SQL2K
SP4
I can find lots of info regarding the justification to use WINNT instead of
SQL authentication. Are there any good reasons to use SQL authentication
instead?
TIA, ChrisRWeb applications, Mac or Linux users, or any situation where the users are
not members of the domain.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"ChrisR" <ChrisR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AFC675ED-FE57-41DD-8CF9-F494E112E95A@.microsoft.com...
> SQL2K
> SP4
> I can find lots of info regarding the justification to use WINNT instead
> of
> SQL authentication. Are there any good reasons to use SQL authentication
> instead?
> TIA, ChrisR|||Thanks, I should have been more specific. I know there are times when users
MUST use SQL auth. However, if it could go either way, what would the
benefits be to SQL auth?
"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> Web applications, Mac or Linux users, or any situation where the users are
> not members of the domain.
> --
> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
> Westwood Consulting, Inc
> Most good judgment comes from experience.
> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
> - Anonymous
>
> "ChrisR" <ChrisR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AFC675ED-FE57-41DD-8CF9-F494E112E95A@.microsoft.com...
> > SQL2K
> > SP4
> >
> > I can find lots of info regarding the justification to use WINNT instead
> > of
> > SQL authentication. Are there any good reasons to use SQL authentication
> > instead?
> >
> > TIA, ChrisR
>
>|||If you have a choice, the pros are for Windows authentication, and the cons
are for SQL Authentication.
I, honestly, can't recall situations where SQL Authentication is the best
choice over Windows Authentication -unless SQL Authentication is required
for some specific need.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"ChrisR" <ChrisR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F115C81F-55BA-46B1-A7AE-F156BD815A95@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks, I should have been more specific. I know there are times when
> users
> MUST use SQL auth. However, if it could go either way, what would the
> benefits be to SQL auth?
>
> "Arnie Rowland" wrote:
>> Web applications, Mac or Linux users, or any situation where the users
>> are
>> not members of the domain.
>> --
>> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
>> Westwood Consulting, Inc
>> Most good judgment comes from experience.
>> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
>> - Anonymous
>>
>> "ChrisR" <ChrisR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:AFC675ED-FE57-41DD-8CF9-F494E112E95A@.microsoft.com...
>> > SQL2K
>> > SP4
>> >
>> > I can find lots of info regarding the justification to use WINNT
>> > instead
>> > of
>> > SQL authentication. Are there any good reasons to use SQL
>> > authentication
>> > instead?
>> >
>> > TIA, ChrisR
>>|||There aren't any benefits aside from needing to use it. You wouldn't
'choose' SQL Auth over Windows auth if you had both as a viable option -
ever. SQL Auth is a subset of Windows Auth - not vice versa.
"ChrisR" <ChrisR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F115C81F-55BA-46B1-A7AE-F156BD815A95@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks, I should have been more specific. I know there are times when
> users
> MUST use SQL auth. However, if it could go either way, what would the
> benefits be to SQL auth?
>
> "Arnie Rowland" wrote:
>> Web applications, Mac or Linux users, or any situation where the users
>> are
>> not members of the domain.
>> --
>> Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
>> Westwood Consulting, Inc
>> Most good judgment comes from experience.
>> Most experience comes from bad judgment.
>> - Anonymous
>>
>> "ChrisR" <ChrisR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:AFC675ED-FE57-41DD-8CF9-F494E112E95A@.microsoft.com...
>> > SQL2K
>> > SP4
>> >
>> > I can find lots of info regarding the justification to use WINNT
>> > instead
>> > of
>> > SQL authentication. Are there any good reasons to use SQL
>> > authentication
>> > instead?
>> >
>> > TIA, ChrisR
>>
Showing posts with label sql2k. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sql2k. Show all posts
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Behavior of OPTION
we have migrated code from SQL7 to SQL2K and in some stored procs OPTION
clause used as : OPTION (KEEPFIXED PLAN, FORCE ORDER)
now there is a complaint that these procs are running quite slow. while
trying to figure out the problem for the sluggishness
of the procedure, i noticed that commenting this line produced different
plan while uncommenting this line produced quite a
different one. Also, the usage of indexes varied drastically between these
plans (commented v/s uncommented OPTION clause)
can anybody throw some light on why using or NOT using OPTION would change
the execution plan?
thx in advanceHi
I prefer to remove hints when upgrading significant versions as things like
changes to the Query Optimizer may mean you are not using specific features
and as you have found they may be slower.
It is also a good idea to benchmark the system before and after the upgrade
to make sure that it is performing better!
It also usually a good time to review the code for general "good practices"
such as declaring temporary tables a the start of a procedure, reducing the
use of unnecessary temporary tables, owner prefixes for tables and stored
procedures, correct error and transaction handling etc...
Make sure that indexes and statistics are in place and rebuilt.
You can then look at the code and the query plans for the slower procedures.
John
"para
a" wrote:
> we have migrated code from SQL7 to SQL2K and in some stored procs OPTION
> clause used as : OPTION (KEEPFIXED PLAN, FORCE ORDER)
> now there is a complaint that these procs are running quite slow. while
> trying to figure out the problem for the sluggishness
> of the procedure, i noticed that commenting this line produced different
> plan while uncommenting this line produced quite a
> different one. Also, the usage of indexes varied drastically between these
> plans (commented v/s uncommented OPTION clause)
> can anybody throw some light on why using or NOT using OPTION would change
> the execution plan?
> thx in advance
>|||parasda
Firstly , BOL has a pretty good explanation about all options that you can
use
Actually ,FORCE ORDER option specifies that the join order indicated by the
query syntax is preserved during query optimization. In fact , query
optimizer is free to decide in what order (join) ( believe me, it is smart
enough) to execute the query im more efficient way ,so by using this option
you limit the optimizer to create an efficient execution plan
"paraa" <paraa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:12F9AE7A-C7F4-4228-88C1-C1C5E35FA47B@.microsoft.com...
> we have migrated code from SQL7 to SQL2K and in some stored procs OPTION
> clause used as : OPTION (KEEPFIXED PLAN, FORCE ORDER)
> now there is a complaint that these procs are running quite slow. while
> trying to figure out the problem for the sluggishness
> of the procedure, i noticed that commenting this line produced different
> plan while uncommenting this line produced quite a
> different one. Also, the usage of indexes varied drastically between these
> plans (commented v/s uncommented OPTION clause)
> can anybody throw some light on why using or NOT using OPTION would change
> the execution plan?
> thx in advance
>
clause used as : OPTION (KEEPFIXED PLAN, FORCE ORDER)
now there is a complaint that these procs are running quite slow. while
trying to figure out the problem for the sluggishness
of the procedure, i noticed that commenting this line produced different
plan while uncommenting this line produced quite a
different one. Also, the usage of indexes varied drastically between these
plans (commented v/s uncommented OPTION clause)
can anybody throw some light on why using or NOT using OPTION would change
the execution plan?
thx in advanceHi
I prefer to remove hints when upgrading significant versions as things like
changes to the Query Optimizer may mean you are not using specific features
and as you have found they may be slower.
It is also a good idea to benchmark the system before and after the upgrade
to make sure that it is performing better!
It also usually a good time to review the code for general "good practices"
such as declaring temporary tables a the start of a procedure, reducing the
use of unnecessary temporary tables, owner prefixes for tables and stored
procedures, correct error and transaction handling etc...
Make sure that indexes and statistics are in place and rebuilt.
You can then look at the code and the query plans for the slower procedures.
John
"para
a" wrote:> we have migrated code from SQL7 to SQL2K and in some stored procs OPTION
> clause used as : OPTION (KEEPFIXED PLAN, FORCE ORDER)
> now there is a complaint that these procs are running quite slow. while
> trying to figure out the problem for the sluggishness
> of the procedure, i noticed that commenting this line produced different
> plan while uncommenting this line produced quite a
> different one. Also, the usage of indexes varied drastically between these
> plans (commented v/s uncommented OPTION clause)
> can anybody throw some light on why using or NOT using OPTION would change
> the execution plan?
> thx in advance
>|||parasda
Firstly , BOL has a pretty good explanation about all options that you can
use
Actually ,FORCE ORDER option specifies that the join order indicated by the
query syntax is preserved during query optimization. In fact , query
optimizer is free to decide in what order (join) ( believe me, it is smart
enough) to execute the query im more efficient way ,so by using this option
you limit the optimizer to create an efficient execution plan
"para
a" <paraa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messagenews:12F9AE7A-C7F4-4228-88C1-C1C5E35FA47B@.microsoft.com...
> we have migrated code from SQL7 to SQL2K and in some stored procs OPTION
> clause used as : OPTION (KEEPFIXED PLAN, FORCE ORDER)
> now there is a complaint that these procs are running quite slow. while
> trying to figure out the problem for the sluggishness
> of the procedure, i noticed that commenting this line produced different
> plan while uncommenting this line produced quite a
> different one. Also, the usage of indexes varied drastically between these
> plans (commented v/s uncommented OPTION clause)
> can anybody throw some light on why using or NOT using OPTION would change
> the execution plan?
> thx in advance
>
Friday, February 10, 2012
BDE 5.01 not connecting to SQL2K after patching
Hello All,
I am experiencing unusual behaviour with a number of desktops (3 of 20) running the BDE and the SQL connectivity option from the sql cd. For reasons unknown the BDE suddenly stops connecting to the database and cant be fixed without a reimage. Appears t
o be a key or dll that is causing interoperability issues.
No idea what o/s patch is causing trouble at this stage but its a recent phenomena.
has anyone seen this type of behaviour with third part software using BDE/SQL connectivity ?
Brian in AU
+61 431 479 751
What error do you get?
Could the problem be something along these lines?
259569 PRB: Installing Third-Party Product Breaks Windows 2000 MDAC Registry
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=259569
Cindy Gross, MCDBA, MCSE
http://cindygross.tripod.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
I am experiencing unusual behaviour with a number of desktops (3 of 20) running the BDE and the SQL connectivity option from the sql cd. For reasons unknown the BDE suddenly stops connecting to the database and cant be fixed without a reimage. Appears t
o be a key or dll that is causing interoperability issues.
No idea what o/s patch is causing trouble at this stage but its a recent phenomena.
has anyone seen this type of behaviour with third part software using BDE/SQL connectivity ?
Brian in AU
+61 431 479 751
What error do you get?
Could the problem be something along these lines?
259569 PRB: Installing Third-Party Product Breaks Windows 2000 MDAC Registry
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=259569
Cindy Gross, MCDBA, MCSE
http://cindygross.tripod.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)