MS SQL SERVER version

i have a project that suggests to use MS SQL SERVER 2000. i have VISUAL STUDIO 2005. can i use the MS SQL SERVER in it anyway? are there differences that will occur?it will work fine. :)

is your project in managed code? if so take a look at the classes in System.Data.SqlClient for talking to sql server:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.sqlclient.aspx|||can u give me an example of a connection string. i had one but it's not working and i don't know if the version is the problem. im using visual studio 2005 and i created a database inside it with ms sql server of course. that's all!|||http://www.connectionstrings.comsql

MS SQL Server JDBC Driver Type 2 and Driver Type 4 Differences

Hi,
Could some please tell me whether Microsoft provides Type 2 and Type 4
jdbc driver ? For Type 4 MS provides
com.microsoft.jdbc.sqlserver.SQLServerDriver driver. What is the
cofiguration required for type 2 driver and what driver class files
required ?

Its very urgent to me please reply.

AjayHi

I believe that there is only the type 4 driver
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/...-25MerantPR.asp

available at:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...playEnglishAlso

It complies to the 2.x specification, if you want the 3.0 specification then
you will need to look at the Merant driver
http://www.datadirect.com/products/...final/index.ssp

or other vendors are listed at:
http://servlet.java.sun.com/product...vers/index.html

John

"Ajay" <agupta@.in.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:5cf54350.0411262159.71d2bc8a@.posting.google.c om...
> Hi,
> Could some please tell me whether Microsoft provides Type 2 and Type 4
> jdbc driver ? For Type 4 MS provides
> com.microsoft.jdbc.sqlserver.SQLServerDriver driver. What is the
> cofiguration required for type 2 driver and what driver class files
> required ?
> Its very urgent to me please reply.
> Ajay

MS SQL 7 and 2000

Does anyone know of any differences between queries in SQL 7 and SQL
2000? I have a collegue that says there could be "subtle" differences
in the output, though I cannot find any documentation of this. Any
link to prove him wrong would be very helpful. Thanks.kingk436 (development@.circuitmap.com) writes:
> Does anyone know of any differences between queries in SQL 7 and SQL
> 2000? I have a collegue that says there could be "subtle" differences
> in the output, though I cannot find any documentation of this. Any
> link to prove him wrong would be very helpful. Thanks.

One "subtle" difference is the rule for auto-conversion of data types.
In SQL 2000, conversion is done from a type hierarchy, whereas SQL 7
tries to first convert a constant.

This can differences if you have things like:

SELECT * FROM tbl where varcharcol > 1

In SQL 7, the 1 will be converted to a string, where as in SQL 2000
varcharcol will be converted to an integer. (And thus the query will
fail if there are values in the column that cannot be converted to
integer.)

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns9684F3D9BB08Yazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> kingk436 (development@.circuitmap.com) writes:
> > Does anyone know of any differences between queries in SQL 7 and SQL
> > 2000? I have a collegue that says there could be "subtle" differences
> > in the output, though I cannot find any documentation of this. Any
> > link to prove him wrong would be very helpful. Thanks.
> One "subtle" difference is the rule for auto-conversion of data types.
> In SQL 2000, conversion is done from a type hierarchy, whereas SQL 7
> tries to first convert a constant.
> This can differences if you have things like:
> SELECT * FROM tbl where varcharcol > 1
> In SQL 7, the 1 will be converted to a string, where as in SQL 2000
> varcharcol will be converted to an integer. (And thus the query will
> fail if there are values in the column that cannot be converted to
> integer.)

In addition I believe that without an order by, results returned will be
different. (Of course the order shouldn't be specified, but I believe both
SQL 7.0 and 2000 do default to some underlying physical order, but each
differently from the other.)

>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
> Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||Greg D. Moore (Strider) (mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com) writes:
> "Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
> news:Xns9684F3D9BB08Yazorman@.127.0.0.1...
>> In SQL 7, the 1 will be converted to a string, where as in SQL 2000
>> varcharcol will be converted to an integer. (And thus the query will
>> fail if there are values in the column that cannot be converted to
>> integer.)
> In addition I believe that without an order by, results returned will be
> different. (Of course the order shouldn't be specified, but I believe both
> SQL 7.0 and 2000 do default to some underlying physical order, but each
> differently from the other.)

Well, without any ORDER BY you could get different results from the
same server running SQL 7 or later depending on the phase of the moon,
availble CPUs if there are parallel streams, etc.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp

MS SQL 2005 vs 2000

Hi,

What would I lose out(functionality wise) if I were to use MS SQL 2000 instead of 2005? What are the main differences, and considerations to be factored in before choose which database to work on?

Following are the two articles which would give breif idea of What you'll get when using SQL 2005

http://www.developer.com/db/article.php/3512126

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms170363.aspx

There is nothing about losing something if you choose sql2000 but it is about gaingin some advanced new features and .NET integration (such as writing stored procedures, function in any .net language) etc of SQL 2005

regards|||

Thanks, greatly appreciated.