I'm at a new installation where there's no DBA at all, so, as a Coldfusion programmer, I'm now the DBA, LOL.
The main SQL2000 DB we use is approximately 100MB with about 7MB of free space and is allocated to expand by 10%.
I am adding a new, large table, about 60 columns with lots of variable-length unicode fields, mostly nvarchar. It's being used to track non-USA user-form information. Even though the DB is set to expand, I'm concerned that due to the potential size/volume of records, that the auto-expand could cause performance issues.
The SQL2000 server has plenty of room, about 49GB, so I'm wondering if I should expand the size of the current DB, or if the auto-expand feature will be ok.
At this point I'm not sure what the volume of the user-form records will be in the new table. It won't be a million records certainly, but I'm guessing it could climb to maybe 10-20,000 records.
If I should expand the DB, can I do this while the DB is still online?
Hi - In order to restore a DB on another system I need to know the exact expansion history of the source DB in order to create/expand the devices on the target system the same way... Is there a way for me to see the history of expansions I did on a DB ?? Tanx, Paul
I have tempdb data device size default 2 MB, which has completely filled up. I am trying to expand data device to it. I created new device tempdb_data_ext (250 MB) and tried to expand tempdb data device. But everytime I do it, it ends up adding space to tempdb log device. How can I expand tempdb data device?
I need to expand the size of one column which has been defined as varchar(32) to varchar(50).Is this possible?Already there are many old records in the table,in what way it will effect the old records?Any help is appreciated. Thanks!!
In SQL 6.5 and SQL 7.0 when Enterprise Manager started it would show the server groups in expanded view.
SQL 2000 shows just the Microsoft SQL Servers level not expanded and none of the groups under it.
With the SQL 2000 client, is there a setting that will expand my tree automatically when starting Enterprise Manager. I have a bunch of server groups defined and do not want to have to expand each one every time I start EM so that I can view my servers.
my where clause.. is similar to.'where Contains(Word, ''formsof(thesaurus,"'+@curWord+'") OR "'+@curWord+'*"'')'When i pass in Multi-Lan, i get results for Multi-LAN and MultiLAN.. however.. when i pass in Multilan.. i dont get results for Multilan nor Multi-lan.I have double checked my formats, and i have checked to see if this word was used in a previous expansion set.. everything checked out. I also have many other expansions that function without issue. BT and Bluetooth are interchangeable.
I've created some Matrix reports which work just fine, I'm able to drill down and the expansion images(+/-) appear correctly.
However, after setting Role security on the folder containing the reports(this is an asp.net application), the reports still function but the images for the (+/-) are missing, just getting the missing image icon.
Hi,I recently contacted my hosting company's customer support about my databases not working - saying that I use sql express (which they support).The guy recommended: "I would suggest you to upgrade the db's to use mssql 2005." "This is because, sql express is built for development environment. When you are in development environment, you are accessing everything with administrator permission. However, in live hosting environment (when there are differnet kind of permission restrictions), sql express often failed on attaching database." Does anyone have any opinion on that? Would it be best to change db's to use mssql 2005? How complicated/time consuming will it be to upgrade?Thanks!Jon
We currently have a fairly new SQL server 2000 db (currently about 18mb is size) as a backend to an application (Navision). Performance seems to be below what it should be.
The db is increasing quite rapidly in size, with a lot of data scheduled to be loaded onto the db and also more and more shops and users coming onto the system with alot more transactions going onto the db.
The initial setup of the db has the database File properties set to "Automatically grow file" by "30%" and has an unrestricted file growth.
The server that the db sits on is high spec and very large disk space.
Because the database will be expanding alot and thus reaching its maximum space allocation and then performing a 30% increase in size (which I guess affects performance quite a bit??) quite regularly.
Is it best to set the intitial size of the db to a alot bigger size in the first place as we have large disk space availiable and also set the % increase bigger also.
any advice on best performance would be much appreicated.
I am thinking of doing a fake PC company site for my ASP project. so what they will have is a chat, products with reviews, and users can have "Buddies".So my DB so far (Tables):ProductPC - ID, Processor, RAM, HDD, Graphics, LCD ...ProductHardware - ID, Title (Like "Intel C2D E6600"), Description, Price, Rating (0-5 stars, so integer), Category (CPU, HDD, Graphics)ProductSoftware - ID, Title (eg. "Adobe CS3"), Description, Price, Rating, Category (eg. Design, Programming)Reviews - ID, ProductID, Title, Content, DateChat - ID, TopicID, Title, Content, DateUsers - ID, Username, Password,The problem, how do i connect Reviews to the products since they are from diff tables.How do i get the "buddy" system workingChat i think its not as simple as thatBut i just need a simple ASP project, so no need to get too complex, but i still hope to learn as much.
Hi,Apologies if this has already been asked, but I couldnt find a thread that asked exactly what I wanted.Im making an administration panel for a site where you can change various settings, options, and categories that data can fall into. When editing, adding or deleting a record i COULD make a trip to the database every time, but this feels very inefficient as I understand that establishing the connection is usually the biggest performance hit when querying a database.An alternative plan is for me to simply record the changes made in the panel and have a "save" button. When this is clicked, ONE database connection would be opened and all the data would be saved/updated/deleted as necessary. However, this would involve several "for" loops while the connection is open.The question is; which method would you recommend and why? And does having several "for" loops while the connection is open nullify the advantage gained by only opening one connection?Any advice would be very much appreciated. Thank you
Hello,I am working on a web site which will use SQL 2005.I am planing my first SQL database and I am looking for advice.1. There will be two types of users: students and professors.2. Both users types will have login information. (Username, Password, AccessLevel) 3. The remaining information on students and professores is different. Student (Name, Email, Phone, ...) / Professor (Name, Email, Phone, Subjects, ...)4. Professors can publish documents. Each document has some info (Type, Title, Description, ...)My plan in this moment is to:A. Create the tables Students, Professors, Login and Documents.B. Students table would be connected to Login table. Professors table would be connected to Login table and Documents table.C. The field [Type] in documents table should include the type or should I create a table DocumentsTypes where I add codes for each type. I have seen this. What is the advantage?Can someone give me some advice?Thank you Very Much,Miguel
I am creating a database where: - I have a Blogs and Folders system. - Use a common design so I can implement new systems in the future.
Users, Comments, Ratings, View, Tags and Categories are tables common to all systems, i.e., used by Posts and Files in Blogs and Folders.
- One Tag or Category can be associated to many Posts or Files. - One Comment, View or Rating should be only associated to one Post or one File. I am missing this ... (1)
Relations between a File / Folder and Comments / Ratings / View / Tags / Categories are done using FilesRatings, FoldersViews, etc.
I am using UniqueIdentifier as Primary Keys. I checked ASP.NET Membership tables, a few articles and few features in my project, such as renaming files with the GUID of their records. I didn't decided yet for INT or UNIQUEIDENTIFIER.
I am looking for some feedback on the design of my database. One thing I need to improve is mentioned in (1)
Thank You, Miguel
My Database Script:
-- Users ... create table dbo.Users ( UserID uniqueidentifier not null constraint PK_User primary key clustered, [Name] nvarchar(200) not null, Email nvarchar(200) null, UpdatedDate datetime not null )
hi folks,i'm puzzled over this one, anyone with some solid db experience might beable to enlighten me here.i'm modelling a file system in a database as follows, and i can't figure outto cleanly implement an inheritance mechanism.i have a hierarchy of folders in an sql table. every folder has aparentFolderID, if this value is 0 then it means it's a root folder.then, in a 'files' table, every file has a parentFolderID to give it alocation in the structure. fairly basic.the hard part is that each file record has an attribute 'STYLE' that can beexplicitly specified, or inherited from it's parent folder, or it's parentsparent folder, or.. all the way back to the root.the 2 ways i've come up with representing it are:1) if the style is being inherited, enter a null value in the STYLE field.then to figure out what style applies to a file or folder, i trace backthrough it's parentFolderID records until i find a style attribute that isnot null.the good thing about this is that if i change the style that is applied tothe entire filesystem, it only takes one update.the bad thing is when i want to figure out what style applies to a file, ihave to traverse back through possibly several records to locate the folderthat actually specifies the style being inherited by the file.2) explicitly state all style values in each record.this is good for accessing the style of a file or folder because you get itstraight out first time from the db.the bad thing is if i update the entire file system, i might have severalhundred / thousand update sql statements to execute to update all the valuesin every folder and every file. nasty!thanks for any help, i'm really stumped with this and i'm thinking theremust be a more elegant way to implement inheritance.thankstim
I.m trying to find the best practice for my solution.
This is the situation.
My application has two databases and 2 client interface. One with a windows forms having a database (sql server 2000) running in an office (on a static IP but on a slow connection). the second one is an web application running on the net with an online database. Both these databases have to have same information. Users can add records to both databases independently but these databases should be synchronize at a point. I hope the situation is cleare. Is there a standard way of doing this. If some one knows good article of how this can be done pls forward it to me.
I am creating a database where: - I have a Blogs and Folders system. - Use a common design so I can implement new systems in the future.
Users, Comments, Ratings, View, Tags and Categories are tables common to all systems, i.e., used by Posts and Files in Blogs and Folders.
- One Tag or Category can be associated to many Posts or Files. - One Comment, View or Rating should be only associated to one Post or one File. I am missing this ... (1)
Relations between a File / Folder and Comments / Ratings / View / Tags / Categories are done using FilesRatings, FoldersViews, etc.
I am using UniqueIdentifier as Primary Keys. I checked ASP.NET Membership tables, a few articles and few features in my project, such as renaming files with the GUID of their records. I didn't decided yet for INT or UNIQUEIDENTIFIER
I am looking for some feedback on the design of my database. One thing I think need to improve is mentioned in (1)
But any advices to improve it would be great.
Thank You, Miguel
My Database Script:
-- Users ... create table dbo.Users ( UserID uniqueidentifier not null constraint PK_User primary key clustered, [Name] nvarchar(200) not null, Email nvarchar(200) null, UpdatedDate datetime not null )
hi, iam thinking of changing my ajax slideshow so that it gets the data from the databse. currently i am finding it hard to add text functianlity the way i want with the slide show. what my query is, that if i to using a datalist can i add javasscript functionality to the data being retrived. for example, currently i have written some javascript so that a series of text is diplayed one after the other in a sequence from just one button click. so if im pulling data out of a databse can i still add this javascript functionality to it? i hope this makes sense, if it doesnt then i am willing to elaborate. please can any one offer any advice or examples or any suggestions on how i can do this. any help is much appricated as i am struggling to find a solution as i orinally wanted to be able to add this javascript functionality with the play button of the slide show but i couldnt find a solution.also i think its better to use some kind of database as i can use the editing funtions visual web developer offers thank you
Hi All Professionals Programmers, I would like to ask a question that is very important for me. The question is how can i create a flexible data base in which i m able to create the inner levels as much as i can. Like i have a table building, then i have another child table floor, then the floor become parent and i have its child rooms, then the rooms become parent and i have its child floor tiles etc. you can see i am going to inner dept, so i need a flexible database because its very costly and intimadting to change the database and every time create a new table and relationships. Hope you have understood what i am going to say and need advice of professional and expert user to resolve it. Any concise quality material like articles, white paper etc will also be suitable for me. Thanks in Advance
Have an interesting issue in a database I'm trying to design and I'm trying to find a better way to setup the structure, if there is one. Going to generic example of my issue.
StudentList --- This table is the list of all College Students(with Primary Key of StudentID) MajorsList --- This is a table listing all of the majors available at the College (PK of MajorID) CourseList --- This is the list of all of the courses at the school (PK of ClassID)
This college allows students to take 1 or more majors, with the number of majors unknown. -- Any number of students can take the same majors or different majors. -- -- (aka 1 StudentID -> 1+ Majors & 1 Major -> 1+ StudentID's) The majors all have different numbers of courses in them. -- Many of the majors can have the same, or different courses in their lists. -- -- (aka 1 Major -> 1+ Courses & 1 Course -> 1+ Majors)
I'm looking to see if their is a better way of tieing together the Students -> Majors and Majors -> Courses. If done properlly, a single select and a few joins should bring up every class a student is taking for all their majors, or any other relationship to any of the three main tables primary keys.
Currently, to tie the three tables together, I have made two Interrum tables: -- StudentMajors - - With only two columns -- -- StudentID (ForeignKey tied to PrimaryKey StudentID in StudentList) -- -- MajorID (FK tied to PrimaryKey MajorID in MajorList) and -- MajorCourses - - with only two columns
-- -- MajorID (FK tied to PrimaryKey MajorID in MajorList) -- -- CourseID (FK tied to PrimaryKey CourseID in CourseList)
These tables give clear and definate ties between the tables, but my worry is that there is no primary key for these two tables, and no column in the tables is elledgeable for becoming PK, because, in this example the StudentMajors table can lis tthe studentID multiple times, each with a different MajorID. Sames goes with MajorCourses.
Is there a better structure method for reaching this same goal?
Additional, I don't know how to do a contraint that should be in place of: -- In StudentMajors, for each value of studentID, there can be no duplicate values on MajorID -- -- (same in MajorCourses tables in relations to classid's) Any advice on how to do this constraint?
Hello, I have an asp.net application which connects to SQL Server 2005 database. One out of 15 times (approx) the applicaiton does not make connection to the database and an exception is thrown. I am not sure how to debug this. Should I write some code which can make connections in a loop to test how much stress the sever can handle? Kindly suggest some ideas. Thanks.
Dear GroupI'd be grateful if you can give me some advice on the following.An application I wrote uses an MSDE backend and I wonder whetherthere's a way (even for the system administrator) of not seeing ortracing stored procedure code, view and table designs?And I also wonder whether you can advise me on an installer thathandles MSDE and database setup during installation without too mucheffort but is still affordable < USD 1000.Any articles, resources, advice hints for these two topics are veryappreciated.Thank you very much for your help & efforts!Martin
I would like to create a database for keeping track of payroll data for employees where the supervisors (job coaches) on our workshop floor can use a Pocket PC device to record the hourly employee data on the fly. Then at the end of the day, the supervisor can place the device in a cradle of some sort and synch the newly entered data into the main database.
I'm guessing that SQL Server Compact edition would be perfect for this type of task? Is that correct? Can someone give me recommendations on how to go about setting this up? What should I use as the main database? SQL Server? Access? Any advice is appreciated!
Hi, i was after some advice on moving a SQL Server 2000 database from one server to another.
Usually i would do this by backing up the database on the original server the copying it accross the LAN to the new server and restoring it there. This database is 10Gb in size and copying it accross the LAN will take some time and i would like to minimise downtime if possible. The database is at a customer site where i am not responsible for the network or Hardware.
Hello Which is better and faster?? and WHY????Writing Select Statement with joins in Stored procedure, or creating view and calling it from stored procedure (select * from view)..
I am not entirely ignorant to web technologies, and best practices but i am having a bit of a planning dylema.
My company has a well established SQL 2000 database with windows application which has been created by myself, what i am planning on doing is creating a web site, using asp.net and publishing some of the information, so that our clients may use it, and stop pestering us on the phone. what i would like to know is what would be the best way forward, obviously i don't want to show them all our information, and don't want to put 5Gb worth of data onto a ISP website. What would you suggest i do?
DECLARE @returnDay int SELECT @returnDay = DatePart(day,GetDate()) If @returnDay = 8 BEGIN select * from Hospitals left join Units ON Units.HospitalID = Hospitals.HospitalID where Units.HospitalID is null RETURN END
this is just a part of the procedure I am trying to create, I am getting hospitals that haven't submitted any data and wish to send them an email.
on the other hand I have two tables that have all the data for emailing to hospitals but are not linked to tables giving the list of hospitals
I have been advised to create a cursor(easier said then done) that will go through my list of records that need to receive an email
nothing going very well with that at the moment.
so I was hoping to see if somebody has any other suggestions for me.....
Let me try to explain it...I am getting DEGREEID from one of the SELECT query . I want to OUTPUT (ie , COUNT) from procedure,the number of departments with the degreeid, got from the above query.
With below procedure, Since an employee can have multiple DEGREEID , the cursor is giving OUPTUT ie, COUNT for the LAST Degreeid. Eventhough the previous DEGREEID dont have any DEPARTMENT...but only for the LAST DEGREEID...!
How can I solve this..... whether I can solve this with CURSOR or I have to use someother way...Please advice me !
My first request for help here even if I read this site quite often and got tons of usueful information. Thanx all
I have an application (VB 6) calling store procedure on a SQLServer 2000 DB. One of the table gives me headache. I wrote a simple store procedure to insert a record into that table. If I call the store procedure from query manager it works perfect but if I call it from VB it looks like to work (return from the execute fine) but then I query the table for that record and it'll just take time and then return time out. I have to stop the VB application and then query it again then it'll return no record.
I suspect the table being locked somehow but I check inside the VB app code and that's the only place the table is called. Further more I have hundred of store procedures being used that way and they're all ok. I indexed the table , no use either...
I am just short of ideas how to debug this...I'll need your advice :)
Okay, given my newness to SQL, and the complexity of this query, I thought I'drun this by you for your opinion:SELECT DISTINCT a.WeekEnding, c.lastdate, c.numlate, b.totaldateFROM Accomplishment a LEFT OUTER JOIN(SELECT weekending, COUNT(weekending) AStotaldateFROM AccomplishmentWHERE (EmployeeID = 50)GROUP BY weekending) b ON a.WeekEnding =b.weekending LEFT OUTER JOIN(SELECT weekending, MAX(entrydate) ASlastdate, COUNT(weekending) AS numlateFROM accomplishmentWHERE employeeid = 50 AND entrydate >weekendingGROUP BY weekending) c ON a.WeekEnding =c.weekendingORDER BY a.WeekEndingWhat I'm trying to do is for each pay period find which ones the employeesubmitted a timesheet and which they were late (and if they were late, howmany of them). However, the query takes a good 5 seconds, and it seemsremoving the "entrydate > weekending" clause speeds things up to almostinstant, however it does ruin the count that I really want. No idea whythat makes such a difference..
I have an Accounting system(vb.net 2003, SQL server 2000), every new year data is cleared, but i may use some data from previous years (such as liabilities)??
whats the best way to that ???
-Shall I create programmatically a new clone DB every year (new DB with same structure as previous year) OR -Shall I add a "year field" for tables in DB????
knowing that data will keep growing every year??????
whats the best solution, knowing that i dont want the end user of my application to do anything manually, such as creating DB ......
I have a couple of files that I have that are comma seperated, and am looking for the best way to take those files, but them in a temp location to run some sql up against, and than update or insert a production sql database based on a SP i have written that takes a number of variable. I have played around with using the recordset destination and defining all the variables and than using a for each loop but seem to be stuck. Somewhat new to the whole programming field, and to be honest, seems a little intimidating with the little I know of the programming side. Just looking for some thoughts.
