Best practice for conditional insert else select?

I have several places where I need to get the id (primary key) of a resource, inserting a row if the resource does not exist (i.e. an artificial key to be used as an FK for another table). I should probably change this varchar key lookup to use a hash index, but that is beside the point.

So the table is essentially like:

CREATE TABLE MyLookup(id int identity primary key nonclustered, mykey varchar(256));

CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX mylookup_cidx_mykey ON MyLookup(mykey);

I see two main approaches for how I can do my get-id-with-insert-if-needed.

(Approach 1)

DECLARE @.id INT;

SELECT @.id = id FROM MyLookup WHERE mykey = 'some key value';

IF (@.id is null)

BEGIN

INSERT MyLookup ('some key value');

SET @.id = SCOPE_IDENTITY();

END

(Approach 2)

DECLARE @.id INT;

INSERT MyLookup SELECT 'some key value' WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT id FROM MyLookup WHERE mykey = 'some key value');

IF (@.@.ROWCOUNT = 0)

SELECT @.id = id FROM MyLookup WHERE mykey = 'some key value';

ELSE

SET @.id = SCOPE_IDENTITY();

From some quick tests in profiler, approach 2 seems to be a bit faster and have lower resource utilization. But I'm not sure if it maybe takes some more aggressive locks even in the unnecessary case where the mykey row value of 'some key value' already exists. Approach 2 also looks cleaner to me, but I don't mind a bit of extra code if it gives me better scalability through less lock contention.

Any tip on what is considered the best practice for a conditional insert like this, or a tip on how to get detailed lock info for a query? The lock info for profiler was all greek to me, it just had a hex value with each lock acquired/released, so I have no idea what it was telling me. Is my only solution to just run exhaustive tests and look at the perf numbers from the black box?

I went ahead and did some testing, no big surprises. Although the tests were single client, so it doesn't give me any info about locking.

I found unsurprisingly that the more sparse the table, the narrower the gap between the two options. But as the likelihood of needing an insert went down, the first approach became more effective. In my production environment I would hazard a guess that I need an insert around 5% of the time, so I'll probably go with approach 1 in general. Although I did change my approach 1 to actually incorporate approach 2 with in - first I do a select, and then if the id was null then I do a conditional insert. There is a slight increase in maintenance cost since I have to duplicate the code for the existential check, but I think it is worthwhile in my cases that are fairly high traffic.

Any other points of view on this?

Best practice

Hi
What is the prefered practice to use when I have 2 or more related
tables and I want to delete a row in the master table and I want the
child tables to automatically delete their related rows, Should I use
triggers in the database, enable cascade delete in the dataset or
somthing else ?
I use visual studio 2005 and sql server 2005.
Thanks
RolfIt depends. If you want the child records deleted, then a cascade delete is
appropriate. If you want the application to deal with the child records
first, then a foreign key constraint that will stop deletes will be valid.
Both are best practices, depending on your application requirements.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
<rolf-hje@.online.no> wrote in message
news:1139864939.431879.138190@.z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
> What is the prefered practice to use when I have 2 or more related
> tables and I want to delete a row in the master table and I want the
> child tables to automatically delete their related rows, Should I use
> triggers in the database, enable cascade delete in the dataset or
> somthing else ?
> I use visual studio 2005 and sql server 2005.
> Thanks
> Rolf
>|||Cascade with error handling could be one way as you mention.
Another way wich I prefer is to use transaction when deleting data that
needs to delete related data.
I do recommend that you dont use triggers since that easily can make
things go out of control.|||It depends. Cascading deletes are the simplest to implement, but can
complicate deadlock minimization because the order in which locks are
obtained across tables is not clearly defined. In addition, INSTEAD OF
triggers cannot exist on the referencing table of a cascading referential
action. Using FOR or AFTER triggers to cascade deletes is generally a bad
idea--not because of the performance impact, but because several triggers
can exist for an action on a table and the order in which they are executed
is not deterministic, IMO they should be avoided. I prefer to perform
deletes within a transaction in a stored procedure. It is then clear from
reading the text of the proc which tables will be affected, and it's easier
to control the order in which locks are obtained to minimize the likelyhood
of a deadlock. The use of INSTEAD OF DELETE triggers instead of stored
procedures may warrant investigation because any locks applied depend on the
order in which statements appear within the trigger (none are applied as a
direct result of the trigger firing) in the same way as statements within a
stored procedure, and unlike the stored procedure method, they do not
require preventing direct access to the tables. (On the other hand, many
would say that you should always prevent direct access to the tables and
require all modifications to be performed using stored procedures.)
<rolf-hje@.online.no> wrote in message
news:1139864939.431879.138190@.z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
> What is the prefered practice to use when I have 2 or more related
> tables and I want to delete a row in the master table and I want the
> child tables to automatically delete their related rows, Should I use
> triggers in the database, enable cascade delete in the dataset or
> somthing else ?
> I use visual studio 2005 and sql server 2005.
> Thanks
> Rolf
>|||OK, thanks for all replies
I think I will avvoid triggers and use cascading delete. But what is
more efficent. Cascading deletes in the database or cascading deletes
in the dataset. Is there a performance difference between these two
options ?
Thanks
Rolf

best bulk insert command

I have a 5 million row table that gets truncated and new values get imported
.
The new values are obtained by values that have changed in other tables.
Does anyone know the quickest way this can be acheived.
I have tried this took around 34mins
insert in attritable (attrivalue,attri_id,desc)
exec sp_insert
then
Theres a job that bcps the values out to text file in batches of 5000 ..then
inserts them into the table again in batches of 5000 and this takes around 2
8
mins.
Even though BCP is quicker it seems a waste to do it this way and more prone
to errors....Is BCP definately the quickest way to enter data this way does
anyone know'
Thanks for any help or suggestions
Sammy> insert in attritable (attrivalue,attri_id,desc)
> exec sp_insert
Instead of returning a result set that you insert, consider changing
sp_insert to create the new table with SELECT ... INTO and then create
constraints and indexes.

> Even though BCP is quicker it seems a waste to do it this way and more
> prone
> to errors....Is BCP definately the quickest way to enter data this way
> does
> anyone know'
Bulk Insert methods like command-line BCP, Transact-SQL BULK INSERT, DTS and
bulk copy APIs are the fastest way to get external data into SQL Server.

> Theres a job that bcps the values out to text file in batches of 5000
> ..then
> inserts them into the table again in batches of 5000 and this takes around
> 28
> mins.
This calculates to about 3000 rows per second. Not as fast as I would
expect with a narrow table on modern hardware (10,000+) but a lot depends
the size of your data and the kind of indexes you have on the table. You
may find it faster to drop indexes and recreate afterward. See Optimizing
Data Loads at
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/rdbmspft.mspx.[/url
]
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Sammy" <Sammy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0B51C58B-7E10-4905-98CB-74CAA211622B@.microsoft.com...
>I have a 5 million row table that gets truncated and new values get
>imported.
> The new values are obtained by values that have changed in other tables.
>
> Does anyone know the quickest way this can be acheived.
> I have tried this took around 34mins
> insert in attritable (attrivalue,attri_id,desc)
> exec sp_insert
> then
> Theres a job that bcps the values out to text file in batches of 5000
> ..then
> inserts them into the table again in batches of 5000 and this takes around
> 28
> mins.
> Even though BCP is quicker it seems a waste to do it this way and more
> prone
> to errors....Is BCP definately the quickest way to enter data this way
> does
> anyone know'
> Thanks for any help or suggestions
> Sammy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Benchmark for different edition SQL 2000

We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Our usage:
1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same time
2) 5000 row insert per day
3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 2000 server
4) One database will be installed
5) The size of the database around 10GB
Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz 256MRAM database server.
Please advise. Thanks
Hi,
Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend you to go for SQL
Server standard edition.
Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of sql server:-
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...skChooseEd.asp
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com...
> We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Our usage:
> 1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same time
> 2) 5000 row insert per day
> 3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 2000 server
> 4) One database will be installed
> 5) The size of the database around 10GB
> Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz 256MRAM
database server.
> Please advise. Thanks
|||Hari,
Thanks for your advice. However, I have read the page before and without any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standard edition and enterprise edition is no different except?
--Scalability ( useless to us because we only have 1 CPU machine with 512MRAM)
--Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a standby or cluster machine)
--Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using the 6.5 version now with no complain)
--Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are just using the 6.5 version now with no complain)
I just concern, is it enterprise edition is more stable? or standard edition is easy to down?
Wanchun
-- Hari Prasad wrote: --
Hi,
Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend you to go for SQL
Server standard edition.
Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of sql server:-
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...skChooseEd.asp
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Our usage:
> 1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same time
> 2) 5000 row insert per day
> 3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 2000 server
> 4) One database will be installed
> 5) The size of the database around 10GB
database server.
> Please advise. Thanks
|||No edition is any more or less stable than any others. It is mainly
features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for your needs.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com...
> Hari,
> Thanks for your advice. However, I have read the page before and without
any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standard
edition and enterprise edition is no different except?
> --Scalability ( useless to us because we only have 1 CPU machine with
512MRAM)
> --Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a standby or
cluster machine)
> --Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using the 6.5
version now with no complain)
> --Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are just
using the 6.5 version now with no complain)
> I just concern, is it enterprise edition is more stable? or standard
edition is easy to down?
> Wanchun
>
> -- Hari Prasad wrote: --
> Hi,
> Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend you to go
for SQL
> Server standard edition.
> Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of sql
server:-[vbcol=seagreen]
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...skChooseEd.asp
> Thanks
> Hari
> MCDBA
>
> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com...
usage:[vbcol=seagreen]
server
> database server.
>
>
|||Andrew,
That mean from our requirement, standard edition is enough for us?
Also, the memory arrangement is the same between standard and enterprise? I am testing with standard edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I inserted 3000 records. After I re-boot the machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I nee
d to re-boot the machine every week to prevent the memory to grow? Or enterprise edition can handle it better?
Any other Enterprise features that better than Standard?
Thanks
-- Andrew J. Kelly wrote: --
No edition is any more or less stable than any others. It is mainly
features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for your needs.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hari,
any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standard
edition and enterprise edition is no different except?[vbcol=seagreen]
512MRAM)
> --Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a standby or
cluster machine)
> --Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using the 6.5
version now with no complain)
> --Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are just
using the 6.5 version now with no complain)[vbcol=seagreen]
edition is easy to down?[vbcol=seagreen]
for SQL[vbcol=seagreen]
> Server standard edition.
server:-[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hari
> MCDBA
> news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com...
usage:[vbcol=seagreen]
server[vbcol=seagreen]
> database server.
|||Enterprise edition has some distinct features that SE doesn't. You find them at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ar_ts_1cdv.asp
As for memory, please read below:
INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;q321363
http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/troub...memoryleak.asp
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com...
> Andrew,
> That mean from our requirement, standard edition is enough for us?
> Also, the memory arrangement is the same between standard and enterprise? I am testing with standard
edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I inserted 3000 records. After I re-boot the
machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the machine every week to prevent the memory to
grow? Or enterprise edition can handle it better?[vbcol=seagreen]
> Any other Enterprise features that better than Standard?
> Thanks
>
>
> -- Andrew J. Kelly wrote: --
> No edition is any more or less stable than any others. It is mainly
> features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for your needs.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com...
> any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standard
> edition and enterprise edition is no different except?
> 512MRAM)
> cluster machine)
> version now with no complain)
> using the 6.5 version now with no complain)
> edition is easy to down?
> for SQL
> server:-
> usage:
> server
|||Tibor,
My concern is how to prevent the SQL server that increase the memory usage continuously? Or We need to reboot the machine periodically? Please advise.
Wanchun
-- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
Enterprise edition has some distinct features that SE doesn't. You find them at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ar_ts_1cdv.asp
As for memory, please read below:
INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;q321363
http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/troub...memoryleak.asp
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com...
> Andrew,
> Also, the memory arrangement is the same between standard and enterprise? I am testing with standard
edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I inserted 3000 records. After I re-boot the
machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the machine every week to prevent the memory to
grow? Or enterprise edition can handle it better?[vbcol=seagreen]
> features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for your needs.
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com...
> any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standard
> edition and enterprise edition is no different except?
> 512MRAM)
> cluster machine)
> version now with no complain)
> using the 6.5 version now with no complain)
> edition is easy to down?
> for SQL
> server:-
> usage:
> server
|||Please read the links I posted about memory allocation algorithms in SQL Server. This is normal, and no reboot
is necessary.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DF073FD2-4A17-4122-BCEC-E9FB5E5AF5EF@.microsoft.com...
> Tibor,
> My concern is how to prevent the SQL server that increase the memory usage continuously? Or We need to
reboot the machine periodically? Please advise.
> Wanchun
> -- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
> Enterprise edition has some distinct features that SE doesn't. You find them at:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ar_ts_1cdv.asp
> As for memory, please read below:
> INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;q321363
> http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/troub...memoryleak.asp
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com...
> edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I inserted 3000 records. After I re-boot
the
> machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the machine every week to prevent the
memory to[vbcol=seagreen]
> grow? Or enterprise edition can handle it better?
|||As Tibor points out that is normal behavior and will be the same for both
Std and EE.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DF073FD2-4A17-4122-BCEC-E9FB5E5AF5EF@.microsoft.com...
> Tibor,
> My concern is how to prevent the SQL server that increase the memory
usage continuously? Or We need to reboot the machine periodically? Please
advise.
> Wanchun
> -- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
> Enterprise edition has some distinct features that SE doesn't. You
find them at:
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ar_ts_1cdv.asp[vbcol=seagreen]
> As for memory, please read below:
> INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;q321363
> http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/troub...memoryleak.asp
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com...
enterprise? I am testing with standard
> edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I
inserted 3000 records. After I re-boot the
> machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the
machine every week to prevent the memory to[vbcol=seagreen]
> grow? Or enterprise edition can handle it better?
mainly[vbcol=seagreen]
your needs.[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
without[vbcol=seagreen]
the standard[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
standby or[vbcol=seagreen]
the 6.5[vbcol=seagreen]
just[vbcol=seagreen]
standard[vbcol=seagreen]
you to go[vbcol=seagreen]
sql[vbcol=seagreen]
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...skChooseEd.asp[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
Our[vbcol=seagreen]
2000[vbcol=seagreen]
256MRAM[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Thanks again Tibor, however, if SQL used all the physical memory of the machine, then the SQL can still run smoothly? or better reboot the machine?
Wanchun
-- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
Please read the links I posted about memory allocation algorithms in SQL Server. This is normal, and no reboot
is necessary.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DF073FD2-4A17-4122-BCEC-E9FB5E5AF5EF@.microsoft.com...
> Tibor,
> My concern is how to prevent the SQL server that increase the memory usage continuously? Or We need to
reboot the machine periodically? Please advise.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ar_ts_1cdv.asp
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;q321363
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com...
> edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I inserted 3000 records. After I re-boot
the
> machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the machine every week to prevent the
memory to[vbcol=seagreen]
> grow? Or enterprise edition can handle it better?

Benchmark for different edition SQL 2000

We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Our usage:
1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same time
2) 5000 row insert per day
3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 2000 server
4) One database will be installed
5) The size of the database around 10GB
Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz 256MRAM database
server.
Please advise. ThanksHi,
Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend you to go for SQL
Server standard edition.
Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of sql server:-
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...eskChooseEd.asp
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com...
> We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Our usage:
> 1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same time
> 2) 5000 row insert per day
> 3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 2000 server
> 4) One database will be installed
> 5) The size of the database around 10GB
> Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz 256MRAM
database server.
> Please advise. Thanks|||Hari,
Thanks for your advice. However, I have read the page before and without any
idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standard editi
on and enterprise edition is no different except?
--Scalability ( useless to us because we only have 1 CPU machine with 512MRA
M)
--Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a standby or clus
ter machine)
--Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using the 6.5 ver
sion now with no complain)
--Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are just using
the 6.5 version now with no complain)
I just concern, is it enterprise edition is more stable? or standard edition
is easy to down?
Wanchun
-- Hari Prasad wrote: --
Hi,
Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend you to go for SQL
Server standard edition.
Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of sql server:-
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...eskChooseEd.asp
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com...
> We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Our usage:
> 1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same time
> 2) 5000 row insert per day
> 3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 2000 server
> 4) One database will be installed
> 5) The size of the database around 10GB
database server.[vbcol=seagreen]
> Please advise. Thanks|||No edition is any more or less stable than any others. It is mainly
features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for your needs.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com...
> Hari,
> Thanks for your advice. However, I have read the page before and without
any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standard
edition and enterprise edition is no different except?
> --Scalability ( useless to us because we only have 1 CPU machine with
512MRAM)
> --Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a standby or
cluster machine)
> --Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using the 6.5
version now with no complain)
> --Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are just
using the 6.5 version now with no complain)
> I just concern, is it enterprise edition is more stable? or standard
edition is easy to down?
> Wanchun
>
> -- Hari Prasad wrote: --
> Hi,
> Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend you to go
for SQL
> Server standard edition.
> Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of sql
server:-
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...eskChooseEd.asp
> Thanks
> Hari
> MCDBA
>
> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com...
usage:[vbcol=seagreen]
server[vbcol=seagreen]
> database server.
>
>|||Andrew,
That mean from our requirement, standard edition is enough for us?
Also, the memory arrangement is the same between standard and enterprise? I
am testing with standard edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 11
0M after I inserted 3000 records. After I re-boot the machine, the memory ba
ck to 10M..... Is it I nee
d to re-boot the machine every week to prevent the memory to grow' Or enter
prise edition can handle it better?
Any other Enterprise features that better than Standard?
Thanks
-- Andrew J. Kelly wrote: --
No edition is any more or less stable than any others. It is mainly
features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for your needs.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com...
> Hari,
any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standard
edition and enterprise edition is no different except?[vbcol=seagreen]
512MRAM)[vbcol=seagreen]
> --Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a standby or
cluster machine)
> --Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using the 6.5
version now with no complain)
> --Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are just
using the 6.5 version now with no complain)[vbcol=seagreen]
edition is easy to down?[vbcol=seagreen]
for SQL[vbcol=seagreen]
> Server standard edition.
server:-[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hari
> MCDBA
> news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com...
usage:[vbcol=seagreen]
server[vbcol=seagreen]
> database server.|||Enterprise edition has some distinct features that SE doesn't. You find them
at:
1cdv.asp" target="_blank">http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...br />
1cdv.asp
As for memory, please read below:
INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;en-us;q321363
http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/trou...-memoryleak.asp
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com...
> Andrew,
> That mean from our requirement, standard edition is enough for us?
> Also, the memory arrangement is the same between standard and enterprise? I am tes
ting with standard
edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I inserted 3000
records. After I re-boot the
machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the machine ev
ery week to prevent the memory to
grow' Or enterprise edition can handle it better?[vbcol=seagreen]
> Any other Enterprise features that better than Standard?
> Thanks
>
>
> -- Andrew J. Kelly wrote: --
> No edition is any more or less stable than any others. It is mainly
> features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for your n
eeds.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com...
> any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the stan
dard
> edition and enterprise edition is no different except?
> 512MRAM)
> cluster machine)
> version now with no complain)
> using the 6.5 version now with no complain)
> edition is easy to down?
> for SQL
> server:-
> usage:
> server|||Tibor,
My concern is how to prevent the SQL server that increase the memory usage c
ontinuously? Or We need to reboot the machine periodically? Please advise.
Wanchun
-- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
Enterprise edition has some distinct features that SE doesn't. You find them
at:
1cdv.asp" target="_blank">http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...br />
1cdv.asp
As for memory, please read below:
INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;en-us;q321363
http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/trou...-memoryleak.asp
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com...
> Andrew,
> Also, the memory arrangement is the same between standard and enterprise? I am tes
ting with standard
edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I inserted 3000
records. After I re-boot the
machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the machine ev
ery week to prevent the memory to
grow' Or enterprise edition can handle it better?[vbcol=seagreen]
> features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for your n
eeds.
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com...
> any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the stan
dard
> edition and enterprise edition is no different except?
> 512MRAM)
> cluster machine)
> version now with no complain)
> using the 6.5 version now with no complain)
> edition is easy to down?
> for SQL
> server:-
> usage:
> server|||Please read the links I posted about memory allocation algorithms in SQL Ser
ver. This is normal, and no reboot
is necessary.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DF073FD2-4A17-4122-BCEC-E9FB5E5AF5EF@.microsoft.com...
> Tibor,
> My concern is how to prevent the SQL server that increase the memory usage con
tinuously? Or We need to
reboot the machine periodically? Please advise.
> Wanchun
> -- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
> Enterprise edition has some distinct features that SE doesn't. You fi
nd them at:
> _ar_ts_1cdv.asp" target="_blank">http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d..._ar_ts_1cdv.asp
> As for memory, please read below:
> INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;en-us;q321363
> http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/trou...-memoryleak.asp
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com...
> edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I inserted 3000 r
ecords. After I re-boot
the
> machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the machine eve
ry week to prevent the
memory to[vbcol=seagreen]
> grow' Or enterprise edition can handle it better?|||As Tibor points out that is normal behavior and will be the same for both
Std and EE.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DF073FD2-4A17-4122-BCEC-E9FB5E5AF5EF@.microsoft.com...
> Tibor,
> My concern is how to prevent the SQL server that increase the memory
usage continuously? Or We need to reboot the machine periodically? Please
advise.
> Wanchun
> -- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
> Enterprise edition has some distinct features that SE doesn't. You
find them at:
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d..._ar_ts_1cdv.asp[v
bcol=seagreen]
> As for memory, please read below:
> INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;en-us;q321363
> http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/trou...-memoryleak.asp
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com...
enterprise? I am testing with standard
> edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I
inserted 3000 records. After I re-boot the
> machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the
machine every week to prevent the memory to[vbcol=seagreen]
> grow' Or enterprise edition can handle it better?
mainly[vbcol=seagreen]
your needs.[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
without[vbcol=seagreen]
the standard[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
standby or[vbcol=seagreen]
the 6.5[vbcol=seagreen]
just[vbcol=seagreen]
standard[vbcol=seagreen]
you to go[vbcol=seagreen]
sql[vbcol=seagreen]
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...eskChooseEd.asp[vbcol=seagreen]
message[vbcol=seagreen]
Our[vbcol=seagreen]
2000[vbcol=seagreen]
256MRAM[vbcol=seagreen]|||Thanks again Tibor, however, if SQL used all the physical memory of the mach
ine, then the SQL can still run smoothly? or better reboot the machine?
Wanchun
-- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
Please read the links I posted about memory allocation algorithms in SQL Ser
ver. This is normal, and no reboot
is necessary.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DF073FD2-4A17-4122-BCEC-E9FB5E5AF5EF@.microsoft.com...
> Tibor,
> My concern is how to prevent the SQL server that increase the memory usage con
tinuously? Or We need to
reboot the machine periodically? Please advise.
> _ar_ts_1cdv.asp" target="_blank">http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d..._ar_ts_1cdv.asp
> http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...b;en-us;q321363
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com...
> edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I inserted 3000 r
ecords. After I re-boot
the
> machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the machine eve
ry week to prevent the
memory to[vbcol=seagreen]
> grow' Or enterprise edition can handle it better?

Benchmark for different edition SQL 2000

We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Our usage
1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same tim
2) 5000 row insert per da
3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 2000 serve
4) One database will be installe
5) The size of the database around 10G
Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz 256MRAM database server
Please advise. ThanksHi,
Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend you to go for SQL
Server standard edition.
Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of sql server:-
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.asp
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com...
> We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Our usage:
> 1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same time
> 2) 5000 row insert per day
> 3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 2000 server
> 4) One database will be installed
> 5) The size of the database around 10GB
> Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz 256MRAM
database server.
> Please advise. Thanks|||Hari
Thanks for your advice. However, I have read the page before and without any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standard edition and enterprise edition is no different except
--Scalability ( useless to us because we only have 1 CPU machine with 512MRAM
--Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a standby or cluster machine
--Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using the 6.5 version now with no complain
--Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are just using the 6.5 version now with no complain
I just concern, is it enterprise edition is more stable? or standard edition is easy to down
Wanchu
-- Hari Prasad wrote: --
Hi
Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend you to go for SQ
Server standard edition
Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of sql server:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.as
Thank
Har
MCDB
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messag
news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com..
> We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Our usage
> 1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same tim
> 2) 5000 row insert per da
> 3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 2000 serve
> 4) One database will be installe
> 5) The size of the database around 10G
>> Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz 256MRA
database server
> Please advise. Thank|||No edition is any more or less stable than any others. It is mainly
features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for your needs.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com...
> Hari,
> Thanks for your advice. However, I have read the page before and without
any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standard
edition and enterprise edition is no different except?
> --Scalability ( useless to us because we only have 1 CPU machine with
512MRAM)
> --Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a standby or
cluster machine)
> --Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using the 6.5
version now with no complain)
> --Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are just
using the 6.5 version now with no complain)
> I just concern, is it enterprise edition is more stable? or standard
edition is easy to down?
> Wanchun
>
> -- Hari Prasad wrote: --
> Hi,
> Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend you to go
for SQL
> Server standard edition.
> Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of sql
server:-
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.asp
> Thanks
> Hari
> MCDBA
>
> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com...
> > We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Our
usage:
> > 1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same time
> > 2) 5000 row insert per day
> > 3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 2000
server
> > 4) One database will be installed
> > 5) The size of the database around 10GB
> >> Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz 256MRAM
> database server.
> > Please advise. Thanks
>
>|||Andrew
That mean from our requirement, standard edition is enough for us
Also, the memory arrangement is the same between standard and enterprise? I am testing with standard edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I inserted 3000 records. After I re-boot the machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the machine every week to prevent the memory to grow' Or enterprise edition can handle it better
Any other Enterprise features that better than Standard
Thank
-- Andrew J. Kelly wrote: --
No edition is any more or less stable than any others. It is mainl
features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for your needs
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MV
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messag
news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com..
> Hari
>> Thanks for your advice. However, I have read the page before and withou
any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standar
edition and enterprise edition is no different except
>> --Scalability ( useless to us because we only have 1 CPU machine wit
512MRAM
> --Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a standby o
cluster machine
> --Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using the 6.
version now with no complain
> --Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are jus
using the 6.5 version now with no complain
>> I just concern, is it enterprise edition is more stable? or standar
edition is easy to down
>> Wanchu
>> -- Hari Prasad wrote: --
>> Hi
>> Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend you to g
for SQ
> Server standard edition
>> Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of sq
server:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.as
>> Thank
> Har
> MCDB
>> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messag
> news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com..
>> We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Ou
usage
>> 1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same tim
>> 2) 5000 row insert per da
>> 3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 200
serve
>> 4) One database will be installe
>> 5) The size of the database around 10G
>> Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz 256MRA
> database server
>> Please advise. Thank
>>|||Enterprise edition has some distinct features that SE doesn't. You find them at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_ts_1cdv.asp
As for memory, please read below:
INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q321363
http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/troubleshooting-memoryleak.asp
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com...
> Andrew,
> That mean from our requirement, standard edition is enough for us?
> Also, the memory arrangement is the same between standard and enterprise? I am testing with standard
edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I inserted 3000 records. After I re-boot the
machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the machine every week to prevent the memory to
grow' Or enterprise edition can handle it better?
> Any other Enterprise features that better than Standard?
> Thanks
>
>
> -- Andrew J. Kelly wrote: --
> No edition is any more or less stable than any others. It is mainly
> features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for your needs.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com...
> > Hari,
> >> Thanks for your advice. However, I have read the page before and without
> any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standard
> edition and enterprise edition is no different except?
> >> --Scalability ( useless to us because we only have 1 CPU machine with
> 512MRAM)
> > --Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a standby or
> cluster machine)
> > --Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using the 6.5
> version now with no complain)
> > --Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are just
> using the 6.5 version now with no complain)
> >> I just concern, is it enterprise edition is more stable? or standard
> edition is easy to down?
> >> Wanchun
> >> -- Hari Prasad wrote: --
> >> Hi,
> >> Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend you to go
> for SQL
> > Server standard edition.
> >> Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of sql
> server:-
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.asp
> >> Thanks
> > Hari
> > MCDBA
> >> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com...
> >> We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Our
> usage:
> >> 1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same time
> >> 2) 5000 row insert per day
> >> 3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 2000
> server
> >> 4) One database will be installed
> >> 5) The size of the database around 10GB
> >> Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz 256MRAM
> > database server.
> >> Please advise. Thanks
> >>|||Tibor
My concern is how to prevent the SQL server that increase the memory usage continuously? Or We need to reboot the machine periodically? Please advise
Wanchu
-- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
Enterprise edition has some distinct features that SE doesn't. You find them at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_ts_1cdv.as
As for memory, please read below
INF: SQL Server Memory Usag
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q32136
http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/troubleshooting-memoryleak.as
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MV
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.as
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messag
news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com..
> Andrew
>> That mean from our requirement, standard edition is enough for us
> Also, the memory arrangement is the same between standard and enterprise? I am testing with standar
edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I inserted 3000 records. After I re-boot th
machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the machine every week to prevent the memory t
grow' Or enterprise edition can handle it better
>> Any other Enterprise features that better than Standard
>> Thank
>> -- Andrew J. Kelly wrote: --
>> No edition is any more or less stable than any others. It is mainl
> features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for your needs
>> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MV
>> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messag
> news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com..
>> Hari
>> Thanks for your advice. However, I have read the page before and withou
> any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standar
> edition and enterprise edition is no different except
>> --Scalability ( useless to us because we only have 1 CPU machine wit
> 512MRAM
>> --Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a standby o
> cluster machine
>> --Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using the 6.
> version now with no complain
>> --Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are jus
> using the 6.5 version now with no complain
>> I just concern, is it enterprise edition is more stable? or standar
> edition is easy to down
>> Wanchu
>> -- Hari Prasad wrote: --
>> Hi
>> Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend you to g
> for SQ
>> Server standard edition
>> Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of sq
> server:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.as
>> Thank
>> Har
>> MCDB
>> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messag
>> news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com..
>> We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Ou
> usage
>> 1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same tim
>> 2) 5000 row insert per da
>> 3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 200
> serve
>> 4) One database will be installe
>> 5) The size of the database around 10G
>> Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz 256MRA
>> database server
>> Please advise. Thank
>>|||Please read the links I posted about memory allocation algorithms in SQL Server. This is normal, and no reboot
is necessary.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DF073FD2-4A17-4122-BCEC-E9FB5E5AF5EF@.microsoft.com...
> Tibor,
> My concern is how to prevent the SQL server that increase the memory usage continuously? Or We need to
reboot the machine periodically? Please advise.
> Wanchun
> -- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
> Enterprise edition has some distinct features that SE doesn't. You find them at:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_ts_1cdv.asp
> As for memory, please read below:
> INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q321363
> http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/troubleshooting-memoryleak.asp
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com...
> > Andrew,
> >> That mean from our requirement, standard edition is enough for us?
> > Also, the memory arrangement is the same between standard and enterprise? I am testing with standard
> edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I inserted 3000 records. After I re-boot
the
> machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the machine every week to prevent the
memory to
> grow' Or enterprise edition can handle it better?
> >> Any other Enterprise features that better than Standard?
> >> Thanks
> >> -- Andrew J. Kelly wrote: --
> >> No edition is any more or less stable than any others. It is mainly
> > features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for your needs.
> >> --
> > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com...
> >> Hari,
> >> Thanks for your advice. However, I have read the page before and without
> > any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standard
> > edition and enterprise edition is no different except?
> >> --Scalability ( useless to us because we only have 1 CPU machine with
> > 512MRAM)
> >> --Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a standby or
> > cluster machine)
> >> --Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using the 6.5
> > version now with no complain)
> >> --Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are just
> > using the 6.5 version now with no complain)
> >> I just concern, is it enterprise edition is more stable? or standard
> > edition is easy to down?
> >> Wanchun
> >> -- Hari Prasad wrote: --
> >> Hi,
> >> Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend you to go
> > for SQL
> >> Server standard edition.
> >> Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of sql
> > server:-
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.asp
> >> Thanks
> >> Hari
> >> MCDBA
> >> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com...
> >> We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Our
> > usage:
> >> 1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same time
> >> 2) 5000 row insert per day
> >> 3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 2000
> > server
> >> 4) One database will be installed
> >> 5) The size of the database around 10GB
> >> Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz 256MRAM
> >> database server.
> >> Please advise. Thanks
> >>|||As Tibor points out that is normal behavior and will be the same for both
Std and EE.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DF073FD2-4A17-4122-BCEC-E9FB5E5AF5EF@.microsoft.com...
> Tibor,
> My concern is how to prevent the SQL server that increase the memory
usage continuously? Or We need to reboot the machine periodically? Please
advise.
> Wanchun
> -- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
> Enterprise edition has some distinct features that SE doesn't. You
find them at:
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_ts_1cdv.asp
> As for memory, please read below:
> INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q321363
> http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/troubleshooting-memoryleak.asp
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com...
> > Andrew,
> >> That mean from our requirement, standard edition is enough for us?
> > Also, the memory arrangement is the same between standard and
enterprise? I am testing with standard
> edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I
inserted 3000 records. After I re-boot the
> machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the
machine every week to prevent the memory to
> grow' Or enterprise edition can handle it better?
> >> Any other Enterprise features that better than Standard?
> >> Thanks
> >> -- Andrew J. Kelly wrote: --
> >> No edition is any more or less stable than any others. It is
mainly
> > features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for
your needs.
> >> --
> > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> > news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com...
> >> Hari,
> >> Thanks for your advice. However, I have read the page before and
without
> > any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact,
the standard
> > edition and enterprise edition is no different except?
> >> --Scalability ( useless to us because we only have 1 CPU machine
with
> > 512MRAM)
> >> --Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a
standby or
> > cluster machine)
> >> --Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using
the 6.5
> > version now with no complain)
> >> --Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are
just
> > using the 6.5 version now with no complain)
> >> I just concern, is it enterprise edition is more stable? or
standard
> > edition is easy to down?
> >> Wanchun
> >> -- Hari Prasad wrote: --
> >> Hi,
> >> Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend
you to go
> > for SQL
> >> Server standard edition.
> >> Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of
sql
> > server:-
> >>
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.asp
> >> Thanks
> >> Hari
> >> MCDBA
> >> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> >> news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com...
> >> We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise.
Our
> > usage:
> >> 1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same time
> >> 2) 5000 row insert per day
> >> 3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window
2000
> > server
> >> 4) One database will be installed
> >> 5) The size of the database around 10GB
> >> Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz
256MRAM
> >> database server.
> >> Please advise. Thanks
> >>|||Thanks again Tibor, however, if SQL used all the physical memory of the machine, then the SQL can still run smoothly? or better reboot the machine
Wanchu
-- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
Please read the links I posted about memory allocation algorithms in SQL Server. This is normal, and no reboo
is necessary
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MV
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.as
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messag
news:DF073FD2-4A17-4122-BCEC-E9FB5E5AF5EF@.microsoft.com..
> Tibor
> My concern is how to prevent the SQL server that increase the memory usage continuously? Or We need t
reboot the machine periodically? Please advise
>> Wanchu
>> -- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
>> Enterprise edition has some distinct features that SE doesn't. You find them at
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_ts_1cdv.as
>> As for memory, please read below
>> INF: SQL Server Memory Usag
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q32136
>> http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/troubleshooting-memoryleak.as
>> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MV
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.as
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
>> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messag
> news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com..
>> Andrew
>> That mean from our requirement, standard edition is enough for us
>> Also, the memory arrangement is the same between standard and enterprise? I am testing with standar
> edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I inserted 3000 records. After I re-boo
th
> machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the machine every week to prevent th
memory t
> grow' Or enterprise edition can handle it better
>> Any other Enterprise features that better than Standard
>> Thank
>>> -- Andrew J. Kelly wrote: --
>> No edition is any more or less stable than any others. It is mainl
>> features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for your needs
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MV
>> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messag
>> news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com..
>> Hari
>> Thanks for your advice. However, I have read the page before and withou
>> any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standar
>> edition and enterprise edition is no different except
>> --Scalability ( useless to us because we only have 1 CPU machine wit
>> 512MRAM
>> --Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a standby o
>> cluster machine
>> --Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using the 6.
>> version now with no complain
>> --Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are jus
>> using the 6.5 version now with no complain
>> I just concern, is it enterprise edition is more stable? or standar
>> edition is easy to down
>> Wanchu
>> -- Hari Prasad wrote: --
>> Hi
>> Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend you to g
>> for SQ
>> Server standard edition
>> Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of sq
>> server:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.as
>> Thank
>> Har
>> MCDB
>> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messag
>> news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com..
>> We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Our
>> usage:
>> 1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same time
>> 2) 5000 row insert per day
>> 3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 2000
>> server
>> 4) One database will be installed
>> 5) The size of the database around 10GB
>> Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz 256MRAM
>> database server.
>> Please advise. Thanks
>>|||The purpose if buying memory is for it to be used. SQL Server does just that. Yes, it is normal for a SQL
Server installation to see all memory being used. :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Wanhcun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:70CBBAD5-7E54-4EB8-9A9C-3EBDEBF2A674@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks again Tibor, however, if SQL used all the physical memory of the machine, then the SQL can still run
smoothly? or better reboot the machine?
> Wanchun
> -- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
> Please read the links I posted about memory allocation algorithms in SQL Server. This is normal, and no
reboot
> is necessary.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DF073FD2-4A17-4122-BCEC-E9FB5E5AF5EF@.microsoft.com...
> > Tibor,
> > My concern is how to prevent the SQL server that increase the memory usage continuously? Or We
need to
> reboot the machine periodically? Please advise.
> >> Wanchun
> >> -- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
> >> Enterprise edition has some distinct features that SE doesn't. You find them at:
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_ts_1cdv.asp
> >> As for memory, please read below:
> >> INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q321363
> >> http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/troubleshooting-memoryleak.asp
> >> --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com...
> >> Andrew,
> >> That mean from our requirement, standard edition is enough for us?
> >> Also, the memory arrangement is the same between standard and enterprise? I am testing with standard
> > edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I inserted 3000 records. After I
re-boot
> the
> > machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the machine every week to prevent
the
> memory to
> > grow' Or enterprise edition can handle it better?
> >> Any other Enterprise features that better than Standard?
> >> Thanks
> >>> -- Andrew J. Kelly wrote: --
> >> No edition is any more or less stable than any others. It is mainly
> >> features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for your needs.
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com...
> >> Hari,
> >> Thanks for your advice. However, I have read the page before and without
> >> any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standard
> >> edition and enterprise edition is no different except?
> >> --Scalability ( useless to us because we only have 1 CPU machine with
> >> 512MRAM)
> >> --Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a standby or
> >> cluster machine)
> >> --Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using the 6.5
> >> version now with no complain)
> >> --Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are just
> >> using the 6.5 version now with no complain)
> >> I just concern, is it enterprise edition is more stable? or standard
> >> edition is easy to down?
> >> Wanchun
> >> -- Hari Prasad wrote: --
> >> Hi,
> >> Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend you to go
> >> for SQL
> >> Server standard edition.
> >> Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of sql
> >> server:-
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.asp
> >> Thanks
> >> Hari
> >> MCDBA
> >> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com...
> >> We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Our
> >> usage:
> >> 1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same time
> >> 2) 5000 row insert per day
> >> 3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 2000
> >> server
> >> 4) One database will be installed
> >> 5) The size of the database around 10GB
> >> Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz 256MRAM
> >> database server.
> >> Please advise. Thanks
> >>|||Tibor
This is because my machine only contain 512 MRAM... then we need to set the "maximun memory" of SQL server around 400M and let 100M memory that can be used by the OS? Please advise.Thanks...
Regards
Wanchu
-- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
The purpose if buying memory is for it to be used. SQL Server does just that. Yes, it is normal for a SQ
Server installation to see all memory being used. :-
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MV
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.as
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"Wanhcun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messag
news:70CBBAD5-7E54-4EB8-9A9C-3EBDEBF2A674@.microsoft.com..
> Thanks again Tibor, however, if SQL used all the physical memory of the machine, then the SQL can still ru
smoothly? or better reboot the machine
>> Wanchu
>> -- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
>> Please read the links I posted about memory allocation algorithms in SQL Server. This is normal, and n
reboo
> is necessary
>> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MV
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.as
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
>> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messag
> news:DF073FD2-4A17-4122-BCEC-E9FB5E5AF5EF@.microsoft.com..
>> Tibor
>> My concern is how to prevent the SQL server that increase the memory usage continuously? Or W
need t
> reboot the machine periodically? Please advise
>> Wanchu
>> -- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
>> Enterprise edition has some distinct features that SE doesn't. You find them at
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_ts_1cdv.as
>> As for memory, please read below
>> INF: SQL Server Memory Usag
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q32136
>> http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/troubleshooting-memoryleak.as
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MV
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.as
>> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
>> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messag
>> news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com..
>> Andrew
>> That mean from our requirement, standard edition is enough for us
>> Also, the memory arrangement is the same between standard and enterprise? I am testing with standar
>> edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I inserted 3000 records. After
re-boo
> th
>> machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the machine every week to preven
th
> memory t
>> grow' Or enterprise edition can handle it better
>> Any other Enterprise features that better than Standard
>> Thank
>>> -- Andrew J. Kelly wrote: --
>> No edition is any more or less stable than any others. It is mainl
>> features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for your needs
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MV
>> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messag
>> news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com..
>> Hari
>> Thanks for your advice. However, I have read the page before and withou
>> any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standar
>> edition and enterprise edition is no different except
>> --Scalability ( useless to us because we only have 1 CPU machine wit
>> 512MRAM
>> --Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a standby o
>> cluster machine
>> --Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using the 6.
>> version now with no complain
>> --Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are just
>> using the 6.5 version now with no complain)
>> I just concern, is it enterprise edition is more stable? or standard
>> edition is easy to down?
>> Wanchun
>> -- Hari Prasad wrote: --
>> Hi,
>> Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend you to go
>> for SQL
>> Server standard edition.
>> Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of sql
>> server:-
>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.asp
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>> MCDBA
>>> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com...
>> We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Our
>> usage:
>> 1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same time
>> 2) 5000 row insert per day
>> 3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 2000
>> server
>> 4) One database will be installed
>> 5) The size of the database around 10GB
>> Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz 256MRAM
>> database server.
>> Please advise. Thanks
>>|||The fact that you only have 512 MB doesn't change the memory allocation algorithms. SQL Server will use the
memory in the machine (but of course leave space for OS and a little bit more). But sure, you can set a max if
you absolutely want to...
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3D73FA4A-D85C-40BF-BC30-D2F32E57602B@.microsoft.com...
> Tibor,
> This is because my machine only contain 512 MRAM... then we need to set the "maximun memory" of SQL server
around 400M and let 100M memory that can be used by the OS? Please advise.Thanks....
> Regards,
> Wanchun
> -- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
> The purpose if buying memory is for it to be used. SQL Server does just that. Yes, it is normal for a
SQL
> Server installation to see all memory being used. :-)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Wanhcun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:70CBBAD5-7E54-4EB8-9A9C-3EBDEBF2A674@.microsoft.com...
> > Thanks again Tibor, however, if SQL used all the physical memory of the machine, then the SQL can
still run
> smoothly? or better reboot the machine?
> >> Wanchun
> >> -- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
> >> Please read the links I posted about memory allocation algorithms in SQL Server. This is
normal, and no
> reboot
> > is necessary.
> >> --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:DF073FD2-4A17-4122-BCEC-E9FB5E5AF5EF@.microsoft.com...
> >> Tibor,
> >> My concern is how to prevent the SQL server that increase the memory usage continuously? Or We
> need to
> > reboot the machine periodically? Please advise.
> >> Wanchun
> >> -- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
> >> Enterprise edition has some distinct features that SE doesn't. You find them at:
> >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_ts_1cdv.asp
> >> As for memory, please read below:
> >> INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q321363
> >> http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/troubleshooting-memoryleak.asp
> >> --
> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com...
> >> Andrew,
> >> That mean from our requirement, standard edition is enough for us?
> >> Also, the memory arrangement is the same between standard and enterprise? I am testing with
standard
> >> edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I inserted 3000 records. After I
> re-boot
> > the
> >> machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot the machine every week to prevent
> the
> > memory to
> >> grow' Or enterprise edition can handle it better?
> >> Any other Enterprise features that better than Standard?
> >> Thanks
> >>> -- Andrew J. Kelly wrote: --
> >> No edition is any more or less stable than any others. It is mainly
> >> features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine for your needs.
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com...
> >> Hari,
> >> Thanks for your advice. However, I have read the page before and without
> >> any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact, the standard
> >> edition and enterprise edition is no different except?
> >> --Scalability ( useless to us because we only have 1 CPU machine with
> >> 512MRAM)
> >> --Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a standby or
> >> cluster machine)
> >> --Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using the 6.5
> >> version now with no complain)
> >> --Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are just
> >> using the 6.5 version now with no complain)
> >> I just concern, is it enterprise edition is more stable? or standard
> >> edition is easy to down?
> >> Wanchun
> >> -- Hari Prasad wrote: --
> >> Hi,
> >> Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend you to go
> >> for SQL
> >> Server standard edition.
> >> Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of sql
> >> server:-
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.asp
> >> Thanks
> >> Hari
> >> MCDBA
> >>> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com...
> >> We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise. Our
> >> usage:
> >> 1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same time
> >> 2) 5000 row insert per day
> >> 3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window 2000
> >> server
> >> 4) One database will be installed
> >> 5) The size of the database around 10GB
> >> Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz 256MRAM
> >> database server.
> >> Please advise. Thanks
> >>|||The max memory only sets an upper limit for the memory pool. There is an
area called the mem to leave that gets allocated first. By default it can
use to to 256MB so if you set the max memory to 400 you will most likely
still swap with the OS. While it may be better than not changing anything I
would set it even lower. You stated you only do 5000 inserts a day so you
should not require a lot of memory to operate properly. Try setting it to
300MB and see if that helps. Memory is cheap these days and you might want
to look into adding more later on.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3D73FA4A-D85C-40BF-BC30-D2F32E57602B@.microsoft.com...
> Tibor,
> This is because my machine only contain 512 MRAM... then we need to set
the "maximun memory" of SQL server around 400M and let 100M memory that can
be used by the OS? Please advise.Thanks....
> Regards,
> Wanchun
> -- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
> The purpose if buying memory is for it to be used. SQL Server does
just that. Yes, it is normal for a SQL
> Server installation to see all memory being used. :-)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Wanhcun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:70CBBAD5-7E54-4EB8-9A9C-3EBDEBF2A674@.microsoft.com...
> > Thanks again Tibor, however, if SQL used all the physical memory of
the machine, then the SQL can still run
> smoothly? or better reboot the machine?
> >> Wanchun
> >> -- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
> >> Please read the links I posted about memory allocation
algorithms in SQL Server. This is normal, and no
> reboot
> > is necessary.
> >> --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> > http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> > news:DF073FD2-4A17-4122-BCEC-E9FB5E5AF5EF@.microsoft.com...
> >> Tibor,
> >> My concern is how to prevent the SQL server that increase the
memory usage continuously? Or We
> need to
> > reboot the machine periodically? Please advise.
> >> Wanchun
> >> -- Tibor Karaszi wrote: --
> >> Enterprise edition has some distinct features that SE
doesn't. You find them at:
> >>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_ts_1cdv.asp
> >> As for memory, please read below:
> >> INF: SQL Server Memory Usage
> >>
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q321363
> >>
http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq/troubleshooting-memoryleak.asp
> >> --
> >> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> >> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> >> news:36E3DDB7-B674-4AFA-8A7C-3B7C1A336E3E@.microsoft.com...
> >> Andrew,
> >> That mean from our requirement, standard edition is enough for
us?
> >> Also, the memory arrangement is the same between standard and
enterprise? I am testing with standard
> >> edition, the memory continue to grow from 10M to 110M after I
inserted 3000 records. After I
> re-boot
> > the
> >> machine, the memory back to 10M..... Is it I need to re-boot
the machine every week to prevent
> the
> > memory to
> >> grow' Or enterprise edition can handle it better?
> >> Any other Enterprise features that better than Standard?
> >> Thanks
> >>> -- Andrew J. Kelly wrote: --
> >> No edition is any more or less stable than any others. It
is mainly
> >> features and capacity. Standard edition will do just fine
for your needs.
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> >> news:8E5E6311-B5DF-4D1E-9797-92DD6413C57C@.microsoft.com...
> >> Hari,
> >> Thanks for your advice. However, I have read the page before
and without
> >> any idea. The point of availability is confused me. In fact,
the standard
> >> edition and enterprise edition is no different except?
> >> --Scalability ( useless to us because we only have 1 CPU
machine with
> >> 512MRAM)
> >> --Availability/uptime (useless to us because we don't have a
standby or
> >> cluster machine)
> >> --Performance (Time is not so critical because we are just using
the 6.5
> >> version now with no complain)
> >> --Advanced analysis ( Analysis is not so critical because we are
just
> >> using the 6.5 version now with no complain)
> >> I just concern, is it enterprise edition is more stable? or
standard
> >> edition is easy to down?
> >> Wanchun
> >> -- Hari Prasad wrote: --
> >> Hi,
> >> Based on your configurations and settings I will recommend
you to go
> >> for SQL
> >> Server standard edition.
> >> Have a look into the below link in choosing the edition of
sql
> >> server:-
> >>
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.asp
> >> Thanks
> >> Hari
> >> MCDBA
> >>> "Wanchun" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> >> news:08540023-9C99-4569-9A26-F765151912A2@.microsoft.com...
> >> We want to select the edition between standard and enterprise.
Our
> >> usage:
> >> 1) 10 users/application connect to the server at the same time
> >> 2) 5000 row insert per day
> >> 3) Our machine is only 1CPU 2.6GHz and 512 MB RAM with window
2000
> >> server
> >> 4) One database will be installed
> >> 5) The size of the database around 10GB
> >> Because we want to replace the existing SQL6.5 with 400MHz
256MRAM
> >> database server.
> >> Please advise. Thanks
> >>

being more specific

Hi all,

i want to write a trigger which returns a row to the application whenever a row is inserted into a table.

E.g.

When row R1 is inserted into a table T1.

the trigger should return the R1 to the application.

Wanna be coding monkey...

hi chaman,

its a bad practive for a trigger to be recordset returning.

trigger are best used for sending the result somewhere in the database

or for task such as maintaining the database consistency after an insert.

what are you going to do with it. can you specify what's your scenario so we can provide more help

if this is really what you need. you should write a stored procedure instead

regards,

joey

|||

Chaman:

I agree completely with Joey's position -- returning result sets from a trigger is in general a very bad idea. Also, there are other things that you need to consider should you continue with the result-set-from-a-trigger approach. It seems to me from your post that you have not considered impact whenever a single insert statement inserts multiple records into the table.

Are you motivated to return the row by any chance because you are using an identity column?

Dave

|||

Yes.. I also accept both Joeydj & Mugambo's comment..

If you want to read all about SQL Server Trigger visit this MSDN magazine Data Point article http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/03/12/DataPoints/default.aspx#S4

http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/07/DataPoints/

if you don;t have time to read these article read the summary of these article on

http://weblogs.asp.net/akinney/archive/2003/11/14/37509.aspx

But really we don't know the purpose of Chaman's need...I will give the solution but before doing this read all these article and choose your decesion.( i am not ready to say its not possible at all in sql server )

on your trigger use the following statement

select * From Inserted (note: this statement only work on Trigger)

|||

Hi all,

thanks for your help,

well as i am new in this SQL let me be clear on my requirements..

1. we have a table T1, when a new row R is added in T1,

i have a service who triggers an action (say beep) depending on the entities in R,

i want a trigger who will send the data in R of T1 to that service.

Now, question 1 - is it possible to write sucha trigger?

2. if yes, how? how can a table return a value to a service.

Regards,

chaman.

|||How is this service listening for the prompts?|||

i think you need to create a service that listens or monitor the event in the db.

any way if your into service orinted design

it is not definetely the trigger that you will have to use.

you might as well consider "sql server notification services" and/or the service broker

Beginner Question: How to return list of right-most entries in a cross tab tabl

I currently have a report that contains a crosstab. Each row is a different property and each column is a different time. Several of the entries in the table are blank i.e. not all properties are recorded at all the times.

I would like to be able to turn this report into a list of the most recent values for each property along with the time it was recorded. I would be very grateful if someone could provide an example of a formula that would approximate this. Please let me know if I have not provided enough information.

Many thanks

JonI think you must ckick the time field in crosstab expert then select ascending.

BCP's /F switch

We have a text file in which the first row has four fields and it needs
to get BCP'ed into a table with four columns. All remaining rows are
much longer with 75 fields and get BCP'ed into a table with 75 columns.
I am doing this second BCP execution with the /F2 option to indicate
that the first row should be row 2. Yet when I run it, it skips row 2
(the first of the longer rows) and starts grabbing at row 3. I have a
feeling BCP gets over that first short row and starts grabbing
at the second longer row (really row 3).
Any thoughts about what I could do? Thanks much.BCP is certainly going to have problems with that. We tend to think
of BCP first breaking the data into lines, then the lines into fields.
That isn't what it does, however. BCP goes field by field, and what
we call the line terminator is really just the field terminator of the
last field on the line. When you tell it to skip the first line, it
actually skips the first 75 fields. This takes it well into the
second line, and the 75th field will include everything to the end of
the second line.
I would start by looking for some string in the first line that does
not appear in any of the other lines, or which appears in all the
other lines that does not appear in the first. If something like that
can be found it may be possible to pre-process the data into two files
using the DOS (well not really DOS, the command line that looks like
DOS to us old fogeys) command FIND, and redirection. Something like:
find "some string" input.txt > withstring.txt
find /V "some string" input.txt > withOUTstring.txt
Otherwise, I would write a very simple program to read the file and
write it out to two files as you need. Or perhaps see if DTS parses
lines on a line-then-field basis.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:17:53 -0400, Rick Charnes
<rickxyz--nospam.zyxcharnes@.thehartford.com> wrote:

>We have a text file in which the first row has four fields and it needs
>to get BCP'ed into a table with four columns. All remaining rows are
>much longer with 75 fields and get BCP'ed into a table with 75 columns.
>I am doing this second BCP execution with the /F2 option to indicate
>that the first row should be row 2. Yet when I run it, it skips row 2
>(the first of the longer rows) and starts grabbing at row 3. I have a
>feeling BCP gets over that first short row and starts grabbing
>at the second longer row (really row 3).
>Any thoughts about what I could do? Thanks much.|||Rick Charnes (rickxyz--nospam.zyxcharnes@.thehartford.com) writes:
> We have a text file in which the first row has four fields and it needs
> to get BCP'ed into a table with four columns. All remaining rows are
> much longer with 75 fields and get BCP'ed into a table with 75 columns.
> I am doing this second BCP execution with the /F2 option to indicate
> that the first row should be row 2. Yet when I run it, it skips row 2
> (the first of the longer rows) and starts grabbing at row 3. I have a
> feeling BCP gets over that first short row and starts grabbing
> at the second longer row (really row 3).
BCP ? BCP never gets , but users of BCP often gets
over it!
I think the best description of BCP is that it reads a *binary* file.
The file may look like a text file to you and me, for BCP it's binary.
When BCP reads the file, it looks the format definition of the first
field as specified by the format file or command-line switches. When
it has found the end of that column, it goes for the next etc. The
row terminator is just the terminator for the last field.
When you say -F2, that is not the second line in the file. It's the second
record in the file according to the format specification. Given your
description, I can guess that will be line 3 in the file. That first
skipped record has an embedded newline in field 4, and some embedded
field terminators in field 75.
As for what you want to do, you will have to split the file. BCP
is not smart enough to handle two tables or two different formats.
Or, hm, maybe you can get away with a single file - but requires
quite some luck. Getting that single line into a table should be
simple. Define a format file for those four fields, and then specify
-L 1, to get only the first row.
Skipping that first line may be more problematic. If you can post a
sample, I might be able to come with something. But no promises.
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