MS SQLServer or Pervasive SQL 2000i

Hi All,

Thanks in advance for the help.

We are considering a new Project. This project is going to be totally
web based.

Currently my company is using Pervasive SQL 2000i for there ERP needs.
Will the existing Pervasive SQL 2000i itself serve the purpose OR
should I consider moving to MS SQL Server.

Do assist me in terms of development also i.e. Is it easier to code
with Pervasive SQL 2000i or with MS SQL Server.

Regards
SamsonHi All,

Is there anybody who could help me with the below query.

Regards,
Samson
samsonesau@.gmail.com wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Hi All,
>
Thanks in advance for the help.
>
>
We are considering a new Project. This project is going to be totally
web based.
>
>
Currently my company is using Pervasive SQL 2000i for there ERP needs.
Will the existing Pervasive SQL 2000i itself serve the purpose OR
should I consider moving to MS SQL Server.
>
Do assist me in terms of development also i.e. Is it easier to code
with Pervasive SQL 2000i or with MS SQL Server.
>
>
Regards
Samson

MS SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition

I have the option of buying a new copy of MS SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition for Itanium based systems, however will this also work on the following spec server

2.8Ghz P4

1Ghz Ram

120Gb IDE hard drive

with windows 2003 standar edition operating system

The part number for the stanard edition of SQL is 228-04025

If it helps you can call me on +44 (0) 1285 644091

Thanks

Simon

No, the IA64 version is for Itanium systems, and it looks like you're trying to get it for a 32-bit machine (P4?). Check here for more info:

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/default.mspx

sql

MS Sql server 2000 -full text search

I'm trying to evaluate between using MS Sql server based full text search Vs open-source full-text search for our core product. Does anyone know of any previous benchmarks/comparisons between these two approaches? Appreciate any reply.
************************************************** ********************
Sent via Fuzzy Software @. http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/
Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP & ASP.NET resources...
Anantha,
Unfortunately, no such benchmarks/comparisons exists today and Microsoft has
never released any such benchmarks as well.
However, I have long been kicking around the idea of building a "SQL FTS
Benchmarking Toolkit" along the lines of a TPC Benchmark suite and I
submitted and abstract on it for the 2003 PASS conference. I'm assuming
you're comparing SQL Server 2000 FTS vs. MySQL FTS vs. PostgreSQL with is
TSearch2 or OpenFTS as I have researched all of these products or are you
considering other open-source full-text search products?
However, what you can do is build a sample database with publicly available
text data from the Moby lexicon project built by Grady Ward at
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/research/ilash/Moby/ and then setup up a standard
benchmarking test. Note, this data is freely
available and is in the public domain, per Grady Ward. Additionally,
Microsoft as well as other RDBMS vendors, such as ORACLE and IBM compete in
standard TPC Benchmarking tests in order to determine which database is the
fastest, etc. while using a standard test suite of tools, database schema
and data, using the TPC Benchmark C (http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/detail.asp).
The TPC Benchmark that is closest to a "Full Text Search" TPC Benchmark is
TCP-W (http://www.tpc.org/tpcw/default.asp), but this too is mostly a
transactional web e-Commerce benchmark and not strictly for FTS queries.
Full Text Indexing (FTI) and Full Text Search (FTS) performance go hand in
hand along with the language of the text (Moby has word lists in five of
languages), the size (both row count and the amount of text per row) to
create a matrix of tests that will not only measure the FTI performance, but
will measure FTS queries from multiple clients issuing random FTS queries.
Additional factors, include both hardware and software configurations, for
example: the number, speed of the CPU's as well as the size and type of
L-cache per CPU. Other hardware configurations, includes the amount of RAM,
the number of disk controllers as well as the type of raid disk drives and
where the database files and FT Catalog files are placed. As you can see
this is a non-trivial effort and one I plan on documenting for my book on
this subject.
I continue to work on completing the "SQL FTS Benchmarking Toolkit" and
until it is completed, I'd recommend that you download some of the Moby test
files and develop a test database and tables and load this data into it and
then use the Microsoft provide client tool OSTRESS utility (download at:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;887057) use it to
measure the performance of multiple FTS queries from multiple clients
against your test database for comparisons against other open-source
full-text search for your core product.
Please feel free to contact me if you need additional details.
Regards,
John
"Anantha Padmanabhan" <ananthapus@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#$cwriW1EHA.4004@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I'm trying to evaluate between using MS Sql server based full text search
Vs open-source full-text search for our core product. Does anyone know of
any previous benchmarks/comparisons between these two approaches?
Appreciate any reply.
>
> ************************************************** ********************
> Sent via Fuzzy Software @. http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/
> Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP &
ASP.NET resources...
|||John,
Thanks for your help. I'm trying to evaluate MS SQL Server 2000 FTS with open-source product/framework Lucene.
************************************************** ********************
Sent via Fuzzy Software @. http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/
Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP & ASP.NET resources...
|||You're welcome, Anantha,
If you're in comparing the open-source product/framework Lucene with SQL
Server 2000 FTS (both very different implementations of Full Text Search),
you may be interested in DotLucene - The Open Source Search Engine for .NET
at: http://openlucene.net/. Also, keep in mind if you're goal is to do full
text search of documents (MS Word, HTML, etc.) stored outside of SQL Server
tables, you can also use the Windows Indexing Service and setup a Linked
Server (via MSIDXS OLEDB provider) for other data stored in SQL Server.
Regards,
John
"Anantha Padmanabhan" <ananthapus@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e1Z8S8Z1EHA.3840@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> John,
> Thanks for your help. I'm trying to evaluate MS SQL Server 2000 FTS with
open-source product/framework Lucene.
>
> ************************************************** ********************
> Sent via Fuzzy Software @. http://www.fuzzysoftware.com/
> Comprehensive, categorised, searchable collection of links to ASP &
ASP.NET resources...
sql

MS SQL hiding behind Access

Hi guys

We have a helpdesk application which is based on an MS SQL database, and which runs with a rather large and complicated C# based interface. We don't have the code for this, so we can't customise it. Long story short, what we want is to create an interface in Access (or similar) which accesses the same database as the helpdesk suite, and allows reading AND writing, and some rather complex operations (which SHOULD be fairly simple to do in SQL).

Unfortunately, I have been given this project, and I know about as much about Access and SQL as I do about Ghengis Khan's fashion sense.

I will follow with more information as required, but I'm going to need a lot of help with this one. First things first, is Access the way to do this? Is it going to be easier to create a new Access DB and synchronise it with the SQL, instead of both applications using the same database?

The only way I can get Access to interrogate the SQL database is to create a Data Access Page - is this the correct starting point? The only problem is that this seems to only offer HTML, and is far from being a friendly interface, at least not to me.

I know that I currently have no grounding in physics and I'm trying to build a space station, but any advice that you could give me would be much appreciated.

Thanks guys!Access is the tool if you want it done fast and you do not have a firm grounding in another programming language.

Read about Access Data Projects (.adp files).|||Hi

Agree with Thrasy thingy me bob.
You don't need to use adp but it is rather well suited for use against a SQL Server BE.
You don't need to use DAP unless you specifically want an html based interface. If you do use this you will find the forum resources at your disposal drastically reduced because they don't get used that much.

You do not want to create an Access db and synchronise with SQL Server. Either link to the server (simple) or use ADO code to create a disconnected interface (a bit complex if you are new to this but a more ideal set up).

Is this a third party product? If so then check your agreement with the supplier. You might be invalidating your agreement and they may, for example, be able to withdraw support. Also be aware that there may be some (a lot??) of business knowledge embedded in the C# FE which you will have to infer. Similarly, there are probably sprocs that enforce some validations etc for inserts and updates - you could probably do with looking at these and using them where you can.

I must say - I would be nervous about writing my own FE to an application I haven't built\ don't have access to the source code. Can you not use the C# app for inputting and limit yourself to procuding a bespoke reporting front end instead?

There is an Access forum for questions of a more access orientated nature. I think you need to prepare yourself for a very steep learning curve if you aren't familiar with Mr Kahn's clothing predelictions.|||Steep learning curves are generally the way things are done around here. My biggest problem is having to forget everything I know about Lotus Notes in order to start learning about REAL databases!!

The data access project seemed to be what I wanted - I now have an SQL database which is apparently pretending to be an Access database, so assumedly I can just forget all about SQL and work with Access forms and VB code as though this was an Access DB, is that correct?

Also, just to stop me destroying the world, is it easy to create a copy of the MS SQL DB and work with that instead, just until I know what I'm doing. If I break this database there are several peole that will be after my blood!!

In case you're wondering, the reason for this project is that the C# interface provided is fine for support staff, and works well, but unfortunately has all the customizability of a brick, and doesn't support the sales/invoicing staff very well. So we want to keep the C# interface for the support staff, but make a different one for the sales staff. Is there going to be any problem with both parties accessing the data at the same time? It is VERY unlikely that we will ever overlap on editing entities, due to the (quite) seperate nature of the two sides to the system.|||The data access project seemed to be what I wanted - I now have an SQL database which is apparently pretending to be an Access database, so assumedly I can just forget all about SQL and work with Access forms and VB code as though this was an Access DB, is that correct?Nope. I'm not too familiar with adpsbut they are really more the other way around as I understand them - they bring much of the SQL Server functionality into Access - Access becomes a sort of rudimentary SQL Server tool (as well as a UI designer).

Also, just to stop me destroying the world, is it easy to create a copy of the MS SQL DB and work with that instead, just until I know what I'm doing. If I break this database there are several peole that will be after my blood!! Oh dear lord yes do that. At the minimum have a test database where you fine tune any of your work before using it on the production database. I would suggest that using this test database indicates that you have some idea of what you are doing rather than something to dump once you can write a few lines of code. I'm not sure if it is possible to destroy the world with SQL Server though that might be one of the new features in 2005.
Gist is - you want to backup your database and then restore it (ideally on a different, dedicated server). I am afraid I use enterprise manager to create and restore backups - a bad habit I will probably be chastised for. Check out BACKUP in BoL and Google to avoid learning bad habits.