I need to store data into about 104 columns. This is problematic with MS
SQL, since it doesn't support rows over 8kb in total size.
Most of the columns are of type NVARCHAR(255), which means we can't have
more than 8092/(255*2) = 15 columns of this type.
With a row length of more than 8kb, SQL gives a warning that any rows over
that amount will be truncated.
So far I'm seeing two possible solutions to this problem:
1. Split data into multiple tables with the same ID column accross all
tables, and then join them on SELECT statements.
2. Use NTEXT instead of NVARCHAR. NTEXT's length is 16 bytes because it
contains a pointer to the actual value stored somewhere else. However, NTEXT
doesn't support regular indexing, only through a Full-Text Index catalog. In
this case I'll need to user "WHERE CONTAINS(columnName, 'sometext')" to
perform searches, which is bearable.
I'm inclined toward #2. However I haven't used Full-Text indices before and
don't know their limitations. Will I run into problems with NTEXT? Is there
a better solution?
I am running this query to an sql server 2000 database from my aspcode:"select * from MyTable whereMySqlServerRemoveStressFunction(MyNtextColumn) = '" &MyAdoRemoveStressFunction(MyString) & "'"The problem is that the replace function doesn't work with the ntextdatatype (so as to replace the stresses with an empty string). I hadto implement the MySqlServerRemoveStressFunction, i.e. a function thattakes a column name as a parameter and returns the text contained inthis column having replaced some letters of the text (the letters withstress). Unfortunately, I could not do that because user-definedfunctions cannot return a value of ntext.So I have the following idea:"select * from MyTable whereCheckIfTheyAreEqualIngoringTheStesses(MyNtextColum n, '" & MyString &"')"How can I implement the CheckIfTheyAreEqualIngoringTheStessesfunction? (I don't know how to combine these functions to do what Iwant: TEXTPTR, UPDATETEXT, WRITETEXT, READTEXT)
I need to save some news text in an SQL table. The text can be long. 1. Should I use nvarchar(MAX) or nText? 2. And what is the difference between nText and Text?
my question concerns both desktop and device apps.
I'm using sql compact to store some data. I often have to store strings (descriptions, url, etc.) but I don't know when to use nvarchar or ntext.
Nvarchar needs to have a size limit, but I often set it to 8092 when I don't know the actual limit (urls can be very long !). I fear Ntext because I suppose there is performances impact.
Is there any "rules" to help to choose which data type I'd use ?
I need to sort by an ntext field, but it won't let me do it.
However, if I cast the field as nvarchar(100), I can use ORDER BY on that.
Is there any reason that this is a bad idea? In my testing, ordering by a converted ntext field was actually *faster* than ordering by an nvarchar (same data in the fields).
I have a table that contains an ntext column for storing values up to a couple of Mb in size.
However, I estimate that 95% of the values stored in this ntext field will fit into an nvarchar(4000) field.
Is it worth me having both fields in the table?
i.e. For rows where the values < 4000 characters I would store the value in the nvarchar column. Otherwise I would use the ntext column.
Can anyone confirm whether this technique would increase performance given that ntext values are sort of stored separately to the rest of the table data?
A colleague of mine is an Oracle DBA and he mentioned this technique is fairly caommonly adopted in the Oracle world.
When I tried to insert armenian by doing the following insert into tablex (field1) values (N'testdata') it does not display in query analyzer or in the database as armenian. When I copy this to word it does not convert it.
What else am I supposed to do to get that information to redisplay the correct way and I would appreciate any tutorials or samples you can show or direct me to.
I have a live SQL 2005 database that has ntext fields, when the ntext fields go over 4000 chars the record can no longer be edited. It throws a string or binary data would be truncated error. I tried turning text in row OFF, but it did not work. Can anyone forsee any problems with changing the ntext fields to nvarchar(max) in the live database? Also, I came across sp_tableoption N'MyTable', 'large value types out of row', 'ON', does this work for ntext also? sp_tableoption N'MyTable', 'text in row', 'OFF' did not do anything.Any help would be appreciated.
Like in the subject: What are the cons and pros of using nvarchar(max) versus ntext? Does it have something to do with having to enable full text search perhaps in the latter case?
I hope this is the right forum for this question, my apologies in advance if it isn't....
We have a web based CGI product (written in C++ VS 6) that uses ODBC and takes text from a submitted web page and stores it in a SQL Server table in a field of type "ntext". The user in question is copying and pasting this text from an MS Word 2003 document. After the initial save our app errors out trying to access the table it just wrote to, and when we look in the table we see that up to **200 carriage returns** have been mysteriously inserted into the ntext field!! (Our product has been out in the field with no such problem for several years, so we are thinking it's related to something specific the customer is doing - perhaps with using MS Word for the source text.) We have tried but cannot duplicate the problem, but the customer sees it with each attempt to modify the table in question. The only thing that I see out of the ordinary is that the field in question is of type "ntext" - which supports unicode, instead of nvarchar. Does any of this ring a bell for anybody? I'm thinking of changing the field type to nvarchar to see if that solves the problem. Thanks, Steve Bradbery
I want to retrieve data from SQL containing non English character but fail, can anyone shed me some light?
What I use currently:
Dim strSQL As String strSQL = "SELECT ArticleID, " strSQL &= "ISNULL(Body, '') AS Body, " strSQL &= "ISNULL(Subject, '') AS Subject " strSQL &= "FROM Articles " strSQL &= "WHERE (Subject LIKE N'%' + @Keyword + '%' OR [Body] LIKE N'%' + @Keyword + '%') " Dim con As New SqlConnection(ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings("ConnectionString")) Dim cmd As New SqlDataAdapter(strSQL, con) cmd.SelectCommand.Parameters.Add("@Keyword", SqlDbType.NVarChar).Value = keyword ...
I'm not so sure where should I place the letter "N", I use :
SELECT ArticleID, ISNULL(Body, '') AS Body, ISNULL(Subject, '') AS Subject, FROM Articles WHERE (Subject LIKE N'%SomeNonEnglishString%' OR [Body] LIKE N'%SomeNonEnglishString%')
in Query Analzyer, it works! But it failed in my program... oh my god...
Hi, We are in process of converting all of the data type of the fields from CHAR/VARCHAR/TEXT into NCHAR/NVARCHAR/NTEXT (DBCS). Having more than 900 store procedure its look like real pain to make modification in all of the SPs.
After failed to find any help from GOOGLE, I am posting this request. I am basically looking for any automated tool which are convert data type in SP based on the field of the table used in the SP. Or at least which can provide me some sort of list which can helpful for doing manual reactoring.
I've got a table that I have to update in preparation for our environment move (2k to 2005 SP2). The developers that designed the application created a table called schemas, which holds the contents of an XML file inside of an ntext field named Data.I need to parse through the field and do a find/replace to replace all instances of www.site.com with www7.site.com. It's all over the place in the file. The problem is, that the datalength() of each of the fields (there are 2 rows) are above 15000.normally, I'd run something like this:update schemas set data=replace (cast(Data as varchar(max)),'www.site.com','www7.site.com') where data like '%www.site.com%'Smaller columns it works great - but it won't work on these because they're too big (the update will chop anything beyond the varchar(max) value). I could do it manually, but this DB will be refreshed from production on a weekly basis and I'd like to script as many of the environment changes to the DB as much as possible. Any ideas?
/* INFO USED HERE WAS TAKEN FROM http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;262499 */ DECLARE @X VARCHAR(10) DECLARE @ParmDefinition NVARCHAR(500) DECLARE @Num_Members SMALLINT SELECT @X = 'x.dbo.v_NumberofMembers' DECLARE @SQLString AS VARCHAR(500)
SET @SQLString = 'SELECT @Num_MembersOUT=Num_Members FROM @DB' SET @ParmDefinition = '@Num_MembersOUT SMALLINT OUTPUT'
Just Need Help On This Error Server: Msg 214, Level 16, State 2, Procedure sp_executesql, Line 11 Procedure expects parameter '@statement' of type 'ntext/nchar/nvarchar'.
I dont know why im getting a errrror b/c I followed http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;262499 exactly
I am having a problem writing a large amount of ntext data to a field within an ADO recordset. I am using the append chunk method but it does not seem to work. The SQL 7 field will hold the data its only about 60K.
What are the performance or storage implications of using a large value for NVARCHAR? For example, if I specify a NVARCHAR(4000) column just to cope with the rare case there are strings that long, but have a table full of strings 255 characters long, is the performance identical to specifying an NVARCHAR(255) column? Is there a reason then NOT to specify NVARCHAR(4000) on everything? i.e. does the query optimizer use it?
I know how long a row is and how many rows can fit in a page (4096 bytes) affects performance, but my understanding is that NVARCHAR only stores the characters needed so it wouldn't be affected unless there was actually a longer string. I wanted to know if there are any other considerations to using a large value here.
Also, how does NTEXT compare to using NVARCHAR? I noticed the documentation said it used a new page after 256 characters, which sounds like it's different from how a 4000 byte NVARCHAR would be stored?
Hello, I am creating triggers on th efly from stored procedure.I have table 1in db1 and table2 in db2 and i want to capture inserts ,updates and deletes in table 1 to table 2 for which triggers are getting created from SP in SQL 2000.
If i create instead of triggers then its working fine but the row will not be inserted in the main table and i need rows to be inserted in the main table.The tables is having ntext columns.Any work around for this?
I have an Integration services application that retrieves big strings (over 32k) from an ODBC data source and stores them in a SQL server 2005 database as ntext. Somehow the strings are truncated to 32K. The app only copies the data from the ODBC datasource to the (OLEDB) target. Also, some of the special characters in the input text are not properly translated.
I'm working with a horrible database! The field I'm having issues with is a negative number stored as a nvarchar, but it's not stored in a consistent format. I need to convert the field to a decimal (9,2) but I can't because of the negative sign.
I am currently designing a SSIS package to integrate data into a data warehouse fact table. This fact table has about 70 columns among which 17 are foreign keys for dimension tables.
To insert data in that table, I have to make several transformations and lookups. Given the fact that the lookups I have to make are a little complicated, I have about 70 tasks in my Data Flow. I know it's a lot, but I can't find a way to make it simpler. It seems I really need all these tasks.
Now, the problem is that every new action I try to make on the package takes a lot of time. At design time, everything is very slow. My processor is eavily loaded each time I change a single setting in one of the tasks, and executing the package in debug mode takes for ages. If I take a look at the size of my package file on disk, it's more than 3MB.
Hence my question : Are there any limitations in terms of number of columns or number of tasks that can be processed within a Data Flow ?
If not, then do you have any idea why it's so slow ?
Ok I have upgraded my works database from a poorly designed Access database to a SQL database. The previous system allowed NULL values and duplicates to be inserted into a field that should NOT ALLOW NULL Values or duplicates. Therefore, this issue has now been moved across to my new system as I cannot set these constraints on the field that has multiple NULL values.
My solution would be to use a sequential operator, so whatever = NULL would be changed to a sequential number that us as administrators would know was a bogus number starting at something like = 999999900 counting up from that. There are only 250 records that would require updating.
To make things more interesting this field is not a integer type, its a Nvarchar type as its a Hardware ID. Both numerical and characters are require.
Hi,I have a problem, I have a table with a text type column and anvarchar(2000) type column on my MS SQL 2000 Server.I know that the longest text in the text field is 1000 chars. I want tocopy the content the content of the text field into the nvarchar field.I tried convert and cast but after the update there are only 255 charsin the nvarchar field.Best regardsMarc
I'm currently in the middle of building quite a large CMS using ASP.NET and MSSQL2K and have began to question if the amount of queries I am using for one page to be built is too many?
For one page (View Forum) I am getting all of the templates and checking access then pulling a list of threads, getting the first and last posts, then user info for the first and last posts... anyway to view 10 threads on the page the number of queries comes to about 54 and the page takes 0.064 seconds to load.
My question is, Is this to many queries to be running for a single page load? All queries are using Stored Procedures.
hi, Does large number of connections to a sql server result in slogging queries?? by large number of connections I mean in the range of 2000 to 2500 connections to various databases on the same server. This happens on the production database, if I download the copy of the database and run the specific queries on the local box it hardly takes 1 second to execute, whereas on the production box it takes about 45 to 60 secs, i m working on the indexes part... was not sure whether number of connections to a server affect the performance of the queries or it is just that the indexes need defragmentation...
