gb ram
> the only issue i could find at microsoft was the sql install issue
> where win2003 wants sql sp3. any other issues to watch for?
I think you're covered, operating systems are comparable? In otherwords,
Windows 2000 Standard and Windows 2003 Standard?
> do some people claim better performance by limiting sql server to use
> only the two physical processors instead of the two physical processors
> and the two logical processors?
I prefer not to tinker with processor settings, rather allow the operating
system to manage the processors. in addition, Windows Server 2003 and SQL
Server 2000 does a fairly good job of dynamic memory and interfacing with
the processors. You could always run some benchmarks as there are always
certain situations, applications, etc where manual intervention may be
warranted.
Steve

ANSII NULL AND QUOTED IDENTIFERS - Upgrade problems

I inherited a system that was started in Access and moved to SQL 2000. The business has grown and we are trying to replace our older systems with ASP.NET and Server 2005.

Currently, we are trying to make a new asp.net page for searching the database for records with matching dates or date ranges. There are several types of dates to search, so they are all optional. Set to default as null in the proc. For each date there is an operator field, such as equal or greater, etc. The proc only looks at the date if the operator is set to EQ" or "IN" and ignores the date if operator set to "NO"

The proc works fine when running under Management Studio, but fails coming through a SQLDataSource to a gridview. It works with integer and string filters, but fails when entering the same date ('07/20/2007') that works in the testing tool. All dates are actually stored as datetime, and they are set as DateTime Control Parameters in the SQLDataSource.

<asp:SqlDataSourceID="SqlDataSource1"runat="server"ConnectionString="<%$ ConnectionStrings:someConnectionString %>"

SelectCommand="spTESTSearch"SelectCommandType="StoredProcedure">

<SelectParameters>

<asp:ParameterDefaultValue="M"Name="TypeCode"Type="String"/>

<asp:ParameterDefaultValue="EQ"Name="FirstPubOp"Type="String"/>

<asp:ControlParameterControlID="FirstPubDateTextBox"DefaultValue=""Name="FirstPubDate"

PropertyName="Text"Type="DateTime"/>

<asp:ParameterDefaultValue="C"Name="UserName"Type="String"/>

<asp:ParameterDefaultValue="NO"Name="SearchTextOp"Type="String"/>

<asp:ParameterName="SearchText"Type="String"/>

</SelectParameters>

</asp:SqlDataSource>

The dates are selected properly in the testing tool, with code such as :

DateDiff(day, FirstPubDate, @.FirstPubDate)= 0

I think my problem is based on option settings for the databases themselves. The old database was set to Ansii Nulls and Quoted Identiers to OFF, and the new ones were defaulted to them being ON. I noticed that the tool also, sets those options on when creating new stored procedures.

Would this difference be causing the dates to be quoted and viewed as objects rather than strings? What are the dangers in changing those options on the database that still gets uploads from the old SQL 2000 database and some Mac-based systems?

I welcome any suggestions on how to get my new stuff running while not breaking my old production systems.

Thanks for the assist!

The options you mentioned should have no relevance to your current issue. Quoted identifiers is referring to whether a statement like:

SELECT "my_column" or SELECT [my_column] is the correct way to specify column/table names that have characters in them that could cause confusion, or are reserved words.

The ANSI NULLS parameter refers to a number of things like if the boolean operation (NULL=NULL) should return true, or NULL.

BTW, the default values on the stored procedure (as specified in the stored procedure) aren't used. They only come into play when you call a stored procedure without specifying a value for that parameter. The parameters you have defined in the SqlDatasource will always pass a value.

Personally, I would first hook up an event to the SqlDatasource_Selecting event. By checking the e.Command.Parameters collection in that event, you can see what it about to be passed to the stored procedure. Verify that passing the values (as they were in the selecting event) works in Management Studio.

If that does not lead you to the problem, then run Sql Profiler, and compare the difference between the queries that get submitted via the web application, and the query submitted by management studio.

ANSI Standards

We are in the process of migrating our MS SQL Server 2000 databases to MS
SQL Server 2005.
We have using the MS Upgrade Advisor to flag problems in our databases so
they can be fixed. Does there exist a tool from which we can get a report on
which databases contain components (tables, columns, stored procedures) that
do not meet ANSI standards?You can try Best Practices Analyzer tool for SQL Server 2000 by Microsoft ..
here is the link to download page:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=B352EB1F-D3CA-44EE-893E-9E07339C1F22&displaylang=en
"Loren Z" wrote:
> We are in the process of migrating our MS SQL Server 2000 databases to MS
> SQL Server 2005.
> We have using the MS Upgrade Advisor to flag problems in our databases so
> they can be fixed. Does there exist a tool from which we can get a report on
> which databases contain components (tables, columns, stored procedures) that
> do not meet ANSI standards?
>
>

ANSI Standards

We are in the process of migrating our MS SQL Server 2000 databases to MS
SQL Server 2005.
We have using the MS Upgrade Advisor to flag problems in our databases so
they can be fixed. Does there exist a tool from which we can get a report on
which databases contain components (tables, columns, stored procedures) that
do not meet ANSI standards?You can try Best Practices Analyzer tool for SQL Server 2000 by Microsoft ..
here is the link to download page:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&displaylang=en
"Loren Z" wrote:

> We are in the process of migrating our MS SQL Server 2000 databases to MS
> SQL Server 2005.
> We have using the MS Upgrade Advisor to flag problems in our databases so
> they can be fixed. Does there exist a tool from which we can get a report
on
> which databases contain components (tables, columns, stored procedures) th
at
> do not meet ANSI standards?
>
>