Best Practices Analyzer Modification

I work for a software development company and was wondering if it would be possible to create custom "Best Practices" for the Analyzer. For example if we were developing a database and wanted to check to make sure all new development followed the same pr
actices we could use our own custom "Best Practice" modules to check.
Is there anything like that that can be created for use with the Analyzer? An SDK or anything? Is that something that is planned for the future?
Thanks
The ability to create custom rules and extend BPA has certainly been talked
about and may be something that you can look forward to in a future version.
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
http://www.sqldbatips.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Earl G Elliott III" <Earl G Elliott III@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:19D1D94E-A1BA-42BE-ABAE-3ED0758F7544@.microsoft.com...
> I work for a software development company and was wondering if it would be
possible to create custom "Best Practices" for the Analyzer. For example if
we were developing a database and wanted to check to make sure all new
development followed the same practices we could use our own custom "Best
Practice" modules to check.
> Is there anything like that that can be created for use with the Analyzer?
An SDK or anything? Is that something that is planned for the future?
> Thanks
sql

Best Practice question

Our company has several large 3rd-party applications, each with its' own
dedicated SQL Server database. I am developing our own add-ons and utilities
that use data from these databases.
My question is, should my Views, Functions & Stored Procedures reside in the
3rd-party database (they have a standard naming convention to identify our
code), or should they be in a separate database referencing the tables, views
etc. in the 3rd-party database?
Is there any loss in efficiency by keeping our code in a separate datebase?
We are using SQL 2000 Standard.
Thank you.I don't see a problem with keeping the objects in the third-party database
as long as you have a naming convention to identify the objects and are
prepared to re-apply scripts to re-create the objects, if needed. If you
keep objects in a separate database, you'll need to create users in both
databases and can't use ownership chaining unless you enable the
'db-chaining' database option in both databases.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"SQLGuptaSybase" <SQLGuptaSybase@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:745D6B85-63D3-4194-9213-8721D7B3713D@.microsoft.com...
> Our company has several large 3rd-party applications, each with its' own
> dedicated SQL Server database. I am developing our own add-ons and
> utilities
> that use data from these databases.
> My question is, should my Views, Functions & Stored Procedures reside in
> the
> 3rd-party database (they have a standard naming convention to identify our
> code), or should they be in a separate database referencing the tables,
> views
> etc. in the 3rd-party database?
> Is there any loss in efficiency by keeping our code in a separate
> datebase?
> We are using SQL 2000 Standard.
> Thank you.|||Dan,
Thank you for the quick response. One thing I did not address was storing
data in custom tables in the 3rd party db which I am also doing. Because the
data in the custom tables changes more frequently than the 3rd party, I use
scheduled DTS packages to copy data from the custom tables to a separate db.
Any thoughts on that?
Thank you again.
--
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> I don't see a problem with keeping the objects in the third-party database
> as long as you have a naming convention to identify the objects and are
> prepared to re-apply scripts to re-create the objects, if needed. If you
> keep objects in a separate database, you'll need to create users in both
> databases and can't use ownership chaining unless you enable the
> 'db-chaining' database option in both databases.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "SQLGuptaSybase" <SQLGuptaSybase@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:745D6B85-63D3-4194-9213-8721D7B3713D@.microsoft.com...
> > Our company has several large 3rd-party applications, each with its' own
> > dedicated SQL Server database. I am developing our own add-ons and
> > utilities
> > that use data from these databases.
> >
> > My question is, should my Views, Functions & Stored Procedures reside in
> > the
> > 3rd-party database (they have a standard naming convention to identify our
> > code), or should they be in a separate database referencing the tables,
> > views
> > etc. in the 3rd-party database?
> >
> > Is there any loss in efficiency by keeping our code in a separate
> > datebase?
> >
> > We are using SQL 2000 Standard.
> >
> > Thank you.
>|||> Any thoughts on that?
The main reason would might want to store the tables in a different database
is if you have a lot of data and the recovery/availability requirements are
different. Separation will give you more flexibility.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"SQLGuptaSybase" <SQLGuptaSybase@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A89EB44E-5E8C-4239-9E01-A92644E4EE3A@.microsoft.com...
> Dan,
> Thank you for the quick response. One thing I did not address was storing
> data in custom tables in the 3rd party db which I am also doing. Because
> the
> data in the custom tables changes more frequently than the 3rd party, I
> use
> scheduled DTS packages to copy data from the custom tables to a separate
> db.
> Any thoughts on that?
> Thank you again.
> --
> "Dan Guzman" wrote:
>> I don't see a problem with keeping the objects in the third-party
>> database
>> as long as you have a naming convention to identify the objects and are
>> prepared to re-apply scripts to re-create the objects, if needed. If you
>> keep objects in a separate database, you'll need to create users in both
>> databases and can't use ownership chaining unless you enable the
>> 'db-chaining' database option in both databases.
>> --
>> Hope this helps.
>> Dan Guzman
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "SQLGuptaSybase" <SQLGuptaSybase@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:745D6B85-63D3-4194-9213-8721D7B3713D@.microsoft.com...
>> > Our company has several large 3rd-party applications, each with its'
>> > own
>> > dedicated SQL Server database. I am developing our own add-ons and
>> > utilities
>> > that use data from these databases.
>> >
>> > My question is, should my Views, Functions & Stored Procedures reside
>> > in
>> > the
>> > 3rd-party database (they have a standard naming convention to identify
>> > our
>> > code), or should they be in a separate database referencing the tables,
>> > views
>> > etc. in the 3rd-party database?
>> >
>> > Is there any loss in efficiency by keeping our code in a separate
>> > datebase?
>> >
>> > We are using SQL 2000 Standard.
>> >
>> > Thank you.|||Thank you.
--
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> > Any thoughts on that?
> The main reason would might want to store the tables in a different database
> is if you have a lot of data and the recovery/availability requirements are
> different. Separation will give you more flexibility.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "SQLGuptaSybase" <SQLGuptaSybase@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A89EB44E-5E8C-4239-9E01-A92644E4EE3A@.microsoft.com...
> > Dan,
> >
> > Thank you for the quick response. One thing I did not address was storing
> > data in custom tables in the 3rd party db which I am also doing. Because
> > the
> > data in the custom tables changes more frequently than the 3rd party, I
> > use
> > scheduled DTS packages to copy data from the custom tables to a separate
> > db.
> > Any thoughts on that?
> >
> > Thank you again.
> > --
> >
> > "Dan Guzman" wrote:
> >
> >> I don't see a problem with keeping the objects in the third-party
> >> database
> >> as long as you have a naming convention to identify the objects and are
> >> prepared to re-apply scripts to re-create the objects, if needed. If you
> >> keep objects in a separate database, you'll need to create users in both
> >> databases and can't use ownership chaining unless you enable the
> >> 'db-chaining' database option in both databases.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Hope this helps.
> >>
> >> Dan Guzman
> >> SQL Server MVP
> >>
> >> "SQLGuptaSybase" <SQLGuptaSybase@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> >> message
> >> news:745D6B85-63D3-4194-9213-8721D7B3713D@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Our company has several large 3rd-party applications, each with its'
> >> > own
> >> > dedicated SQL Server database. I am developing our own add-ons and
> >> > utilities
> >> > that use data from these databases.
> >> >
> >> > My question is, should my Views, Functions & Stored Procedures reside
> >> > in
> >> > the
> >> > 3rd-party database (they have a standard naming convention to identify
> >> > our
> >> > code), or should they be in a separate database referencing the tables,
> >> > views
> >> > etc. in the 3rd-party database?
> >> >
> >> > Is there any loss in efficiency by keeping our code in a separate
> >> > datebase?
> >> >
> >> > We are using SQL 2000 Standard.
> >> >
> >> > Thank you.
> >>
>

Best practice configuring Visual Studio Solution for .SDF databases

Hello,

In our company we haven't tamed Visual Studio yet for the part of configuring

the application database. Therefore I was wondering if there is someone that

can give me hints or clues on what the best practice is for configuring Visual

Solution to handle an SDF database (SQLCE 3.0). I have search a bit on the

internet and this forum, but couldn't find a decent how-to or best practices

guide that copes with this specific problem.

As

a matter of facts, i am also curious for guidelines and tips on the best way to

configure and manage SQL Server databases under Visual Studio. I guess (read as

hope) that the configuration of a mobile and full blown

database will have some overlaps somehow.

I've found the Database Project which with to manage (Create/Alter) databases,

but is this also the best way to store versions of the database in an

source repository? Can such a project allow me to 'automagically' have a

correct database (so with tables and data) when i want to deploy or debug my

device application?

I am asking this because now our database designers and software engineers have

to do allot of manual actions to update the application with the most recent

database version. SDF databases are flying around all over the place, and in

order to test a specific version of the application, the related database has

to be copied manually on the device. We are not searching for replication

related solutions, nor adding the SDF itself to the source repository, but because

most of our applications are server-client based, it would be really super cool

if we could somehow couple both database definitions and generation together. My

feeling says me there ought to be some feature embedded somewhere deep into

Visual Studio that we missed that would (partially) simplify and automate this

whole process for us.

Another

related question is if it is possible to couple XSD generated datasets to an

SDF database. Is it possible to update the generated code (or the describing

XSD documents) from an SDF database? i again guess that this somehow should be

possible in oderder to keep both code and data in sync, and i do not like the

alternative to always update the XSD when the SDF architecture changes. Somehow

i cannot find out how to do this. i was initially searching for the other way

around: Use an XSD to generate both the DataSet codewrappers and the database

itself.

Any

information is welcome and many thanks in advance!

Peter

Vrenken

Too bad there is no one that can give more information

regarding these issues. Can I assume that allot of people/companies haven’t got

a decent SDF database (configuration) setup or thought about it?

I would really like to open a dialog about these issues. Anyone

wants to join me?

Greetings from the rainy Netherlands,

Peter Vrenken

|||Do all you developers out there have got a decent database setup or never thought about it yet? I am hoping that VTS will solve some of the riddles for us but until that time i would really like to know how other companies manage their SDF databases.

Is there not a single developer (maybe a MVP) that wants to shed some light on it and describe how he does it (or how it should be done)?

Thanks in advance,

Peter Vrenken|||I used to put an .mdb in vss. No reason why this couldn't be done with the .sdf|||Hello and thanks for your response!

I know that as of VS2K5 SP1 the management of .SDF files from within a solution has been greatly enhanced.
You say that you ‘used’ to put an .mdb in VSS. Is this because you found a better solution?

Peter Vrenken|||Peter, there are several questions here and I'll try to help where I can. As I understand your issues you're trying to build SDF databases in a way that can be better managed through developer tools like Visual Studio. At this point VS can help, but not as much as it could. The VS team is working on an updated version of the tools that can address some (but not nearly all) of your issues. The SQL Server Management Studio can also do more to help in this regard. As far as scripting, there is little to no support in any of the tools. I too felt your frustration so I wrote my first EBook to supplement my just completed Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition). This is available at WWW.Hitchhikerguides.net. In the book I walk through the process of creating a database using a script reader that I wrote (and provide with the book), with replication and using the APIs. I expect it will help answer many more of your questions.|||"Used to" only in that I no longer use .mdb files.

I moved to MSDE where I kept the create scripts in vss.

I have migrated these to SQL Express (with the scipts in vss) but am now working on a new application with CE. Unfortunately the scripting that was created from SQL Server Management Tool does not work with CE so I am planning on using vss.

Best practice configuring Visual Studio Solution for .SDF databases

Hello,

In our company we haven't tamed Visual Studio yet for the part of configuring

the application database. Therefore I was wondering if there is someone that

can give me hints or clues on what the best practice is for configuring Visual

Solution to handle an SDF database (SQLCE 3.0). I have search a bit on the

internet and this forum, but couldn't find a decent how-to or best practices

guide that copes with this specific problem.

As

a matter of facts, i am also curious for guidelines and tips on the best way to

configure and manage SQL Server databases under Visual Studio. I guess (read as

hope) that the configuration of a mobile and full blown

database will have some overlaps somehow.

I've found the Database Project which with to manage (Create/Alter) databases,

but is this also the best way to store versions of the database in an

source repository? Can such a project allow me to 'automagically' have a

correct database (so with tables and data) when i want to deploy or debug my

device application?

I am asking this because now our database designers and software engineers have

to do allot of manual actions to update the application with the most recent

database version. SDF databases are flying around all over the place, and in

order to test a specific version of the application, the related database has

to be copied manually on the device. We are not searching for replication

related solutions, nor adding the SDF itself to the source repository, but because

most of our applications are server-client based, it would be really super cool

if we could somehow couple both database definitions and generation together. My

feeling says me there ought to be some feature embedded somewhere deep into

Visual Studio that we missed that would (partially) simplify and automate this

whole process for us.

Another

related question is if it is possible to couple XSD generated datasets to an

SDF database. Is it possible to update the generated code (or the describing

XSD documents) from an SDF database? i again guess that this somehow should be

possible in oderder to keep both code and data in sync, and i do not like the

alternative to always update the XSD when the SDF architecture changes. Somehow

i cannot find out how to do this. i was initially searching for the other way

around: Use an XSD to generate both the DataSet codewrappers and the database

itself.

Any

information is welcome and many thanks in advance!

Peter

Vrenken

Too bad there is no one that can give more information

regarding these issues. Can I assume that allot of people/companies haven’t got

a decent SDF database (configuration) setup or thought about it?

I would really like to open a dialog about these issues. Anyone

wants to join me?

Greetings from the rainy Netherlands,

Peter Vrenken

|||Do all you developers out there have got a decent database setup or never thought about it yet? I am hoping that VTS will solve some of the riddles for us but until that time i would really like to know how other companies manage their SDF databases.

Is there not a single developer (maybe a MVP) that wants to shed some light on it and describe how he does it (or how it should be done)?

Thanks in advance,

Peter Vrenken|||I used to put an .mdb in vss. No reason why this couldn't be done with the .sdf|||Hello and thanks for your response!

I know that as of VS2K5 SP1 the management of .SDF files from within a solution has been greatly enhanced.
You say that you ‘used’ to put an .mdb in VSS. Is this because you found a better solution?

Peter Vrenken|||Peter, there are several questions here and I'll try to help where I can. As I understand your issues you're trying to build SDF databases in a way that can be better managed through developer tools like Visual Studio. At this point VS can help, but not as much as it could. The VS team is working on an updated version of the tools that can address some (but not nearly all) of your issues. The SQL Server Management Studio can also do more to help in this regard. As far as scripting, there is little to no support in any of the tools. I too felt your frustration so I wrote my first EBook to supplement my just completed Hitchhiker's Guide to Visual Studio and SQL Server (7th Edition). This is available at WWW.Hitchhikerguides.net. In the book I walk through the process of creating a database using a script reader that I wrote (and provide with the book), with replication and using the APIs. I expect it will help answer many more of your questions.|||"Used to" only in that I no longer use .mdb files.

I moved to MSDE where I kept the create scripts in vss.

I have migrated these to SQL Express (with the scipts in vss) but am now working on a new application with CE. Unfortunately the scripting that was created from SQL Server Management Tool does not work with CE so I am planning on using vss.

Best place for company info?

Say I have 4 applications which each use their own database. There are two
SQL Servers involved and the databases are split across servers like this:
SQLServer1
- BigApp1
- SmallApp1
SQLServer2
- BigApp2
- SmallApp2
The above helps balance load. If I want to store information about the
company developing these applications (such as company name, address, phone
number, etc), where should I put it? In a seperate database or in one of
the application databases?
This information will be idenpendent of any application but all applications
will reference it.
Thanks,
BrettHi
It is not clear if this is one company per application or one company for
all applications. I would add this information to each database if the
information is application specific, you could create a partitioned view if
you wish to view all values. If this is a common information, then I would
consider adding it to it's own database along with any other common/shared
information.
John
"Brett" <no@.spam.net> wrote in message
news:%23BLwNcXLFHA.724@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Say I have 4 applications which each use their own database. There are
> two SQL Servers involved and the databases are split across servers like
> this:
> SQLServer1
> - BigApp1
> - SmallApp1
> SQLServer2
> - BigApp2
> - SmallApp2
> The above helps balance load. If I want to store information about the
> company developing these applications (such as company name, address,
> phone number, etc), where should I put it? In a seperate database or in
> one of the application databases?
> This information will be idenpendent of any application but all
> applications will reference it.
> Thanks,
> Brett
>|||One company owns all four applications. It is the parent of these four
apps. I thought about putting the company info in its own database but that
creates additional connections and use of resources right?
Each of the four databases has its own website. The websites run CFMX,
which creates a connection to its respective database. If the company info
is in its on database in either SQLServer1 or SQLServer2, would that create
more connections?
If not, which server should that database go on - SQLServer1 or SQLServer2,
with respect to load balancing since all four websites will be accessing the
company database (displaying company info on certain pages of the website
for example). It can eleviate some of the load problem by storing the
company info in an application variable.
Thanks,
Brett
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uyDwXBYLFHA.1172@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> It is not clear if this is one company per application or one company for
> all applications. I would add this information to each database if the
> information is application specific, you could create a partitioned view
> if you wish to view all values. If this is a common information, then I
> would consider adding it to it's own database along with any other
> common/shared information.
> John
>
> "Brett" <no@.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:%23BLwNcXLFHA.724@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>|||How much info are you talking about? And how often is it updated? By
putting the same duplicate info in separate databases, you make updates to
that info a little trickier. Are you using Replication to keep the
databases in sync? If so, then it would seem you could put it on both and
that would handle most of the update issues. Of course, as you point out,
if there's only a couple of lines of information, it might make more sense
to put it in application variables and skip the DB overhead altogether...
"Brett" <no@.spam.net> wrote in message
news:%23ya4AJYLFHA.568@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> One company owns all four applications. It is the parent of these four
> apps. I thought about putting the company info in its own database but
> that creates additional connections and use of resources right?
> Each of the four databases has its own website. The websites run CFMX,
> which creates a connection to its respective database. If the company
> info is in its on database in either SQLServer1 or SQLServer2, would that
> create more connections?
> If not, which server should that database go on - SQLServer1 or
> SQLServer2, with respect to load balancing since all four websites will be
> accessing the company database (displaying company info on certain pages
> of the website for example). It can eleviate some of the load problem by
> storing the company info in an application variable.
> Thanks,
> Brett
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uyDwXBYLFHA.1172@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>|||The info won't be much but may grow. It will be items such as:
- Company name
- address
- tel/fax numbers
- maybe company employees and their details
- may a map URL
and what ever else.
The info won't be updated often. Maybe 5 times/mo or so. Logically it is
completely independent of any application or database. It will need to be
in a database. Just, do I want to put it inside of an existing application
database or its own?
The application variables for each app will still need to get the info from
somewhere. I don't want them hard coded. That's why I'd like the database
setup. One change, one place.
Any application will hit the company info DB maybe once/w to get updates.
Little overhead actually.
Suggestions?
Thanks,
Brett
"Michael C#" <xyz@.abcdef.com> wrote in message
news:zEk%d.1527$BX1.327@.fe08.lga...
> How much info are you talking about? And how often is it updated? By
> putting the same duplicate info in separate databases, you make updates to
> that info a little trickier. Are you using Replication to keep the
> databases in sync? If so, then it would seem you could put it on both and
> that would handle most of the update issues. Of course, as you point out,
> if there's only a couple of lines of information, it might make more sense
> to put it in application variables and skip the DB overhead altogether...
> "Brett" <no@.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:%23ya4AJYLFHA.568@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>|||Sounds like you're leaning toward putting it in its own database. That
being the case, unless it's specifically tied to the data stored in one of
your current databases, it makes sense to create a separate database for it.
And if you decide you want to access the data from within your other
database, just fully qualify the table names in your queries. It also
sounds like the information (company employees/details, etc.) could be
subject to a some growth/changes.
"Brett" <no@.spam.net> wrote in message
news:OcgM$zYLFHA.244@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> The info won't be much but may grow. It will be items such as:
> - Company name
> - address
> - tel/fax numbers
> - maybe company employees and their details
> - may a map URL
> and what ever else.
> The info won't be updated often. Maybe 5 times/mo or so. Logically it is
> completely independent of any application or database. It will need to be
> in a database. Just, do I want to put it inside of an existing
> application database or its own?
> The application variables for each app will still need to get the info
> from somewhere. I don't want them hard coded. That's why I'd like the
> database setup. One change, one place.
> Any application will hit the company info DB maybe once/w to get
> updates. Little overhead actually.
> Suggestions?
> Thanks,
> Brett
> "Michael C#" <xyz@.abcdef.com> wrote in message
> news:zEk%d.1527$BX1.327@.fe08.lga...
>|||Hi
"Brett" <no@.spam.net> wrote in message
news:%23ya4AJYLFHA.568@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> One company owns all four applications. It is the parent of these four
> apps. I thought about putting the company info in its own database but
> that creates additional connections and use of resources right?
You can always create a view.
> Each of the four databases has its own website. The websites run CFMX,
> which creates a connection to its respective database. If the company
> info is in its on database in either SQLServer1 or SQLServer2, would that
> create more connections?
> If not, which server should that database go on - SQLServer1 or
> SQLServer2, with respect to load balancing since all four websites will be
> accessing the company database (displaying company info on certain pages
> of the website for example). It can eleviate some of the load problem by
> storing the company info in an application variable.
This would depend on how/when it is updated and how/how often it is used and
if you always have to display the current information that is in the table.
You may want to consider using replication as suggested by Michael.
John
> Thanks,
> Brett
> "John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uyDwXBYLFHA.1172@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>|||Yes - this all true.
If the company DB is on a server seperate from a DB that wish to call data
from the company DB, how do I fully qualify the company DB table path in say
a SELECT?
Thanks,
Brett
"Michael C#" <xyz@.abcdef.com> wrote in message
news:0ml%d.11715$xQ5.2876@.fe10.lga...
> Sounds like you're leaning toward putting it in its own database. That
> being the case, unless it's specifically tied to the data stored in one of
> your current databases, it makes sense to create a separate database for
> it. And if you decide you want to access the data from within your other
> database, just fully qualify the table names in your queries. It also
> sounds like the information (company employees/details, etc.) could be
> subject to a some growth/changes.
> "Brett" <no@.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:OcgM$zYLFHA.244@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>|||"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ol5aFBZLFHA.576@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> "Brett" <no@.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:%23ya4AJYLFHA.568@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You can always create a view.
> This would depend on how/when it is updated and how/how often it is used
> and if you always have to display the current information that is in the
> table. You may want to consider using replication as suggested by Michael.
Wouldn't replication cause more overhead than the once/w query from each
application?
Thanks,
Brett|||On a separate server? You're jumping around a little bit here. To answer
your question, look up sp_addlinkedserver in BOL.
"Brett" <no@.spam.net> wrote in message
news:O7sbMRZLFHA.3356@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Yes - this all true.
> If the company DB is on a server seperate from a DB that wish to call data
> from the company DB, how do I fully qualify the company DB table path in
> say a SELECT?
> Thanks,
> Brett
> "Michael C#" <xyz@.abcdef.com> wrote in message
> news:0ml%d.11715$xQ5.2876@.fe10.lga...
>

BEST NAS on the MARKET?

Hi all the other GURU out there,
My company is trying to find a good NAS system for storage on our
network. We previously bought a IOMega 640Gbytes NAS, which is a
headless Win 2000 Server, it works but not the greatest.
What NAS out there would you recommand me to buy if I am looking for a
1 to 2 Tbytes NAS?
Thanks in advance.
CompGuru WannabeCompGuRu wrote:
> Hi all the other GURU out there,
> My company is trying to find a good NAS system for storage on our
> network. We previously bought a IOMega 640Gbytes NAS, which is a
> headless Win 2000 Server, it works but not the greatest.
> What NAS out there would you recommand me to buy if I am looking for a
> 1 to 2 Tbytes NAS?
> Thanks in advance.
> CompGuru Wannabe
Is this for use with SQL Server? If so, have a look here for issues and
requirements for using NAS devices with SQL Server.
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...kb;en-us;304261
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com|||Thanks.. It probably just be a backup server for storing drive images
and source files.. I will give it a try..
COmp GuRU|||Decide on the application before you decide the hardware. NAS is not
for SQL Server.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

BEST NAS on the MARKET?

Hi all the other GURU out there,
My company is trying to find a good NAS system for storage on our
network. We previously bought a IOMega 640Gbytes NAS, which is a
headless Win 2000 Server, it works but not the greatest.
What NAS out there would you recommand me to buy if I am looking for a
1 to 2 Tbytes NAS?
Thanks in advance.
CompGuru WannabeCompGuRu wrote:
> Hi all the other GURU out there,
> My company is trying to find a good NAS system for storage on our
> network. We previously bought a IOMega 640Gbytes NAS, which is a
> headless Win 2000 Server, it works but not the greatest.
> What NAS out there would you recommand me to buy if I am looking for a
> 1 to 2 Tbytes NAS?
> Thanks in advance.
> CompGuru Wannabe
Is this for use with SQL Server? If so, have a look here for issues and
requirements for using NAS devices with SQL Server.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304261
--
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com|||Thanks.. It probably just be a backup server for storing drive images
and source files.. I will give it a try..
COmp GuRU|||Decide on the application before you decide the hardware. NAS is not
for SQL Server.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

BEST NAS on the MARKET?

Hi all the other GURU out there,
My company is trying to find a good NAS system for storage on our
network. We previously bought a IOMega 640Gbytes NAS, which is a
headless Win 2000 Server, it works but not the greatest.
What NAS out there would you recommand me to buy if I am looking for a
1 to 2 Tbytes NAS?
Thanks in advance.
CompGuru Wannabe
CompGuRu wrote:
> Hi all the other GURU out there,
> My company is trying to find a good NAS system for storage on our
> network. We previously bought a IOMega 640Gbytes NAS, which is a
> headless Win 2000 Server, it works but not the greatest.
> What NAS out there would you recommand me to buy if I am looking for a
> 1 to 2 Tbytes NAS?
> Thanks in advance.
> CompGuru Wannabe
Is this for use with SQL Server? If so, have a look here for issues and
requirements for using NAS devices with SQL Server.
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;304261
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com
|||Thanks.. It probably just be a backup server for storing drive images
and source files.. I will give it a try..
COmp GuRU
|||Decide on the application before you decide the hardware. NAS is not
for SQL Server.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP

Best method to transfer data

Hi Group,
I just started at a company and am trying to come up with a solution
to streamline the datawarehouse.
The problem is, we have two databases. Database1 (548 tables) is
generated from user input and we cannot control the schema. Database2
(40 tables) is a staging DB that optimally will contain some of the
Creates and Updates from the previous day from within Database1.
Database2 is built from a conglomeration of tables in Database1,
therefore we have created 40 views which encapsulates data from
multiple tables in Database1 and are using DTS to call these views and
populate Database2 with a snapshot.
There are 2 problems with the above setup. First is, we do not need
to take an entire snapshot of the views to populate Database2, we only
need the previous days changes (the DB is growing and we cannot afford
it). Second, DTS is a pain because we are using a separate view for
every table and a separate DTS package to copy every view to
Database2. Maintenance is tough.
Currently, we are investigating the use of triggers, but I think this
will end up being a maintenance nightmare also. Is there anyway to
use replication in conjunction with views to copy *only* the previous
days changes to the other Database? Or does anyone have any other
suggestions to the best way to set this up? *Any* insight or advice
on a better setup is welcome.
Thanks much,
Derek
Derek,
I haven't set this up for a while, but transactional replication of indexed
views would seem to meet your requirements.
HTH,
Paul Ibison (SQL Server MVP)
[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Thanks very much Paul. Because of your suggestion, I am investigating
using this method.
I read that indexed views tax the system it runs on, so I'm looking at
using transactional replication to replicate the data to another box
which maintains the indexed views, then publish that data to the box
that needs it.
Thanks again,
Derek
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message news:<OrKxNNUtEHA.1548@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Derek,
> I haven't set this up for a while, but transactional replication of indexed
> views would seem to meet your requirements.
> HTH,
> Paul Ibison (SQL Server MVP)
|||Derek take a look at Trey Johnsons DTS Best Practices for Business
Intelligence white paper in msdn online it should steer you in the right
direction as far as coming up with a standard data capture methodology
"derek" wrote:

> Hi Group,
> I just started at a company and am trying to come up with a solution
> to streamline the datawarehouse.
> The problem is, we have two databases. Database1 (548 tables) is
> generated from user input and we cannot control the schema. Database2
> (40 tables) is a staging DB that optimally will contain some of the
> Creates and Updates from the previous day from within Database1.
> Database2 is built from a conglomeration of tables in Database1,
> therefore we have created 40 views which encapsulates data from
> multiple tables in Database1 and are using DTS to call these views and
> populate Database2 with a snapshot.
> There are 2 problems with the above setup. First is, we do not need
> to take an entire snapshot of the views to populate Database2, we only
> need the previous days changes (the DB is growing and we cannot afford
> it). Second, DTS is a pain because we are using a separate view for
> every table and a separate DTS package to copy every view to
> Database2. Maintenance is tough.
> Currently, we are investigating the use of triggers, but I think this
> will end up being a maintenance nightmare also. Is there anyway to
> use replication in conjunction with views to copy *only* the previous
> days changes to the other Database? Or does anyone have any other
> suggestions to the best way to set this up? *Any* insight or advice
> on a better setup is welcome.
> Thanks much,
> Derek
>
|||Wow... About 95% of that article is over my head. I have a lot of
research to do. I was actually beginning to thing that SQL server was
limited in it's DataWarehousing. How wrong was I.
Thanks,
Derek
Richard S. Hale <RichardSHale@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<351947F4-60EE-426D-9F94-D0EE55083C93@.microsoft.com>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Derek take a look at Trey Johnsons DTS Best Practices for Business
> Intelligence white paper in msdn online it should steer you in the right
> direction as far as coming up with a standard data capture methodology
> "derek" wrote:

Best method to transfer data

Hi Group,
I just started at a company and am trying to come up with a solution
to streamline the datawarehouse.
The problem is, we have two databases. Database1 (548 tables) is
generated from user input and we cannot control the schema. Database2
(40 tables) is a staging DB that optimally will contain some of the
Creates and Updates from the previous day from within Database1.
Database2 is built from a conglomeration of tables in Database1,
therefore we have created 40 views which encapsulates data from
multiple tables in Database1 and are using DTS to call these views and
populate Database2 with a snapshot.
There are 2 problems with the above setup. First is, we do not need
to take an entire snapshot of the views to populate Database2, we only
need the previous days changes (the DB is growing and we cannot afford
it). Second, DTS is a pain because we are using a separate view for
every table and a separate DTS package to copy every view to
Database2. Maintenance is tough.
Currently, we are investigating the use of triggers, but I think this
will end up being a maintenance nightmare also. Is there anyway to
use replication in conjunction with views to copy *only* the previous
days changes to the other Database? Or does anyone have any other
suggestions to the best way to set this up? *Any* insight or advice
on a better setup is welcome.
Thanks much,
Derek
Derek,
I haven't set this up for a while, but transactional replication of indexed
views would seem to meet your requirements.
HTH,
Paul Ibison (SQL Server MVP)
[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Thanks very much Paul. Because of your suggestion, I am investigating
using this method.
I read that indexed views tax the system it runs on, so I'm looking at
using transactional replication to replicate the data to another box
which maintains the indexed views, then publish that data to the box
that needs it.
Thanks again,
Derek
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message news:<OrKxNNUtEHA.1548@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Derek,
> I haven't set this up for a while, but transactional replication of indexed
> views would seem to meet your requirements.
> HTH,
> Paul Ibison (SQL Server MVP)
|||Derek take a look at Trey Johnsons DTS Best Practices for Business
Intelligence white paper in msdn online it should steer you in the right
direction as far as coming up with a standard data capture methodology
"derek" wrote:

> Hi Group,
> I just started at a company and am trying to come up with a solution
> to streamline the datawarehouse.
> The problem is, we have two databases. Database1 (548 tables) is
> generated from user input and we cannot control the schema. Database2
> (40 tables) is a staging DB that optimally will contain some of the
> Creates and Updates from the previous day from within Database1.
> Database2 is built from a conglomeration of tables in Database1,
> therefore we have created 40 views which encapsulates data from
> multiple tables in Database1 and are using DTS to call these views and
> populate Database2 with a snapshot.
> There are 2 problems with the above setup. First is, we do not need
> to take an entire snapshot of the views to populate Database2, we only
> need the previous days changes (the DB is growing and we cannot afford
> it). Second, DTS is a pain because we are using a separate view for
> every table and a separate DTS package to copy every view to
> Database2. Maintenance is tough.
> Currently, we are investigating the use of triggers, but I think this
> will end up being a maintenance nightmare also. Is there anyway to
> use replication in conjunction with views to copy *only* the previous
> days changes to the other Database? Or does anyone have any other
> suggestions to the best way to set this up? *Any* insight or advice
> on a better setup is welcome.
> Thanks much,
> Derek
>
|||Wow... About 95% of that article is over my head. I have a lot of
research to do. I was actually beginning to thing that SQL server was
limited in it's DataWarehousing. How wrong was I.
Thanks,
Derek
Richard S. Hale <RichardSHale@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<351947F4-60EE-426D-9F94-D0EE55083C93@.microsoft.com>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Derek take a look at Trey Johnsons DTS Best Practices for Business
> Intelligence white paper in msdn online it should steer you in the right
> direction as far as coming up with a standard data capture methodology
> "derek" wrote:

Best method to transfer data

Hi Group,
I just started at a company and am trying to come up with a solution
to streamline the datawarehouse.
The problem is, we have two databases. Database1 (548 tables) is
generated from user input and we cannot control the schema. Database2
(40 tables) is a staging DB that optimally will contain some of the
Creates and Updates from the previous day from within Database1.
Database2 is built from a conglomeration of tables in Database1,
therefore we have created 40 views which encapsulates data from
multiple tables in Database1 and are using DTS to call these views and
populate Database2 with a snapshot.
There are 2 problems with the above setup. First is, we do not need
to take an entire snapshot of the views to populate Database2, we only
need the previous days changes (the DB is growing and we cannot afford
it). Second, DTS is a pain because we are using a separate view for
every table and a separate DTS package to copy every view to
Database2. Maintenance is tough.
Currently, we are investigating the use of triggers, but I think this
will end up being a maintenance nightmare also. Is there anyway to
use replication in conjunction with views to copy *only* the previous
days changes to the other Database? Or does anyone have any other
suggestions to the best way to set this up? *Any* insight or advice
on a better setup is welcome.
Thanks much,
DerekDerek,
I haven't set this up for a while, but transactional replication of indexed
views would seem to meet your requirements.
HTH,
Paul Ibison (SQL Server MVP)
[vbcol=seagreen]|||Thanks very much Paul. Because of your suggestion, I am investigating
using this method.
I read that indexed views tax the system it runs on, so I'm looking at
using transactional replication to replicate the data to another box
which maintains the indexed views, then publish that data to the box
that needs it.
Thanks again,
Derek
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message news:<OrKxNNUtEHA.1548@.TK2MSFTNGP
10.phx.gbl>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Derek,
> I haven't set this up for a while, but transactional replication of indexe
d
> views would seem to meet your requirements.
> HTH,
> Paul Ibison (SQL Server MVP)
>|||Derek take a look at Trey Johnsons DTS Best Practices for Business
Intelligence white paper in msdn online it should steer you in the right
direction as far as coming up with a standard data capture methodology
"derek" wrote:

> Hi Group,
> I just started at a company and am trying to come up with a solution
> to streamline the datawarehouse.
> The problem is, we have two databases. Database1 (548 tables) is
> generated from user input and we cannot control the schema. Database2
> (40 tables) is a staging DB that optimally will contain some of the
> Creates and Updates from the previous day from within Database1.
> Database2 is built from a conglomeration of tables in Database1,
> therefore we have created 40 views which encapsulates data from
> multiple tables in Database1 and are using DTS to call these views and
> populate Database2 with a snapshot.
> There are 2 problems with the above setup. First is, we do not need
> to take an entire snapshot of the views to populate Database2, we only
> need the previous days changes (the DB is growing and we cannot afford
> it). Second, DTS is a pain because we are using a separate view for
> every table and a separate DTS package to copy every view to
> Database2. Maintenance is tough.
> Currently, we are investigating the use of triggers, but I think this
> will end up being a maintenance nightmare also. Is there anyway to
> use replication in conjunction with views to copy *only* the previous
> days changes to the other Database? Or does anyone have any other
> suggestions to the best way to set this up? *Any* insight or advice
> on a better setup is welcome.
> Thanks much,
> Derek
>|||Wow... About 95% of that article is over my head. I have a lot of
research to do. I was actually beginning to thing that SQL server was
limited in it's DataWarehousing. How wrong was I.
Thanks,
Derek
Richard S. Hale <RichardSHale@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:<351947F4-60E
E-426D-9F94-D0EE55083C93@.microsoft.com>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Derek take a look at Trey Johnsons DTS Best Practices for Business
> Intelligence white paper in msdn online it should steer you in the right
> direction as far as coming up with a standard data capture methodology
> "derek" wrote:
>

best method to display data on intranet of company

Hi
Whats the best way to display data on company intranet or web
where they can make little choices also ( say between date so and so)
some thing like a report, with charts etc
with some graphical easy to learn language
I have strong knowledge of SQL and ok with HTMLYou can use any language which runs on a server, like ASP or JSP. I made something like what you want with ASP, and its really easy, you can search the web for tutorials or help.
Ask me what you will.|||You can also take a look at the new MS Reporting Services. I have downloaded it and installed it and it is a very strong reporting engine. I think the only significant drawback (and it is significant) is that to design reports, you must have a licensed copy of Visual Studio .NET.

You could also go with Crystal Reports (which I hate and about which have heard many negative things).

Regards,

hmscott|||I dont know asp

whether its easy for me to make a user choose dates to restrict
number of records or mentioning dates between so and so
and some other choice i can give

I also downloaded reporting service from microsoft but they are telling
to go to .net (say visual basic .net) to design reports and learn asp too to display

I already know about oracle reports and that should have being easy for me

Does crystal reports have automatic web display

salim

Best license program

I have a small company and i make online ERP software in ASP.NET for small
companies. Companies with one server en a maximum of 10 concurrent users.
What SQL server license should i advice for these companies? And how much
does it costs?
I've tried to understand the documents on the microsoft site but i did not
find an satisfying answer.
Thanks in advance.
RonaldIf your database won't be bigger than 2 GB, you can use MSDE which is free.
Otherwise the best is to use Standard Edition with per seat licensing if
your client don't have more than 25 users (not concurrent users, you need a
license for everyone who uses the server), or Standard Edition with a
processor license if there are more than 25 users.
--
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Sandeman" <ilighters@.zeelandnet.nl> wrote in message
news:OAiA2bYlEHA.3452@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I have a small company and i make online ERP software in ASP.NET for small
> companies. Companies with one server en a maximum of 10 concurrent users.
> What SQL server license should i advice for these companies? And how much
> does it costs?
> I've tried to understand the documents on the microsoft site but i did not
> find an satisfying answer.
> Thanks in advance.
> Ronald
>

Best license program

I have a small company and i make online ERP software in ASP.NET for small
companies. Companies with one server en a maximum of 10 concurrent users.
What SQL server license should i advice for these companies? And how much
does it costs?
I've tried to understand the documents on the microsoft site but i did not
find an satisfying answer.
Thanks in advance.
Ronald
If your database won't be bigger than 2 GB, you can use MSDE which is free.
Otherwise the best is to use Standard Edition with per seat licensing if
your client don't have more than 25 users (not concurrent users, you need a
license for everyone who uses the server), or Standard Edition with a
processor license if there are more than 25 users.
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Sandeman" <ilighters@.zeelandnet.nl> wrote in message
news:OAiA2bYlEHA.3452@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I have a small company and i make online ERP software in ASP.NET for small
> companies. Companies with one server en a maximum of 10 concurrent users.
> What SQL server license should i advice for these companies? And how much
> does it costs?
> I've tried to understand the documents on the microsoft site but i did not
> find an satisfying answer.
> Thanks in advance.
> Ronald
>

Best image format to use?

I wan to insert our company logo on some of the srs reports, could someone
recommend the best format to use? I want the image to look clean when
printed as well.On May 14, 5:11 pm, Chris Patten
<ChrisPat...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> I wan to insert our company logo on some of the srs reports, could someone
> recommend the best format to use? I want the image to look clean when
> printed as well.
Usually JPEG/JPG and GIF are the best to use due to smaller size (in
comparison to MPEG, etc).
Regards,
Enrique Martinez
Sr. Software Consultant|||I've had problems with gifs, especially on pdf exporting. jpeg seems
to work passably.

Best approach?

I have a problem. My website hosting company can only host sql server datab
ase that are less than 100 mb. Usually that is not a problem for most of my
applications, however I have one client who has a database with over 270000
records which makes the database over 100MB. What can I do? I thought of
purchasing another database from the host so I'll have 200MB then I can prog
ramatically split the tables up based on ID, for instance if recordID < 1500
00 then move this data to sql server 1. If recordID > 150000 then move data
to sql server 2. Then when I want to query the system for a student, I wou
ld first check the recordID for greater than or less than 150000 then query
the proper table. The data in the system is only used for retrieval (read o
nly), there are no updates to the system.
Do you think this approach is incorrect or do you have any other suggestions
? Thanks!I would find another host for this particular client rather than do a dog an
d
pony dance. I actually like to spend time with my family, so your mileage ma
y
vary. :-)
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***************************
Think Outside the Box!
***************************
"Shawn Ferguson" wrote:

> I have a problem. My website hosting company can only host sql server database th
at are less than 100 mb. Usually that is not a problem for most of my applications,
however I have one client who has a database with over 270000 records which makes t
he
database over 100MB. What can I do? I thought of purchasing another database from the hos
t so I'll have 200MB then I can programatically split the tables up based on ID, for instan
ce if recordID < 150000 then move this data to sql server 1. If recordID
> 150000 then move data to sql server 2. Then when I want to query the system for a
student, I would first check the recordID for greater than or less than 150000 then
query the proper table. The data in the system is only used for retrieval (read on
ly
), there are no updates to the system.
> Do you think this approach is incorrect or do you have any other suggestio
ns? Thanks!
>|||Any suggestions for economical SQL Server hosting?

I would find another host for this particular client rather than do a dog an
d
pony dance. I actually like to spend time with my family, so your mileage ma
y
vary. :-)
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***************************
Think Outside the Box!
***************************
"Shawn Ferguson" wrote:
> I have a problem. My website hosting company can only host sql server dat
abase that are less than 100 mb. Usually that is not a problem for most of
my applications, however I have one client who has a database with over 2700
00 records which makes the database over 100MB. What can I do? I thought o
f purchasing another database from the host so I'll have 200MB then I can pr
ogramatically split the tables up based on ID, for instance if recordID < 15
0000 then move this data to sql server 1. If recordID > 150000 then move da
ta to sql server 2. Then when I want to query the system for a student, I w
ould first check the recordID for greater than or less than 150000 then quer
y the proper table. The data in the system is only used for retrieval (read
only), there are no updates to the system.
>
> Do you think this approach is incorrect or do you have any other suggestio
ns? Thanks!
>|||You could have a second db and then use a Partitioned View. That way you do
n't have to put any logic into the app at all.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Shawn Ferguson" <SFergus2@.cscc.edu> wrote in message news:uBn5eDuFGHA.216@.T
K2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
I have a problem. My website hosting company can only host sql server datab
ase that are less than 100 mb. Usually that is not a problem for most of my
applications, however I have one client who has a database with over 270000
records which makes the database over 100MB. What can I do? I thought of
purchasing another database from the host so I'll have 200MB then I can prog
ramatically split the tables up based on ID, for instance if recordID < 1500
00 then move this data to sql server 1. If recordID > 150000 then move data
to sql server 2. Then when I want to query the system for a student, I wou
ld first check the recordID for greater than or less than 150000 then query
the proper table. The data in the system is only used for retrieval (read o
nly), there are no updates to the system.
Do you think this approach is incorrect or do you have any other suggestions
? Thanks!|||I use Webhost4life... really cheap...
www.webhost4life.com ( $10 Month 300 MB)
Wayne Snyder MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server ( PASS) and it''s
community of SQL Professionals.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> You could have a second db and then use a Partitioned View. That way you
don't have to put any logic into the app at all.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Shawn Ferguson" <SFergus2@.cscc.edu> wrote in message news:uBn5eDuFGHA.2
16@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I have a problem. My website hosting company can only host sql server database
that are less than 100 mb. Usually that is not a problem for most of my application
s, however I have one client who has a database with over 270000 records which makes
th
e database over 100MB. What can I do? I thought of purchasing another data
base from the host so I'll have 200MB then I can programatically split the t
ables up based on ID, for instance if recordID < 150000 then move this data
to sql server 1. If record
ID > 150000 then move data to sql server 2. Then when I want to query the s
ystem for a student, I would first check the recordID for greater than or le
ss than 150000 then query the proper table. The data in the system is only
used for retrieval (read on
ly), there are no updates to the system.
> Do you think this approach is incorrect or do you have any other suggest
ions? Thanks!
>
>|||If your constraint is definitely the 100MB limit, your approach is fine. The
method you used is called horizontal partitioning. As Andrew Kelly mentioned
in the other reply, you should use a view to do it. Goto SQL Server Books
Online and search for "partitioning data".
Dennis
"Shawn Ferguson" wrote:

> I have a problem. My website hosting company can only host sql server database th
at are less than 100 mb. Usually that is not a problem for most of my applications,
however I have one client who has a database with over 270000 records which makes t
he
database over 100MB. What can I do? I thought of purchasing another database from the hos
t so I'll have 200MB then I can programatically split the tables up based on ID, for instan
ce if recordID < 150000 then move this data to sql server 1. If recordID
> 150000 then move data to sql server 2. Then when I want to query the system for a
student, I would first check the recordID for greater than or less than 150000 then
query the proper table. The data in the system is only used for retrieval (read on
ly
), there are no updates to the system.
> Do you think this approach is incorrect or do you have any other suggestio
ns? Thanks!
>

Benefits of using SQL over XML

Hi,

I have a question relating to XML and SQL. My company currently runs a website which allows its clients to log in, view their accounts and transaction history online. The website is totally read only with the exception of changing passwords.

The data is taken from our back office system overnight which runs an oracle 8i database (we cannot like our website to the database due to the agreement we have in place with our software supplier). The data is written to a CSV file which is then converted into XML. The XML file is saved to the webserver and is referenced by the website.

The structure of the website has a relationship where the Client has a Manager who can see their clients accounts, a Branch level that can see all of their Managers and the underlying clients and then finally a company level that sees everything.

We are finding that using XML is causing a real issue in performance and I was wondering if migrating the website to SQL server would improve the performance of the queries etc .

Any advice would be gratefully recieved

Lee

It really depends on two things: The application and the version of SQL Server you are using. For certain input/retrieval methods, XML can actually be faster than using direct database calls. SQL Server 2005 has native XML features, which you can read more about here:

http://www.sqlsummit.com/People/MRys.htm

Buck

|||

The thing is that our website is taking considerably longer to return results using XML. Our software provider can provide a website which uses Oracle and an example website using test data seems to query and return the data back in far less time then ours using XML. But this site is a lot more costly option and does not provide all the functionalty we require. The main reason for the performance increase is that we want to be able to use the website internally for our branches and front office staff, so performance is key it will have about 20 - 30 users. We are planning to do this because we are unable to restrict access to parts of our back office system from the front office staff. The problem with the performance of the website currently means that the staff will have to deal with a sluggish system.

Our website designer has said that he would have to rewrite the website to change it from XML to SQL, would XQuery be a simpler solution. We are within reason happy to purchase whatever software is required to make this work.

|||

Again, it all depends on how the application is coded. Simply changing from XML to an RDBMS query doesn't guarentee that one will be faster than the other. In other words, you can code an application to be faster in either case.

If performance is key, then for large data sets a database platform might be the way to go. If you need to share data between multiple systems, then XML might be the way to go. It all depends on your needs, but in either case you'll want to evaluate your code to ensure that it is as optimal as possible for your situation.

Benchmark for different edition of sql server 2000

Our company is pondering whether we should upgrade from
standard version to enterprise version. Some high level
people is very concerned about the price.
Is there any good article/whitepaper for this? Something
like industry standard, micrsoft recommendataion,etc?
Thanks.What are your reasons for upgrading? Unless you use the features =specific to Enterprise, it might not be worth the cost.
You can refer to http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/default.asp
for all sorts of information on SQL Server.
-- Keith
"JZHU" <hzhua16@.hotmail.com> wrote in message =news:005901c39f14$1673b570$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Our company is pondering whether we should upgrade from
> standard version to enterprise version. Some high level
> people is very concerned about the price. > Is there any good article/whitepaper for this? Something
> like industry standard, micrsoft recommendataion,etc?
> > Thanks.|||Thanks. My major concern is about the memory. Our database
is around 150-200 GB right now, and support 2000-3000
users. The standard version only support 2G memory. Is it
too little? Currently, when we run the query, most of the
time, it has physical read instead of logical read.
>--Original Message--
>What are your reasons for upgrading? Unless you use the
features specific to Enterprise, it might not be worth the
cost.
>You can refer to
>http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/default.asp
>for all sorts of information on SQL Server.
>--
>Keith
>
>"JZHU" <hzhua16@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:005901c39f14$1673b570$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Our company is pondering whether we should upgrade from
>> standard version to enterprise version. Some high level
>> people is very concerned about the price.
>> Is there any good article/whitepaper for this? Something
>> like industry standard, micrsoft recommendataion,etc?
>> Thanks.
>.
>|||> Thanks. My major concern is about the memory. Our database
> is around 150-200 GB right now, and support 2000-3000
> users. The standard version only support 2G memory. Is it
> too little?
Could be, but it depends of the sweetspot for your memory usage. How about acquiring Developer
Edition and run your benchmark test against this? It is only some $50.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"JZHU" <hzhua16@.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:047a01c39f1e$596c2240$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> Thanks. My major concern is about the memory. Our database
> is around 150-200 GB right now, and support 2000-3000
> users. The standard version only support 2G memory. Is it
> too little? Currently, when we run the query, most of the
> time, it has physical read instead of logical read.
> >--Original Message--
> >What are your reasons for upgrading? Unless you use the
> features specific to Enterprise, it might not be worth the
> cost.
> >
> >You can refer to
> >http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/default.asp
> >for all sorts of information on SQL Server.
> >
> >--
> >Keith
> >
> >
> >"JZHU" <hzhua16@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:005901c39f14$1673b570$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> Our company is pondering whether we should upgrade from
> >> standard version to enterprise version. Some high level
> >> people is very concerned about the price.
> >> Is there any good article/whitepaper for this? Something
> >> like industry standard, micrsoft recommendataion,etc?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >.
> >

Beginner to SQL server 2005 Express Edition

Hi,

I am fairly new to Visual Studio 2005 (using C#) and am writing an application for the company I work in. I have got a really nice functioning form working and am now planning what to do about the massive database I need to create (I don't think it will ever get to the 4GB limitation of SQL Server 2005 Express Edition).

Can someone please help with some simple questions please?

1: I am decoding a specific file format and extracting the information for the main database. Fortunately, each record in the data file I am decoding has unique identity codes (so this will be great for the ID of each entry). Because the software has to do this by itself (the encoded file contains more than 1,120,000 records which will shrink to about 30,000 records, all different sizes once decoded). Can each record in a SQL server database contain a different number of elements? If so, what is this known as (I have read a little about jagged arrays - is there a similar thing in SQL server databases)?

2: As the program will decode the file and assemble the database, can I make my program create the database from scratch and manipulate the database rather than me having to define a database for my program to fill? If so, where can I find some info on doing this?

3: The database file will be stored on our office network and has to be accessible to more than one person at a time (in this case, a maximum of 6 users - well within the 25 users my book says is possible with SSE2005). Is it more complex to develop multi-user access to the database?

Just in case you wonder what books I have got, they are "Introducing Microsoft SQL Server 2005 for Developers" and "Getting Started with SQL Server 2005 Express Edition".

Thank you!

1. Yes and No. You can store the information for the missing columns as NULL, but your code will have to handle that, and the columns will need to be nullable. If the file is in a standard format (eg a spreadsheet, or a csv file), you can use DTS (or SSIS in 2005) to load the file. That would be easier than writing a custom application to load the file.

2. You can build a dynamic sql statement based on the columns and column types of the tables you want to build. However, it would be easier and safer to define the database beforehand. Building tables is easy enough, just make sure you define the relationships in the correct order, and then load the data in that order aswell. You may want to leave defining relationships until after the data is loaded, just make sure the data is concurrent.

3. I am not sure, I don't know too much about this. The database schema itself would not have to be changed, you would just have to create SQL server user accounts for each user, or use windows integrated security which is much easier to set up. Then ensure they can connect to the server which the SQL server instance is based upon.

As this is a new product, you may learn more useful and up-to-date information from the books online. Microsoft are still offering a free e-learning course on 2005:

https://www.microsoftelearning.com/sqlserver2005/default.aspx

I have used parts of it and found it useful. Books tend to be overly wordy, whereas the e-learning courses get to the point quicker.

|||

Thank you,

Your reply will help me decide where to go next.

The file I am importing is not a straight-forward data file. It is a custom file format used by the British railway industry and some code is necessary to read in the data, join some elements to form a list, then the list will be placed into the database.

The database will have some fixed elements to start with, but will then be followed by my decoded list. The decoded list will contain a different number of entries. Some lists may contain around 10 entries. Some may contain as many as 200 entries.

Sean.

Beginner seeks help

My company needs a database. My first thought was to do it in Access, because it's available! But I wanted to check that that was smart, what its limitations are, when it's better to move to bigger / more expensive software, etc.

It's probably going to have several hundred thousand records in and will grow by more than a hundred thousand every year. Is there a size limit?

Not that many fields, though - it's not that complicated a database.

Many thanks in advance for any help :beer:MS Access 2000 has a 2 gig limit.|||Does it still have the 1 gig limit on table size? Even that would suffice for this user's requirements, most likely.|||For this situation, Access should be doable, but here are a few things to consider:

1. How many users are you going to need to support?
2. How many concurrent users do you expect at any given time?

Hope this helps in your decision-making...

-Tim

P.S. - got any more beer? :D|||If you are looking for a low price database engine , MSDE may meet your needs . MSDE if a free sql server database desktop engine , you can download it from microsoft.com .Just like sql server enterprise edition , msde also provide an easy way to back up your important data , it supports full and diffenentail backup , for access db , you have to copy the whole file for each time you back it up .

--David
databk.com