MS SQLServer: Left/Right Join doesn't work when using aggregate functions

Hi.
I'm using MS SQLServer and I have noticed that when I use aggregate
functions on queries that use outer joins, the results varies depending
on the syntax that I use. If I use the syntax:
from table1 left join table2 on table1.a = table2.a
it doesn't seem to work properly, but if I use the syntax:
from table1, table2 where table1.a *= table2.a
it seems to work fine.
I would like to know if there's something that I'm doing wrong, if this
is some bug for which there is some solution, or if just the way it is.
In order to be more clear, I will show you some simple code that reflect
that.
Suppose we have the following 2 tables whith the corresponding data:
create table p1 ( id int primary key, s_name char(40) )
insert p1 values (1, 'Rick')
insert p1 values (2, 'Mary')
insert p1 values (3, 'Peter')
create table p2 (id int, region int, sales money, primary key (id,
region))
insert p2 values (1, 1, 2000)
insert p2 values (1, 2, 1000)
insert p2 values (1, 3, 1500)
insert p2 values (3, 1, 750)
insert p2 values (3, 2, 1000)
If I use a query without aggregate functions, both syntax return the
same result:
select p1.s_name, p2.sales
from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
select p1.s_name, p2.sales
from p1, p2
where p1.id *= p2.id
Both of them return:
s_namesales
Rick2000.00
Rick1000.00
Rick1500.00
MaryNull
Peter750.00
Peter1000.00
But if I use Sum(), the results are different:
select p1.s_name, sum(p2.sales) as sales
from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
group by p1.s_name
s_namesales
Rick4500.00
Peter1750.00
select p1.s_name, sum(p2.sales) as sales
from p1, p2
where p1.id *= p2.id
group by p1.s_name
s_namesales
Rick4500.00
MaryNull
Peter1750.00
In my opinion, the correct result is the last one, but the syntax that
Microsoft recommends to use is the other one.
Can someone explain that to me?
Thanks in advance.
Donald
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
You can get the result you want with:
SELECT s_name, SUM(sales) as sales FROM (
select p1.s_name, p2.sales
from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
) a
group by s_name
-- or
SELECT p1.s_name, a.sales
FROM p1
LEFT OUTER JOIN (
SELECT id, SUM(sales) AS sales
FROM p2
GROUP BY id) a
ON p1.id = a.id
-- or the simplest (but somewhat worse performing on large sets), GROUP BY
ALL:
select p1.s_name, SUM(p2.sales) AS sales
from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
GROUP BY ALL p1.s_name
Joe Celko give a rundown of the disadvantages of *= here:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl...phx.gbl&rnum=7
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Donald" <don382w@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23$ZyTiKSFHA.2132@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi.
> I'm using MS SQLServer and I have noticed that when I use aggregate
> functions on queries that use outer joins, the results varies depending
> on the syntax that I use. If I use the syntax:
> from table1 left join table2 on table1.a = table2.a
> it doesn't seem to work properly, but if I use the syntax:
> from table1, table2 where table1.a *= table2.a
> it seems to work fine.
> I would like to know if there's something that I'm doing wrong, if this
> is some bug for which there is some solution, or if just the way it is.
> In order to be more clear, I will show you some simple code that reflect
> that.
> Suppose we have the following 2 tables whith the corresponding data:
> create table p1 ( id int primary key, s_name char(40) )
> insert p1 values (1, 'Rick')
> insert p1 values (2, 'Mary')
> insert p1 values (3, 'Peter')
> create table p2 (id int, region int, sales money, primary key (id,
> region))
> insert p2 values (1, 1, 2000)
> insert p2 values (1, 2, 1000)
> insert p2 values (1, 3, 1500)
> insert p2 values (3, 1, 750)
> insert p2 values (3, 2, 1000)
> If I use a query without aggregate functions, both syntax return the
> same result:
> select p1.s_name, p2.sales
> from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
> select p1.s_name, p2.sales
> from p1, p2
> where p1.id *= p2.id
> Both of them return:
> s_name sales
> -- --
> Rick 2000.00
> Rick 1000.00
> Rick 1500.00
> Mary Null
> Peter 750.00
> Peter 1000.00
> But if I use Sum(), the results are different:
> select p1.s_name, sum(p2.sales) as sales
> from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
> group by p1.s_name
> s_name sales
> -- --
> Rick 4500.00
> Peter 1750.00
> select p1.s_name, sum(p2.sales) as sales
> from p1, p2
> where p1.id *= p2.id
> group by p1.s_name
> s_name sales
> -- --
> Rick 4500.00
> Mary Null
> Peter 1750.00
> In my opinion, the correct result is the last one, but the syntax that
> Microsoft recommends to use is the other one.
> Can someone explain that to me?
> Thanks in advance.
> Donald
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
|||Yes, I am running SQL-Server 2000. I will check which service pack, if
any, is installed. I already downloaded the service pack 3a to install.
Thanks for everything,
Donald
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***

MS SQLServer: Left/Right Join doesn't work when using aggregate functions

Hi.
I'm using MS SQLServer and I have noticed that when I use aggregate
functions on queries that use outer joins, the results varies depending
on the syntax that I use. If I use the syntax:
from table1 left join table2 on table1.a = table2.a
it doesn't seem to work properly, but if I use the syntax:
from table1, table2 where table1.a *= table2.a
it seems to work fine.
I would like to know if there's something that I'm doing wrong, if this
is some bug for which there is some solution, or if just the way it is.
In order to be more clear, I will show you some simple code that reflect
that.
Suppose we have the following 2 tables whith the corresponding data:
create table p1 ( id int primary key, s_name char(40) )
insert p1 values (1, 'Rick')
insert p1 values (2, 'Mary')
insert p1 values (3, 'Peter')
create table p2 (id int, region int, sales money, primary key (id,
region))
insert p2 values (1, 1, 2000)
insert p2 values (1, 2, 1000)
insert p2 values (1, 3, 1500)
insert p2 values (3, 1, 750)
insert p2 values (3, 2, 1000)
If I use a query without aggregate functions, both syntax return the
same result:
select p1.s_name, p2.sales
from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
select p1.s_name, p2.sales
from p1, p2
where p1.id *= p2.id
Both of them return:
s_name sales
-- --
Rick 2000.00
Rick 1000.00
Rick 1500.00
Mary Null
Peter 750.00
Peter 1000.00
But if I use Sum(), the results are different:
select p1.s_name, sum(p2.sales) as sales
from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
group by p1.s_name
s_name sales
-- --
Rick 4500.00
Peter 1750.00
select p1.s_name, sum(p2.sales) as sales
from p1, p2
where p1.id *= p2.id
group by p1.s_name
s_name sales
-- --
Rick 4500.00
Mary Null
Peter 1750.00
In my opinion, the correct result is the last one, but the syntax that
Microsoft recommends to use is the other one.
Can someone explain that to me?
Thanks in advance.
Donald
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***You can get the result you want with:
SELECT s_name, SUM(sales) as sales FROM (
select p1.s_name, p2.sales
from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
) a
group by s_name
-- or
SELECT p1.s_name, a.sales
FROM p1
LEFT OUTER JOIN (
SELECT id, SUM(sales) AS sales
FROM p2
GROUP BY id) a
ON p1.id = a.id
-- or the simplest (but somewhat worse performing on large sets), GROUP BY
ALL:
select p1.s_name, SUM(p2.sales) AS sales
from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
GROUP BY ALL p1.s_name
Joe Celko give a rundown of the disadvantages of *= here:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=%23Uogl7zREHA.628%40TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl&rnum=7
--
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Donald" <don382w@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23$ZyTiKSFHA.2132@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi.
> I'm using MS SQLServer and I have noticed that when I use aggregate
> functions on queries that use outer joins, the results varies depending
> on the syntax that I use. If I use the syntax:
> from table1 left join table2 on table1.a = table2.a
> it doesn't seem to work properly, but if I use the syntax:
> from table1, table2 where table1.a *= table2.a
> it seems to work fine.
> I would like to know if there's something that I'm doing wrong, if this
> is some bug for which there is some solution, or if just the way it is.
> In order to be more clear, I will show you some simple code that reflect
> that.
> Suppose we have the following 2 tables whith the corresponding data:
> create table p1 ( id int primary key, s_name char(40) )
> insert p1 values (1, 'Rick')
> insert p1 values (2, 'Mary')
> insert p1 values (3, 'Peter')
> create table p2 (id int, region int, sales money, primary key (id,
> region))
> insert p2 values (1, 1, 2000)
> insert p2 values (1, 2, 1000)
> insert p2 values (1, 3, 1500)
> insert p2 values (3, 1, 750)
> insert p2 values (3, 2, 1000)
> If I use a query without aggregate functions, both syntax return the
> same result:
> select p1.s_name, p2.sales
> from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
> select p1.s_name, p2.sales
> from p1, p2
> where p1.id *= p2.id
> Both of them return:
> s_name sales
> -- --
> Rick 2000.00
> Rick 1000.00
> Rick 1500.00
> Mary Null
> Peter 750.00
> Peter 1000.00
> But if I use Sum(), the results are different:
> select p1.s_name, sum(p2.sales) as sales
> from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
> group by p1.s_name
> s_name sales
> -- --
> Rick 4500.00
> Peter 1750.00
> select p1.s_name, sum(p2.sales) as sales
> from p1, p2
> where p1.id *= p2.id
> group by p1.s_name
> s_name sales
> -- --
> Rick 4500.00
> Mary Null
> Peter 1750.00
> In my opinion, the correct result is the last one, but the syntax that
> Microsoft recommends to use is the other one.
> Can someone explain that to me?
> Thanks in advance.
> Donald
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***|||Donald,
Are you running SQL-Server 2000? Make sure you have the latest service
pack installed (SP3a).
If I run the query
select p1.s_name, sum(p2.sales) as sales
from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
group by p1.s_name
it correctly returns
s_name sales
--- --
Mary NULL
Peter 1750.0000
Rick 4500.0000
(3 row(s) affected)
Warning: Null value is eliminated by an aggregate or other SET
operation.
HTH,
Gert-Jan
Donald wrote:
> Hi.
> I'm using MS SQLServer and I have noticed that when I use aggregate
> functions on queries that use outer joins, the results varies depending
> on the syntax that I use. If I use the syntax:
> from table1 left join table2 on table1.a = table2.a
> it doesn't seem to work properly, but if I use the syntax:
> from table1, table2 where table1.a *= table2.a
> it seems to work fine.
> I would like to know if there's something that I'm doing wrong, if this
> is some bug for which there is some solution, or if just the way it is.
> In order to be more clear, I will show you some simple code that reflect
> that.
> Suppose we have the following 2 tables whith the corresponding data:
> create table p1 ( id int primary key, s_name char(40) )
> insert p1 values (1, 'Rick')
> insert p1 values (2, 'Mary')
> insert p1 values (3, 'Peter')
> create table p2 (id int, region int, sales money, primary key (id,
> region))
> insert p2 values (1, 1, 2000)
> insert p2 values (1, 2, 1000)
> insert p2 values (1, 3, 1500)
> insert p2 values (3, 1, 750)
> insert p2 values (3, 2, 1000)
> If I use a query without aggregate functions, both syntax return the
> same result:
> select p1.s_name, p2.sales
> from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
> select p1.s_name, p2.sales
> from p1, p2
> where p1.id *= p2.id
> Both of them return:
> s_name sales
> -- --
> Rick 2000.00
> Rick 1000.00
> Rick 1500.00
> Mary Null
> Peter 750.00
> Peter 1000.00
> But if I use Sum(), the results are different:
> select p1.s_name, sum(p2.sales) as sales
> from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
> group by p1.s_name
> s_name sales
> -- --
> Rick 4500.00
> Peter 1750.00
> select p1.s_name, sum(p2.sales) as sales
> from p1, p2
> where p1.id *= p2.id
> group by p1.s_name
> s_name sales
> -- --
> Rick 4500.00
> Mary Null
> Peter 1750.00
> In my opinion, the correct result is the last one, but the syntax that
> Microsoft recommends to use is the other one.
> Can someone explain that to me?
> Thanks in advance.
> Donald
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***

MS SQLServer: Left/Right Join doesn't work when using aggregate functions

Hi.
I'm using MS SQLServer and I have noticed that when I use aggregate
functions on queries that use outer joins, the results varies depending
on the syntax that I use. If I use the syntax:
from table1 left join table2 on table1.a = table2.a
it doesn't seem to work properly, but if I use the syntax:
from table1, table2 where table1.a *= table2.a
it seems to work fine.
I would like to know if there's something that I'm doing wrong, if this
is some bug for which there is some solution, or if just the way it is.
In order to be more clear, I will show you some simple code that reflect
that.
Suppose we have the following 2 tables whith the corresponding data:
create table p1 ( id int primary key, s_name char(40) )
insert p1 values (1, 'Rick')
insert p1 values (2, 'Mary')
insert p1 values (3, 'Peter')
create table p2 (id int, region int, sales money, primary key (id,
region))
insert p2 values (1, 1, 2000)
insert p2 values (1, 2, 1000)
insert p2 values (1, 3, 1500)
insert p2 values (3, 1, 750)
insert p2 values (3, 2, 1000)
If I use a query without aggregate functions, both syntax return the
same result:
select p1.s_name, p2.sales
from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
select p1.s_name, p2.sales
from p1, p2
where p1.id *= p2.id
Both of them return:
s_name sales
-- --
Rick 2000.00
Rick 1000.00
Rick 1500.00
Mary Null
Peter 750.00
Peter 1000.00
But if I use Sum(), the results are different:
select p1.s_name, sum(p2.sales) as sales
from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
group by p1.s_name
s_name sales
-- --
Rick 4500.00
Peter 1750.00
select p1.s_name, sum(p2.sales) as sales
from p1, p2
where p1.id *= p2.id
group by p1.s_name
s_name sales
-- --
Rick 4500.00
Mary Null
Peter 1750.00
In my opinion, the correct result is the last one, but the syntax that
Microsoft recommends to use is the other one.
Can someone explain that to me?
Thanks in advance.
Donald
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***You can get the result you want with:
SELECT s_name, SUM(sales) as sales FROM (
select p1.s_name, p2.sales
from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
) a
group by s_name
-- or
SELECT p1.s_name, a.sales
FROM p1
LEFT OUTER JOIN (
SELECT id, SUM(sales) AS sales
FROM p2
GROUP BY id) a
ON p1.id = a.id
-- or the simplest (but somewhat worse performing on large sets), GROUP BY
ALL:
select p1.s_name, SUM(p2.sales) AS sales
from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
GROUP BY ALL p1.s_name
Joe Celko give a rundown of the disadvantages of *= here:
phx.gbl&rnum=7" target="_blank">http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?h...
phx.gbl&rnum=7
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Donald" <don382w@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23$ZyTiKSFHA.2132@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi.
> I'm using MS SQLServer and I have noticed that when I use aggregate
> functions on queries that use outer joins, the results varies depending
> on the syntax that I use. If I use the syntax:
> from table1 left join table2 on table1.a = table2.a
> it doesn't seem to work properly, but if I use the syntax:
> from table1, table2 where table1.a *= table2.a
> it seems to work fine.
> I would like to know if there's something that I'm doing wrong, if this
> is some bug for which there is some solution, or if just the way it is.
> In order to be more clear, I will show you some simple code that reflect
> that.
> Suppose we have the following 2 tables whith the corresponding data:
> create table p1 ( id int primary key, s_name char(40) )
> insert p1 values (1, 'Rick')
> insert p1 values (2, 'Mary')
> insert p1 values (3, 'Peter')
> create table p2 (id int, region int, sales money, primary key (id,
> region))
> insert p2 values (1, 1, 2000)
> insert p2 values (1, 2, 1000)
> insert p2 values (1, 3, 1500)
> insert p2 values (3, 1, 750)
> insert p2 values (3, 2, 1000)
> If I use a query without aggregate functions, both syntax return the
> same result:
> select p1.s_name, p2.sales
> from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
> select p1.s_name, p2.sales
> from p1, p2
> where p1.id *= p2.id
> Both of them return:
> s_name sales
> -- --
> Rick 2000.00
> Rick 1000.00
> Rick 1500.00
> Mary Null
> Peter 750.00
> Peter 1000.00
> But if I use Sum(), the results are different:
> select p1.s_name, sum(p2.sales) as sales
> from p1 left outer join p2 on p1.id = p2.id
> group by p1.s_name
> s_name sales
> -- --
> Rick 4500.00
> Peter 1750.00
> select p1.s_name, sum(p2.sales) as sales
> from p1, p2
> where p1.id *= p2.id
> group by p1.s_name
> s_name sales
> -- --
> Rick 4500.00
> Mary Null
> Peter 1750.00
> In my opinion, the correct result is the last one, but the syntax that
> Microsoft recommends to use is the other one.
> Can someone explain that to me?
> Thanks in advance.
> Donald
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***|||Yes, I am running SQL-Server 2000. I will check which service pack, if
any, is installed. I already downloaded the service pack 3a to install.
Thanks for everything,
Donald
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***

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 Sqlserver 2005: Displaying only dbs user has a right to?

Hi;

My company just installed MS SQLServer 2005 ( see below the dotted
line ).

When a user logs into management studio all of the databases on the
server are displayed in the right hand column.

What can we do to have only the databases the user has rights to,
display?

Thanks much in advance for any info.

Steve

--------------------
Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio9.00.1399.00
Microsoft Analysis Services Client Tools 2005.090.1399.00
Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC) 2000.085.1117.00
(xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158)
Microsoft MSXML2.6 3.0 4.0 6.0
Microsoft Internet Explorer7.0.5730.11
Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0.50727.42
Operating System5.1.2600Steve (tinker123@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

My company just installed MS SQLServer 2005 ( see below the dotted
line ).
>
When a user logs into management studio all of the databases on the
server are displayed in the right hand column.
>
What can we do to have only the databases the user has rights to,
display?

What you can do is to revoke the permission VIEW ANY DATABASE from public,
or DENY this permission to the users in question. Alas, the user would then only see tempdb and msdb (or was it master?), databases he owns, and
possibly his current database. He would have to issue a USE database in
the dark to get there.

This is not an uncommon question, so I filed a suggestion for an improvement
in SQL Server. You can vote on it at
https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLSe...edbackID=273830
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

MS SQL Server 7.0 SP4 on Windows 2003 Server.

My regards for all on this NG!

My client need to use Windows 2003 Server, but it have some databases
and systems that use SQLServer 7.0
I need to know if MS SQL Server 7.0 can be instaled and if will run
with no problems into Windows 2003 Server.

Thanks a lot!!

LucioLucio Chiessi [VORio] (lucio@.vorio.eti.br) writes:
> My regards for all on this NG!
> My client need to use Windows 2003 Server, but it have some databases
> and systems that use SQLServer 7.0
> I need to know if MS SQL Server 7.0 can be instaled and if will run
> with no problems into Windows 2003 Server.

Microsoft does not support SQL 7.0 on Windows 2003. See further
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;810391.

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

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||Thanks a lot for your response.
We are upgrading to MSDE2K and working fine.

Best Regards...|||Lucio Chiessi [VORio] (lucio@.vorio.eti.br) writes:
> Thanks a lot for your response.
> We are upgrading to MSDE2K and working fine.

Be sure to apply SP3, as this is required for Windows 2003.

--
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 Server

How to Increase the Sqlserver SpeedAs you have posted a question in the articles section it is being moved to SQL Server Forum.|||

Quote:

Originally Posted by sqlravi

How to Increase the Sqlserver Speed

If you are asking of performance then there are several issues needs to be resolved.

1.Size of database.
2.Database design.
3.Proper indexing as per requirment.
4.Number of transactions.
5.Hardware (Server configuration)
6. Type of accessing the server .

MS SQL 5.0

Hi,
We are having a migration job to do. The customer is saying that the SQL
Server version 5.0
I never heard this version before? Is there any such version there last time
?
I knew the version ofrom 6.5 onwards.
Please help me to find there was such version before and will it be
compatible to migrate say to MS SQL Server 2000 or later versions?
Thanks
Regards
kumarMSSQL ver5.0 SP4 running on
Microsoft Window Server 2000.
"kumar" wrote:

> Hi,
> We are having a migration job to do. The customer is saying that the SQL
> Server version 5.0
> I never heard this version before? Is there any such version there last ti
me?
> I knew the version ofrom 6.5 onwards.
> Please help me to find there was such version before and will it be
> compatible to migrate say to MS SQL Server 2000 or later versions?
> Thanks
> Regards
> kumar
>|||There never existed such version of MS SQL Server. The version history is (f
rom memory):
1.0 (OS/2)
1.1 (OS/2)
4.2 (OS/2)
4.21... (OS/2 and NT)
6.0 (NT)
6.5 (NT/Windows)
7.0 (NT/Windows)
2000/8.0 (NT/Windows)
2005/9.0 (Windows)
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"kumar" <kumar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD202903-1262-4045-A462-C60FC03A75F1@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We are having a migration job to do. The customer is saying that the SQL
> Server version 5.0
> I never heard this version before? Is there any such version there last ti
me?
> I knew the version ofrom 6.5 onwards.
> Please help me to find there was such version before and will it be
> compatible to migrate say to MS SQL Server 2000 or later versions?
> Thanks
> Regards
> kumar
>|||Ask them to send you the version string. The two possibilities I can think
of is they are giving you the Windows version from the @.@.version output - I
think Windows 2000 is displayed as Windows NT 5.0 or they don't have SQL
Server. mysql has a version 5.0 for example.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"kumar" <kumar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CD202903-1262-4045-A462-C60FC03A75F1@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We are having a migration job to do. The customer is saying that the SQL
> Server version 5.0
> I never heard this version before? Is there any such version there last
> time?
> I knew the version ofrom 6.5 onwards.
> Please help me to find there was such version before and will it be
> compatible to migrate say to MS SQL Server 2000 or later versions?
> Thanks
> Regards
> kumar
>|||Are they sure it's Microsoft SQL Server?
The current non-beta release of mysql is version 5.0
-Sue
On Thu, 4 May 2006 00:39:01 -0700, kumar
<kumar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>We are having a migration job to do. The customer is saying that the SQL
>Server version 5.0
>I never heard this version before? Is there any such version there last tim
e?
>I knew the version ofrom 6.5 onwards.
>Please help me to find there was such version before and will it be
>compatible to migrate say to MS SQL Server 2000 or later versions?
>Thanks
>Regards
>kumar