Hi,
1/
I would like to ask if SQL Server 2005 Express could be used as a web
database as far as performance (higher number of simultaneous users) is
concerned.
2/
I would like to see the comparison between InterBase from Borland and SQL
Server 2005 Express. Does exist such comparison somewhere on Internet?
3/
Can be MS SQL Server 2005 Express installed on MS Windows Server 2003 Web
Edition? (MS SQL Server 2005 cannot be installed).
Thank you,
Lubomir
Hi
1. Yes, once it is released. The Beta EULA agreement does not allow for use
in production. Look at the scalability limitations on
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/express/
2. As SQL Server 2005 is in Beta, doing benchmarking will not show the true
performance of the released product. It is also a violation of EULA.
3. No. It is a Windows 2003 Web Edition licensing limitation where no
applications may be installed on the machine unless they are used inside IIS.
(http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...rview/web.mspx)
Regards
Mike
"Lubomir" wrote:
> Hi,
> 1/
> I would like to ask if SQL Server 2005 Express could be used as a web
> database as far as performance (higher number of simultaneous users) is
> concerned.
> 2/
> I would like to see the comparison between InterBase from Borland and SQL
> Server 2005 Express. Does exist such comparison somewhere on Internet?
> 3/
> Can be MS SQL Server 2005 Express installed on MS Windows Server 2003 Web
> Edition? (MS SQL Server 2005 cannot be installed).
>
> Thank you,
> Lubomir
>
Showing posts with label number. Show all posts
Showing posts with label number. Show all posts
Friday, March 23, 2012
MS SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition IA64 with 5 CLT
Hi, I have the option of buying MS SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition IA64 with 5 CLT part number 228-04025, however will it work on the following spec server;
2.8Ghz P4
1Gb Ram
120Gbide hard drive
running Windows 2003 standard edition
If it helps you can call me on +44 (0) 1285 644091 or simon@.310k.co.uk
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
|||Hi Buck,
Thanks for yourt response
What you have said is what I also understood to be the situation, however I phoned Microsoft and queried it with them and they said know problem it should work fine. So I am a little confused hence asking here.
Simon
|||They obviously misunderstood your question.
You CANNOT install 64bit SQL Server on a 32bit OS. (Well, there is a messy possibility -but you really don't want to...)
You CANNOT install Itanium SQL Server on a non Itanium OS (either 32bit or 64 bit).
|||It can be a bit confusing, so I'll summarize what the article says:
SQL Server (2005 only): Runs On This CPU: As this version:
Enterprise IA64 IA64 64-bit
All editions, x64 x64, EMT64 64-bit (extensions) (if an x64 OS is installed)
All editions, 32 x86, x64, EMT64 32-bit (either 32 or x64 OS installed)
Again, the article is further info, but this might help clear things up.
MS SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition IA64 with 5 CLT
Hi, I have the option of buying MS SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition IA64 with 5 CLT part number 228-04025, however will it work on the following spec server;
2.8Ghz P4
1Gb Ram
120Gbide hard drive
running Windows 2003 standard edition
If it helps you can call me on +44 (0) 1285 644091 or simon@.310k.co.uk
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
|||
Hi Buck,
Thanks for yourt response
What you have said is what I also understood to be the situation, however I phoned Microsoft and queried it with them and they said know problem it should work fine. So I am a little confused hence asking here.
Simon
|||They obviously misunderstood your question.
You CANNOT install 64bit SQL Server on a 32bit OS. (Well, there is a messy possibility -but you really don't want to...)
You CANNOT install Itanium SQL Server on a non Itanium OS (either 32bit or 64 bit).
|||It can be a bit confusing, so I'll summarize what the article says:
SQL Server (2005 only): Runs On This CPU: As this version:
Enterprise IA64 IA64 64-bit
All editions, x64 x64, EMT64 64-bit (extensions) (if an x64 OS is installed)
All editions, 32 x86, x64, EMT64 32-bit (either 32 or x64 OS installed)
Again, the article is further info, but this might help clear things up.
Monday, March 19, 2012
MS SQL problem: fill down variable number of rows from last known value.
Using Microsoft query analyser SQL version 8, I believe.
Got a SQL table with a column that has NULLS in it. What I want to do is fill down the value in the row above based on a condition in another column (recordtype). Came up with the following code but unfortunately it only fills in the record directly below. Not those further down (variable number of NULL rows). Any idea how to get these to fill down? Suspect the answer may lie with block cursors but 1) I'm told they're slow (I have 2 and 1/2 million records in this table) and 2) I've never used cursors before!
________________
Update dbo.NSTS
Set dbo.NSTS.Number = NSTS_1.Number
FROM dbo.NSTS LEFT OUTER JOIN
dbo.NSTS AS NSTS_1 ON dbo.NSTS.[Id] = ((NSTS_1.[Id])+1)
WHERE dbo.NSTS.RecordType like '101' AND (dbo.NSTS.Number is null or dbo.NSTS.Number like '')
________________
Example of data table here:
ID RecordType Number
1 100 4325273182
2 101 NULL
3 101 NULL
4 101 NULL
5 100 4342684020
6 100 4342696800
7 100 4304028782
8 100 4305914743
9 101 NULL
10 101 NULL
11 100 4328179942
12 101 NULL
13 101 NULL
14 101 NULL
15 101 NULL
16 100 4329313804
17 100 4329874164
18 101 NULL
19 100 4330053764
20 101 NULL
_________________
I did get a cursor loop working but can only retrieve 1 row and (try as I might with the so called help examples) can't seem to pull down 2 rows at a time. Just can't seem to get it to accept this command at all: SQLSetStmtAttr(hStmt, SQL_ATTR_ROW_ARRAY_SIZE, (SQLPOINTER) 2 ,0).
Help would be very much appreciated!not sure I understand...when you say fill...fill with what?
Also the order of data in a database is meaningless, so what does "next" mean?|||Beg your pardon. Can't see the wood for the trees.
In this case the data is in a strictly sequential order as defined by the ID field. So, first has ID = 1 and next = current ID + 1.
Data comes from another source in a rather weird format which I won't bother you with. Each row with recordtype of 100 has latest data. If something has changed in the past then there will be another row with a recordtype of 101 and with the detail of the value that changed in the appropriate column. If a column hasn't changed then a NULL will be present. In this instance, I want to take the value in that column (Number in this instance) from the row that has an ID of ID-1 (the newer record.) It should be noted that it is possible to have NULL values in the number field so you could have a record type of 100 with a NULL value. In this case it needs to be left as NULL.
Have I explained my dilema appropriately? I've actually just tried doing this with a while (count(recordtype) ... where Number is null >0) type statement before I realised there actually were valid nulls in the Number column! :eek:|||Beg your pardon. Can't see the wood for the trees.
Guess I'm not smart enough to help on this.
Good Luck|||This is actually a good puzzle, but I don't have enough time to solve it before my next meeting. If nobody else solves it before then, I'll do it tonight.
-PatP|||Sorry I didn't get this one last night. It was still a fine puzzle!CREATE TABLE #NSTS (
id INT NOT NULL
, record INT NOT NULL
, number BIGINT NULL
)
INSERT INTO #NSTS (id, record, number)
SELECT 1, 100, 4325273182 UNION
SELECT 2, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 3, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 4, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 5, 100, 4342684020 UNION
SELECT 6, 100, 4342696800 UNION
SELECT 7, 100, 4304028782 UNION
SELECT 8, 100, 4305914743 UNION
SELECT 9, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 10, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 11, 100, 4328179942 UNION
SELECT 12, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 13, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 14, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 15, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 16, 100, 4329313804 UNION
SELECT 17, 100, 4329874164 UNION
SELECT 18, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 19, 100, 4330053764 UNION
SELECT 20, 101, NULL
SELECT a.id, a.record, (SELECT b.number
FROM #NSTS AS b
WHERE b.id = (SELECT Max(c.id)
FROM #NSTS AS c
WHERE c.number IS NOT NULL
AND c.id BETWEEN (SELECT Max(d.id)
FROM #NSTS AS d
WHERE d.id <= a.id
AND d.record = (SELECT Min(e.record)
FROM #NSTS AS e)) AND a.id))
FROM #NSTS AS a
DROP TABLE #NSTS
-PatP|||Wow. What's it like in your mind? All flashing cogs and some sort of weird matter distortion device that bends reality into the kind of shapes normally only encountered on class A drugs?
Many thanks for this. Much more elegant than my attempt. Actually got that to work in the end by using:
________
While (select count(RecordType) from NSTS where ((Number is null) and (RecordType like '101'))) > (select count(RecordType) from NSTS where ((Number is null) and (RecordType like '100')))
Update NSTS
Set NSTS.Number = Tbl_NSTS_PracticeDownloads_1.Number
FROM NSTS LEFT OUTER JOIN
NSTS AS Tbl_NSTS_PracticeDownloads_1 ON NSTS.[Id] = ((Tbl_NSTS_PracticeDownloads_1.[Id])+1)
WHERE NSTS.RecordType like '101' AND (NSTS.Number is null or NSTS.Number like '')
_________
Question now is: which will crunch fastest with 2/1/2 million records? Guess I'll have to find out!
Once again, many thanks for your help on this!
Got a SQL table with a column that has NULLS in it. What I want to do is fill down the value in the row above based on a condition in another column (recordtype). Came up with the following code but unfortunately it only fills in the record directly below. Not those further down (variable number of NULL rows). Any idea how to get these to fill down? Suspect the answer may lie with block cursors but 1) I'm told they're slow (I have 2 and 1/2 million records in this table) and 2) I've never used cursors before!
________________
Update dbo.NSTS
Set dbo.NSTS.Number = NSTS_1.Number
FROM dbo.NSTS LEFT OUTER JOIN
dbo.NSTS AS NSTS_1 ON dbo.NSTS.[Id] = ((NSTS_1.[Id])+1)
WHERE dbo.NSTS.RecordType like '101' AND (dbo.NSTS.Number is null or dbo.NSTS.Number like '')
________________
Example of data table here:
ID RecordType Number
1 100 4325273182
2 101 NULL
3 101 NULL
4 101 NULL
5 100 4342684020
6 100 4342696800
7 100 4304028782
8 100 4305914743
9 101 NULL
10 101 NULL
11 100 4328179942
12 101 NULL
13 101 NULL
14 101 NULL
15 101 NULL
16 100 4329313804
17 100 4329874164
18 101 NULL
19 100 4330053764
20 101 NULL
_________________
I did get a cursor loop working but can only retrieve 1 row and (try as I might with the so called help examples) can't seem to pull down 2 rows at a time. Just can't seem to get it to accept this command at all: SQLSetStmtAttr(hStmt, SQL_ATTR_ROW_ARRAY_SIZE, (SQLPOINTER) 2 ,0).
Help would be very much appreciated!not sure I understand...when you say fill...fill with what?
Also the order of data in a database is meaningless, so what does "next" mean?|||Beg your pardon. Can't see the wood for the trees.
In this case the data is in a strictly sequential order as defined by the ID field. So, first has ID = 1 and next = current ID + 1.
Data comes from another source in a rather weird format which I won't bother you with. Each row with recordtype of 100 has latest data. If something has changed in the past then there will be another row with a recordtype of 101 and with the detail of the value that changed in the appropriate column. If a column hasn't changed then a NULL will be present. In this instance, I want to take the value in that column (Number in this instance) from the row that has an ID of ID-1 (the newer record.) It should be noted that it is possible to have NULL values in the number field so you could have a record type of 100 with a NULL value. In this case it needs to be left as NULL.
Have I explained my dilema appropriately? I've actually just tried doing this with a while (count(recordtype) ... where Number is null >0) type statement before I realised there actually were valid nulls in the Number column! :eek:|||Beg your pardon. Can't see the wood for the trees.
Guess I'm not smart enough to help on this.
Good Luck|||This is actually a good puzzle, but I don't have enough time to solve it before my next meeting. If nobody else solves it before then, I'll do it tonight.
-PatP|||Sorry I didn't get this one last night. It was still a fine puzzle!CREATE TABLE #NSTS (
id INT NOT NULL
, record INT NOT NULL
, number BIGINT NULL
)
INSERT INTO #NSTS (id, record, number)
SELECT 1, 100, 4325273182 UNION
SELECT 2, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 3, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 4, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 5, 100, 4342684020 UNION
SELECT 6, 100, 4342696800 UNION
SELECT 7, 100, 4304028782 UNION
SELECT 8, 100, 4305914743 UNION
SELECT 9, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 10, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 11, 100, 4328179942 UNION
SELECT 12, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 13, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 14, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 15, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 16, 100, 4329313804 UNION
SELECT 17, 100, 4329874164 UNION
SELECT 18, 101, NULL UNION
SELECT 19, 100, 4330053764 UNION
SELECT 20, 101, NULL
SELECT a.id, a.record, (SELECT b.number
FROM #NSTS AS b
WHERE b.id = (SELECT Max(c.id)
FROM #NSTS AS c
WHERE c.number IS NOT NULL
AND c.id BETWEEN (SELECT Max(d.id)
FROM #NSTS AS d
WHERE d.id <= a.id
AND d.record = (SELECT Min(e.record)
FROM #NSTS AS e)) AND a.id))
FROM #NSTS AS a
DROP TABLE #NSTS
-PatP|||Wow. What's it like in your mind? All flashing cogs and some sort of weird matter distortion device that bends reality into the kind of shapes normally only encountered on class A drugs?
Many thanks for this. Much more elegant than my attempt. Actually got that to work in the end by using:
________
While (select count(RecordType) from NSTS where ((Number is null) and (RecordType like '101'))) > (select count(RecordType) from NSTS where ((Number is null) and (RecordType like '100')))
Update NSTS
Set NSTS.Number = Tbl_NSTS_PracticeDownloads_1.Number
FROM NSTS LEFT OUTER JOIN
NSTS AS Tbl_NSTS_PracticeDownloads_1 ON NSTS.[Id] = ((Tbl_NSTS_PracticeDownloads_1.[Id])+1)
WHERE NSTS.RecordType like '101' AND (NSTS.Number is null or NSTS.Number like '')
_________
Question now is: which will crunch fastest with 2/1/2 million records? Guess I'll have to find out!
Once again, many thanks for your help on this!
Saturday, February 25, 2012
MS SQL 2000 TCPIP Port Number and SQL Replication
Hi all
I'm struggling to find an answer to this one!
We've configured our SQL boxes to run under a different port number,
e.g. from 1433 to 4533. This works fine under our Citrix enviornmnet
where the dsn is configured to use the new port. The problem comes in
terms of SQL Server management. For example, when you try and
configure SQL Replication, it is not possible to add the subscriber
unless the SQL Servce runs under port 1433, the default port. The
same goes when you try to add the server as a registered server within
the Enterprise Manager MMC.
Does anyone know how you can configure SQL Server to run under a
different port number, without naffecting SQL REPLICATION, etc?
Many thnaks
Nik
nik@.nastek.co.uknik@.nastek.co.uk wrote in message news:<a30v10lk653eu3j878hfj0tpflub252qrl@.4ax.com>...
> Hi all
> I'm struggling to find an answer to this one!
> We've configured our SQL boxes to run under a different port number,
> e.g. from 1433 to 4533. This works fine under our Citrix enviornmnet
> where the dsn is configured to use the new port. The problem comes in
> terms of SQL Server management. For example, when you try and
> configure SQL Replication, it is not possible to add the subscriber
> unless the SQL Servce runs under port 1433, the default port. The
> same goes when you try to add the server as a registered server within
> the Enterprise Manager MMC.
> Does anyone know how you can configure SQL Server to run under a
> different port number, without naffecting SQL REPLICATION, etc?
> Many thnaks
> Nik
> nik@.nastek.co.uk
I haven't tried this myself, but this KB article seems to suggest that
creating a server alias (in Client Network Utility) with the correct
port number should work:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...2&Product=sql2k
Simon|||sql@.hayes.ch (Simon Hayes) wrote in message news:<60cd0137.0402030644.62669b66@.posting.google.com>...
> nik@.nastek.co.uk wrote in message news:<a30v10lk653eu3j878hfj0tpflub252qrl@.4ax.com>...
> > Hi all
> > I'm struggling to find an answer to this one!
> > We've configured our SQL boxes to run under a different port number,
> > e.g. from 1433 to 4533. This works fine under our Citrix enviornmnet
> > where the dsn is configured to use the new port. The problem comes in
> > terms of SQL Server management. For example, when you try and
> > configure SQL Replication, it is not possible to add the subscriber
> > unless the SQL Servce runs under port 1433, the default port. The
> > same goes when you try to add the server as a registered server within
> > the Enterprise Manager MMC.
> > Does anyone know how you can configure SQL Server to run under a
> > different port number, without naffecting SQL REPLICATION, etc?
> > Many thnaks
> > Nik
> > nik@.nastek.co.uk
> I haven't tried this myself, but this KB article seems to suggest that
> creating a server alias (in Client Network Utility) with the correct
> port number should work:
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...2&Product=sql2k
> Simon
We have some servers with non-standard ports. We access them using the
Client Network Utility with the correct port and have no problems with
MMC, ISQLW or OSQLW or even ODBC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)