1> How is the data stored physically when there is now primary key as well as any index defined in the table......?
2> How is the data stored physically when there is just a primary key defined in one of the column of the table? No INDEX defined.
Thanks,
Rahul Jha
Can anyone explain to me how a column defined with a "bit null" datatype is physically stored in MSSQL? Is it stored like a "tinyint null" physically? In other words, how many bytes on the row on the page does a "bit null" datatype consume (assuming a non-null value 0, or 1 is the current value).
Is there any good documentation about the physical storage layout for a data page?
Thanks -
I need to bulk insert very large amount of data into several MSSQLtables.The first Data model definition used identities to mantain relationshipbetween those tables but we found that natural keys (compound) arebetter forbulk insert (there is no need to obtain the identity first)My question is, changing the identities to natural keys (in some tablesinorder of 4, 5 attributes) will enlarge my database storage?I think MSSQL implements relationships with pointers (or hashcodes), sothestorage size will be similar, right?Regards,
View 3 Replies View RelatedHello all. Before my arrival at my current employer, our consultantsphysically set up our MSSQL 7 server as follows:drive c: contains the mssql enginedrive d: contains the transaction logdrive e: contains the data filesNo filegroups were set up and the data files consist of only 1 largephysical file. Currently, our data file is >10GB. When I was trained onthe physical aspects of sqlserver, I was told to never create physical files[color=blue]> 2048MB each. If I did, I could expect inefficient physical storage of[/color]data and slower performance (due to the OS).Our server has 2 RAID-5 arrays. Drive c: and e: are located on the firstarray and drive d: on the second. We're running Windows 4.0 NT Server SP6with NTFS.Can someone comment on the use of 1 single large data file vs. more smallerdata files?
View 2 Replies View RelatedHow to implement distinct storage tiers on SQL Remote BLOB Storage (RBS)?
I want to use this SQL Feature to move files(images, videos, pdf files) from a database to a distinct database dedicated to RBS. Then I want to have several storage tiers, where objects will be saved and moved according access frequency. Old data will be arquived in cheap storage, but it must be always accessible if needed.
Description:
- 1st and main tier: new and frequently accessed objects stored in high performance storage;
- 2nd tier: automatically move older or less accessed objects to an inexpensive and different storage tier;
- in all cases, all objects must be accessible to all users, but accessing to archived objects(2nd tier) will be much slower;
Hi,
i want to know how many data can storage into sql server compact edition. I've got a db into a pocket pc that has a table with about 2000 records inside; are they too records?
Hi
I want to know is a flat file faster than a RDBMS for indexing for example a search engine indexing would a flat file be better in terms of performance, scalability etc than a RDBMS?
hi all,
I have a field which name is Information
and it type is Varchar (8000),but some time data access than 8000 character, my client told me,make this field to store Unlimited data.
So how can i achive this task, i m using VS 2003 (ASP.NET with VB.NET) with SQL 2000.
Thanks
Shally
Hi All,As per BOL, XML data type can store up 2 GB of data.My question is when a row is inserted in a table, for its xml column,2GB of space will be resered.In other words, how xml is internally stored. Is storage allocation issimilar to varchar(max) data type?Thanks in advance for everything.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI am planning on doing database mirroring using two (2) servers for each instance and a SAN to store the data and log files for both the primary server and mirrored server. How do I arrange the SAN 4 Physical Drives?
My options are:
· 2 Raid 1 Mirrors giving 250 GB to each SQL engine €“ This though has both the transaction logs and data on the same physical drive even if we split it up further into logical drives
· A Raid 10 - The transaction logs and data can be on separate drives
· A Raid 5 using the 4 Drives. (How SQL will see these drives I€™m not sure when it€™s 2 SQL engines)
· Or I could get a 5th drive and have a mirror set for transaction logs and a RAID 5 configured for the data.
Hello, So, here's my dumb question; if I wanted to store some *.gif images in some database (SQL2K possibly 2K5) field and wanted to pull the information from that to display on the web form, am I actually storing the image in the database or am I storing the location of the image in the database?I ask this because I was under the impression that the location to the image file is what was being stored but another person was saying that it was the actual image. I guess I'm confused... Thanks in advance....
View 4 Replies View Relatedre: [Windows 2000 SP1, SQL Server 7.0 SP2]
I am developing an online web-based address book for multiple users. There are STANDARD FIELDS and CUSTOM FIELDS.
Standard fields include: Name,Street,City,State,Zip.
Custom fields are those defined by a specific user. For example:
User-A Custom fields:
Interest Rate <real>
Loan Amount <currency>
Start date <date>
User-B Custom fields:
Blood type <char 3>
Date of birth <date>
Referred by <varchar 50>
Different users can have different custom fields in their address book. As you can see, while the standard fields for each user can be
stored in a single table. However, I have several methods by which I can store the CUSTOM fields.
------------------------------------------------
Method 1: Create 2 separate tables called CustomField and CustomValue:
CustomField has fields:
FieldID <int>
FieldName <varchar 25>
UserID <int>
CustomValue has fields:
ValueID <int>
Value <varchar 50>
FieldID <int>
------------------------------------------------
Method 2: Create a separate Field and multiple Value tables for each data type:
CustomField, CustomCharValue, CustomIntValue, CustomMoneyValue, etc...
CustomField has fields:
FieldID <int>
FieldName <varchar 25>
FieldType <smallint> (determines which TABLE, below, contains the data)
UserID <int>
CustomCharValue
CharValueID <int>
IntValue <Varchar 50>
FieldID <int>
CustomIntValue
IntValueID <int>
IntValue <int>
FieldID <int>
etc....etc...
The structures of those tables would be similar to Method 1, but the data would be segregated based on their data type.
--------------------------------------------------
I'm thinking that while Method 1 will be easier to implement, Method 2 may offer me better performance if coded correctly. I'm going
to assume that I'll have at least 1-5 million records to work with over the course of my first year and I will need the ability to sort
records based on values in the custom fields as well.
My first question is: Which method should I be considering and is there an alternative or hybrid that I should be considering?
My second question is: What statements should I use in my stored procedure that will enable me to retrieve a list of USERID, CustomFieldIDs and their values as one resulting table that I can query at will and with solid performance?
Gregory
email: sqlGuy@clubtel.com
I trying to fully understand when to use different data types in sql server.I want to know what Microdoft means when they say"Varchar is the actual length of the data entered plus 2 bytes".example e.g. what would the storage of varchar (50) be?
View 7 Replies View RelatedHello there,
Don't know if this is the right forum to be asking this, but I'll give it a try...
I'm relativelly a beginner in SQL Server and T-SQL in general. The problem I'm trying to solve is the following:
The big picture is that I have data coming from different data sources which I need to store on a database for later reference. Each data source might have a different set of measurements. For example, data source 1 might log Pressure and Humidity while data source 2 logs Pressure and Temperature. Once the data is present on the DB, the users can go ahead and retrieve data for a given [datasource/measurement/time interval] to generate reports or charts.
My implementation so far consists of two tables: series_info and series_data. series_info holds general information for a given series of measurements for a given data source (Pressure for data source 1, Pressure for data source 2, Humidity for data source 1 and Temperature for data source 2, in our example). Each series has a bigint index as primary key.
The table series_data contains all data relative to the series from series_info. Each piece of data has a bigint as a primary key, an associate time (which is always crescent) and a foreign key to the series it represents (in series_info).
Alright, everything is cool so far. However, whenever a user wants to retrieve data for given [data source/measurement/time interval], this takes very long, since all data is interposed in series_data and for every search it's necessary to find where the desired data actually lies.
One obvious solution for this would be to dynamically create a new table to hold the data for each series, but that would just make my database disorganized, since there would be thousands and thousands of tables.
Another thing that comes to my mind is to create a table with information of where lies the data for a given [data source / measurement] for given dates. So when the user requested data for a given [data source/measurement] between, say, january and february, we would first look at this intermediate table and find out that the data lies between indexes 1000 and 2000 on the series_data table, so the next SELECT command to series_data would already contain a restriction like WHERE index>=1000 and index<=2000. This should probably improve the speed of retrieval.
What do you guys (or girls) think? Maybe there's simply a classical solution for such a case.
Thanks in advance!
We have an OLTP database and operational reporting is carried out on a replica server / database. We have plans to build a new data warehouse and an analysis services cube.
Question 1:Should a cube be designed to extract data from a physical star schema rather than a logical one (3NF relational (ODS?) using a data source view to derive the star)? I'm guessing for performance it's better to pull data from similar structures (physical facts and dimensions as required by analysis services) but is the difference significant?
Question 2:Depending on the answer to q1, is it bad practice to ETL data from a staging database (replica > staging) directly to a star schema (multiple data sources and cleansing / business rules required)? Or should it be processed from staging to an ods and only then to a star schema (physical or logical). I still don't know if an ODS is required but I guess the consideration for this decision is whether the business would require  daily operational (or ad hoc) reporting on the consolidated data sources (without needing historical DW functionality).
I have two tables which are related. The first table(A) has a sequentially assigned unique key (primary) that has a cluster index built on it. This table has roughly 1,000,000 rows of data and grows daily.
The second table(B) has a sequentially assigned unique key (primary). There is a column in table(B) which contains table(A)'s unique key. For each row in the table(A) there are roughly 30 rows in table(B).
Should I build a clustered index on the table(B) column which contains the key to table(A) or a non-clustered index?
Hello,
I am designing a program for work with SQL Server express 2005. But I don't know what is the data storage limit in this version of SQL Server.
What i want is storing about 30000 records in a table of the database.
Hasn't SQL Server express 2005 any problem or restrictions for storing the data?
Please advice in this regards,
Thank you,
Mona
Dear Friends,
I am using SQL server 7 with ASP. I have two working environment means one is korean and second it english.
- one Korean OS server have SQL server 7.0 and it is my database server
- second Korean OS server is only webserver
- English OS is win2k and it is only Web server.
1) When i used both Korean server as my webserver + database server then there is no problem to add Korean Data to SQL server On korean OS.
2) But when I try to user English OS server as my webserver and Korean Os server as my database server then I am not able to store Korean Data in Database server insted of it stored some mis/junk/acssi characters in database.
-- I allready try with Korean version of MDAC of English os
-- I also try with OEM feature in SQL server client network utility
-- When I am use CODEPAGE in my .ASP page then data storage work fine .. but at the time of getting it back there is problem.
If u need any more information about problem then let me know.
So please help me in this regards.
Thanx in advance
Anis Vora
Partner
Global SoftWeb Solutions
www.globalsoftweb.com
I am developing an online web-based address book for multiple users. There are STANDARD FIELDS and CUSTOM FIELDS.
Standard fields include: Name,Street,City,State,Zip.
Custom fields are those defined by a specific user. For example:
User-A Custom fields:
Interest Rate <real>
Loan Amount <currency>
Start date <date>
User-B Custom fields:
Blood type <char 3>
Date of birth <date>
Referred by <varchar 50>
Different users can have different custom fields in their address book. As you can see, while the standard fields for each user can be
stored in a single table. However, I have several methods by which I can store the CUSTOM fields.
------------------------------------------------
Method 1: Create 2 separate tables called CustomField and CustomValue:
CustomField has fields:
FieldID <int>
FieldName <varchar 25>
UserID <int>
CustomValue has fields:
ValueID <int>
Value <varchar 50>
FieldID <int>
------------------------------------------------
Method 2: Create a separate Field and multiple Value tables for each data type:
CustomField, CustomCharValue, CustomIntValue, CustomMoneyValue, etc...
CustomField has fields:
FieldID <int>
FieldName <varchar 25>
FieldType <smallint> (determines which TABLE, below, contains the data)
UserID <int>
CustomCharValue
CharValueID <int>
IntValue <Varchar 50>
FieldID <int>
CustomIntValue
IntValueID <int>
IntValue <int>
FieldID <int>
etc....etc...
The structures of those tables would be similar to Method 1, but the data would be segregated based on their data type.
--------------------------------------------------
I'm thinking that while Method 1 will be easier to implement, Method 2 may offer me better performance if coded correctly. I'm going
to assume that I'll have at least 1-5 million records to work with over the course of my first year and I will need the ability to sort
records based on values in the custom fields as well.
My first question is: Which method should I be considering and is there an alternative or hybrid that I should be considering?
My second question is: What statements should I use in my stored procedure that will enable me to
retrieve a list of USERID, CustomFieldIDs and their values as one resulting table that I can query at will and with solid performance?
Gregory
email: sqlGuy@clubtel.com
I am a Windows developer for the IBM Tivoli Storage Manager Server (TSMS) product.
Our product installation is built with InstallShield and uses the Windows Installer.
On a new installation of Windows 2003 x64 Storage Server R2, at a customer's site, the TSMS product fails to install.
The install of the OS has version 3.01.400.3959 of the Windows Installer and I see no newer version that installs.
Part of our product is 32 bit (console) and another part is x64 (server).
When installing I can see that the install's default is being redirected/reset to C:Program Files (x86)TivoliTSM after it is explicitly set by a custom action to ..Program Files.. . I further observe that our custom actions to write 64 bit registry entries are being refused.
REGSAM samMask = KEY_ALL_ACCESS;
if ( regIsWow64Process () ) samMask = samMask | KEY_WOW64_64KEY;
lStatus = RegCreateKeyEx( hLocalConnectKeyRoot,
szSubkey,
0L,
NULL,
REG_OPTION_NON_VOLATILE,
samMask,
NULL,
hKey,
&dw ) ;
The above fails to create the key.
We have tried four versions of our TSMS spanning many changes but the install acts the same.
This does not happen on any other Windows OS we test on but we do not test on Windows 2003 Storage Server R2 being that it is an OEM product. We did test on Windows server 2003 R2 x64 and do not see this problem.
Do you have any suggestions on how to tackle this problem?
I have full installation traces but can only see that the registry work is being refused. I can't see why.
I've been trying to get a definitive answer to this question but alas I have conflicting and patchy answers so far from other sources. I have an index that, lets say, requires 10GB of data space to rebuild..This index resides on a filegroup that spans 2 files on two seperate drives (i.e. a mdf and ndf)
When I rebuild this index how will each of these datafiles grow as the rebuild proceeds to completion? Lets for the time being remove the caveats of any other activity hitting the example index/database in question.My tests seem to show that only the mdf will grows (or the file with the lowest id in the that filegroup) provided there is enough space available in that particular file to complete the operation. The secondary ndf dat file doesnt grow at all if the mdf has enough space.
Is expected behavior? i.e. the index will be rebuilt in a contiguous manner relative to the files contained with the filegroup i.e. fileid 1 will grow till limit reached then next fileid grows etc?
Does abyone know how to compare data-type xml in a temp/variable/physical table in MSSQL 2000?
I tried this works in MSSQL 2005,
Code Snippet
create Table #t1 ([c1] int identity(1,1) not null, [c2] text)
create Table #t2 ([c1] int identity(1,1) not null, [c2] text)
Insert into #t1
Values('This is a test')
Insert into #t2
Values('This is a test')
Select * from #t1
Select * from #t2
Select * from #t1 where [c2] LIKE (Select [c2] from #t2)
drop table #t1
drop table #t2
but not MSSQL 2000.
Server: Msg 279, Level 16, State 3, Line 12
The text, ntext, and image data types are invalid in this subquery or aggregate expression.
Is this true (from BOL)?
Code SnippetIn comparing these column values, if any of the columns to be compared are of type text, ntext, or image, FOR XML assumes that values are different (although they may be the same because Microsoft® SQL Server„¢ 2000 does not support comparing large objects); and elements are added to the result for each row selected.
I have a CSV File, I am importing this into SQL Server using SSIS package through Flat File source Task.
Few Points about data & its handling
1) inside the Procedure they are dropping the index, then populating the table, then again creating the same index.
2) Data is huge in figure (say, in millions)
My doubt:
which is the best way to import the data
1) Just inserting the data without dropping the Index
2) Drop index, populate table, re-create index (the way they do right now)
Hi,
The other day we tried online re-indexing feature of SQL 2005 and it€™s performing faster than offline re-indexing. Could you please validate if it€™s supposed to do be this way? I always thought offline should be faster than online.
Thanks,
Ritesh
My records like below..I created a clustered index of DATE field .This is the only one index available in the table. The table contains nearly 5,00,000 records.Now after indexing the DB size increased from 14 GB to 26GB.
Recoverymodel OF DB is SIMPLE
Shall I shrink DB for reucing the size?Will it effect indexing????
DATEÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ID
2015-03-01 00:07:10.000Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 110
2015-03-01 00:07:11.000Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 110
2015-03-01 00:07:12.000Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 110
2015-03-01 00:07:13.000Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 110
2015-03-01 00:07:10.000Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 111
2015-03-01 00:07:11.000Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 111
2015-03-01 00:07:12.000Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 111
2015-03-01 00:07:13.000Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 111
Ok so facebook groups have 100,000's of members. Members can be part of an unlimited number of groups, and a group can have an unlimited number of members.
Comma Deliniated String seems absurd. Many-2-Many Database relationship seems like it won't scale well t the 10's of thousands and 100's of thousands of members (especially if you have 1000-5000 groups). A table for each group would work but thats a bit over the top in my opinion. XML file doesn't seem to be any better than the above options.
I am no database guru, but I can't figure out a scalable method of doing this, be it with or without a database. I need something that can support 10 groups that have 20 members each OR 1000 groups with 100,000 members each.
Any help, suggestions, or kicked in the right direction would be most appreciated.
I need to generate a report of DTS package results, i. e. succeed, fail, error, etc. What tables is information of this type stored for SQL 2000?
winniemax
How I can measure the volume of data created temporarily to replace usage of physical tables in an SQL query.
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi all,
Our star schema design has one fact table and 3 dimensions.
The FK's in the fact do not necessarily make up the primary key. So I have an identifier in the fact table as PK. Here is my index assignment:
Fact Table - Clustered Index on PK
Non Clustered Index 1 on FK1
Non Clustered Index 2 on FK2
Non Clustered Index 3 on FK3
Each Dimension Table - Clustered Index on PK
Non Clustered Index on Attribute. This is the attribute that will be used in reports / cubes.
Is the above design good to start with?
Thanks,
V
I am using sql server 2008 r2 on my end. I have created a database named testDB. I have a lot of tables with some log tables in this. some tables have contain lack of records in log table.
So my purpose is that I want to fix the table size of those tables(log tables) and want to move records in other database table placed on another location. So my database has no problem.
is there any way to make such above steps which I want for my database?
Is there already built any such functionality in sql server?
hi,
I am new to this technology. can anyone pls help me.can anybody tell me what is physiacl file and source physiacl file wat are the attributes of physical file and source physical file.and how do we identify the uniqueness of a job.
Can anyone inform me how I would go about merging or combining 2 or more physical database files into 1. For example, suppose you have the following files out on your server:
c:mssql7datapubs_data1.mdf
c:mssql7datapubs_data2.ndf
c:mssql7datapubs_data3.ndf
but you only want
c:mssql7datapubs_data1.mdf
Is there any way to combine pubs_data2.ndf and pubs_data3.ndf into pubs_data1.mdf so you are only left with 1 database file called pubs_data1.mdf?
Thank you,
PJ
I know how to modify the logical file name: ALTER DATABASE SATutorial
MODIFY FILE (NAME = Tutorial, NEWNAME = SATutorial_data)
GO
How would I modify the physical file name from (e.g.) Tutorial.mdf to SATutorial_data.mdf?
TIA...
Al