I have some simple TSQL running on a large block of data (565 million records). This process is estimated to take around 5 days and it is critical to get this running as quickly as possible.
I'm watching Windows Performance Monitor and both disk and CPU use are really low and all data is local so there is no network access involved. This is the only task running on this database server. How could this be? The process is running; I just need it to run faster. Typically a system is CPU-bound, disk-bound, network-bound, or operating under maximum capacity. This seems to be none of the above.
In Enterprise Manager, I see the process is sleeping with a Wait Type of "MISCELLANEOUS". What does that mean? Online help gives a pretty useless explanation of that.
I am running SQL 2000 SP4. I have a stored procedure which calls a function in an update statement. Previously, this SP which is pretty intensive and used to build a report would run in appox 10 minutes. Now it is taking 3 hours to execute. I have tracked the performance issue to the function. The function is taking 3 to 4 seconds to execute for each row and it is updating 2,600 rows.
I am including the select statement causing problems.
SELECT TOP 1
@m_ECodeMsg = tev.BillMsg
FROM tblUsageHistoryDetail tuhd
INNER JOIN tblMeterReadEcode tmre
ON tmre.MeterReadID = tuhd.CurrentMeterREadID
INNER JOIN tblUsageHistory tuh
ON tuh.UsageHistoryID = tuhd.UsageHistoryID
INNER JOIN tblTran tt
ON tt.TranID = tuh.TranID AND tt.ServiceLocationID = tuh.ServiceLocationID
INNER JOIN tblServiceLocation tsl
ON tsl.ServiceLocationID = tt.ServiceLocationID
INNER JOIN tblRateUsage tru ON tru.RateID = tsl.RateID
INNER JOIN tblECodeValue tev
ON tev.ECodeValueID = tmre.ECodeValueID AND tev.ECodeTypeID = tmre.ECodeTypeID
WHERE tt.StatementID = @i_StatementID AND tru.AltServiceID = tsl.ServiceID AND tt.TranTypeID = 2 AND tev.ECodeTypeID = 6
The function has been in use for over a year and SP4 has been installed on this server for serveral months now. If I run this on an old box with SP3a it runs fine. I have rewrote the statement without the "TOP 1" and execution of the function is less than 1 sec.
Any ideas as to why my performance has taken such a hit?
Can anyone please give me the equivalent tsql for sql server 2000 for the following two queries which works fine in sql server 2005
1 -- Full Table Structure
select t.object_id, t.name as 'tablename', c.name as 'columnname', y.name as 'typename', case y.namewhen 'varchar' then convert(varchar, c.max_length)when 'decimal' then convert(varchar, c.precision) + ', ' + convert(varchar, c.scale)else ''end attrib,y.*from sys.tables t, sys.columns c, sys.types ywhere t.object_id = c.object_idand t.name not in ('sysdiagrams')and c.system_type_id = y.system_type_idand c.system_type_id = y.user_type_idorder by t.name, c.column_id
2 -- PK and Index select t.name as 'tablename', i.name as 'indexname', c.name as 'columnname' , i.is_unique, i.is_primary_key, ic.is_descending_keyfrom sys.indexes i, sys.tables t, sys.index_columns ic, sys.columns cwhere t.object_id = i.object_idand t.object_id = ic.object_idand t.object_id = c.object_idand i.index_id = ic.index_idand c.column_id = ic.column_idand t.name not in ('sysdiagrams')order by t.name, i.index_id, ic.index_column_id
This sql is extracting some sort of the information about the structure of the sql server database[2005] I need a sql whihc will return the same result for sql server 2000
Hi guys, I got some problem now with my last e-commerce ASP.net project because there's to many records in my database. right now the website run slower and sometimes very slow esp when doing some search products or members query. Do I need to change server hosting with Itanium processor or not? just for note right now I still using Xeon 1 Ghz. or maybe are there some software tricks to optimize the records for faster access?
I have a stored procedure that calls several views that rely on each other. In the past these views used to go parallel and use up all 100% of the CPU (12 cores), and now when the same stored procedure runs it only uses 8% of the CPU (1 core). This extends the time spent on the query from roughly 10-15 sec to 2-3min. I'm not quite sure why this is happening.
Are there some obvious things to look at when optimizing views to utilize all cores/threads? Also, it doesn't matter if I set Cost Threshold for Parallelism to 1 or 50 or 5, it is always the same, and I have Max Degree of Parallelism set to 0 as well, which should mean to use all cores when available.
I have data that I want at multiple granularities, 5,15,30 and 60 minutes. To reduce repetition, I have put them all in the same table, so that there is a column for 5,15,30 and 60 minutes, with a filtered index on each of the columns that removes the nulls. This means that each day will have 288 slots, but only 24 of the slots are filled in for 60 min data, and all of them are filled for 5 minute data.
I have another column that specifies the interval granularity, and my first thought was to access my data through a join, where I can use a CASE statement, and depending on the data granularity necessary, it will look at a different column:
INNER JOIN Data d ON AND d.settlement_key = CASE st.interval_granularity WHEN 5 THEN [5_min_settlement_key] WHEN 15 THEN [15_min_settlement_key] WHEN 60 THEN [60_min_settlement_key] ELSE NULL END
Despite the presence of the indexes on the columns, then the process seems to be quite slow, I think probably due to the fact that any query plan isn't going to know beforehand which of the columns it is going to use for any given dataset, until it actually starts to run, so it may not be optimised.
How I could optimise this based on the given structure? Maybe there are hints to be added to the join, or maybe I can clear the query plan each time the SQL is run? My other option for dealing with the data of different granularity was to use one column and repeat the data multiple times, each at the different granularity, but this makes my data, row and table sizes much higher, as we are adding just a column for each additional granularity. Would this work any better in future versions of SQL server, maybe with column store indexes?
I have indexed my SQL Server tables to gain some speed on calling up tables and queries ( using VB and ADO ). It is still very slow...Is there a move I have to make once my tables are indexed or is there any tricks to improve the speed cause I am getting kinda desparate right now :(
I have a question in regards to optimistic locking:
I have a database conversion that will be running on a SQL 7.0 system. The process needs to be completed ASAP and to this end, I have tried to set up all aspects of the server to be geared towards speed rather than redundancy for the duration of the process (i.e. moving heavily used tables to separate filegroups on a RAID 0 set, dedicating a separate disk for the database log). I was now looking at trying to tweak locking behaviour to enhance performance (as for the duration of the conversion, no other user will be connecting to the database - the only initator of data changes will be the conversion application, which feeds statements serially to the server). As far as I know changing lock settings is something that would be initiated by the application itself, but is there any property I can set on the server to further enhance performance in this area?
We are evaluating a tool by Lechotech that can optimize sql statements. It is a pretty good tool, but we would like to compare it against some others. Has anyone seen any other such tools?
I'm no SQL wiz, just know basics to get me by ... What I'm trying to do is: everytime a record is inserted into an online orders table, that record needs to be inserted into another table in another database, but with added information.
This is the Trigger I came up with:
CREATE TRIGGER OtherDatabaseInsertTrigger ON dbo.t_order FOR INSERT AS
DECLARE @CLIENT VARCHAR(30) DECLARE @OrderNumberID INT SET @CLIENT = 'DevShed'
SET @OrderNumberID = (SELECT @@IDENTITY) UPDATE test2.dbo.t_order SET client = @CLIENT WHERE oid = @OrderNumberID;
I don't know if its possible to do an INSERT INTO SELECT with additional fields in the 2nd table, I was trying, but failed. Had to resort to the bottom piece of SQL to get the ID and run a separate query to add the additional items to the new record in table 2.
Any SQL masters out there that can help me make this better, or know of some other way to do this.
Hello, I am hoping someone here can help me optimize the following query: SELECT INCOMING.DATE_TIME, INCOMING.URL, INCOMING.HITS, USER_NAMES.USER_LOGIN_NAME, CATEGORY.NAME FROM (wsHQMay2004.dbo.INCOMING INCOMING INNER JOIN wsHQMay2004.dbo.CATEGORY CATEGORY ON INCOMING.CATEGORY = CATEGORY.CATEGORY) INNER JOIN wsHQMay2004.dbo.USER_NAMES USER_NAMES ON INCOMING.USER_ID = USER_NAMES.USER_ID WHERE INCOMING.DATE_TIME >= '2004-05-01 00:00:00.00' AND INCOMING.DATE_TIME < '2004-06-01 00:00:00.00' ORDER BY INCOMING.URL ASC
I am just hoping to get some tips on perhaps a better way to write this query as right now, due to the size of the incoming table, this query just takes forever.
I've tried a bunch of different ways in an effort to stay away from using a cursor, but I haven't been able to accomplish what I need to do without one. So, I coded this process using cursors and performance (as expected) is pretty mediocre. I was wondering if someone could take a quick look and suggest a different approach or maybe suggest ways to optimize the current code.
SELECT T1.F3 FROM T1 INNER JOIN T2 ON T1.F4 = T2.F4 WHERE (T1.F1 > @iNum AND T2.F1 > @iNum) OR ( @iNum2 * (T1.F1 - T2.F1)/(T1.F2 - T2.F2) ) + (T1.F1 - ((T1.F1 - T2.F1)/(T1.F2 - T2.F2) * T1.F2) ) > @INum
As you can see, the second part of the WHERE (after the OR) is much more complicated than the part before the OR. My query would run a lot faster if it tried the first part of the OR and didn't bother with the second part if the first part was satisfied. Is there any way to do this?
SELECT * FROM OPENQUERY (liorder, ' SELECT DISTINCT a.AUF_NR AS OrdNo, e.KU_NAME AS Customer, a.AUF_POS AS Pos, f.PC_PANE_NO AS Pane, f.PC_SGGL_SEQ AS Component, f.PC_SGGL_COD AS GlassCode, d.GL_BEZ AS GlassDesc, a.ANZ AS Qty, ((c.BREITE/1000*c.HOEHE/1000)*a.ANZ) AS SQM, (a.ANZ*c.SUM_BRUTTO) AS Val, (CASE WHEN(SELECT SUM(h.KF_FERT_QTY) FROM LIPROD.KAPA_AUS_FERT h WHERE a.AUF_NR = h.KF_ORDER_NO AND a.AUF_POS = h.KF_ORDER_POS AND f.PC_PANE_NO = h.KF_SCHEIB_NR AND f.PC_SGGL_SEQ = CASE WHEN h.KF_SEQ_NR = 0 THEN 1 ELSE h.KF_SEQ_NR END AND h.KF_SCHR_NR IN (2, 402, 502, 602)) IS NULL THEN 0 ELSE(SELECT SUM(h.KF_FERT_QTY) FROM LIPROD.KAPA_AUS_FERT h WHERE a.AUF_NR = h.KF_ORDER_NO AND a.AUF_POS = h.KF_ORDER_POS AND f.PC_PANE_NO = h.KF_SCHEIB_NR AND f.PC_SGGL_SEQ = CASE WHEN h.KF_SEQ_NR = 0 THEN 1 ELSE h.KF_SEQ_NR END AND h.KF_SCHR_NR IN (2, 402, 502, 602)) END) AS Done FROM LIORDER.AUF_STAT a, LIORDER.AUF_KOPF b, LIORDER.AUF_POS c, LIORDER.GLAS_DATEN d, LIORDER.KUST_ADR e, LIPROD.AUF_POS_COMP f WHERE EXISTS (SELECT g.AUF_NR FROM LIORDER.AUF_STAT g WHERE g.AUF_NR = a.AUF_NR AND g.RG_OFFEN != 0) AND EXISTS (SELECT i.KF_ORDER_NO FROM LIPROD.KAPA_AUS_FERT i WHERE a.AUF_NR = i.KF_ORDER_NO AND i.KF_SCHR_NR IN (2, 402, 502, 602)) AND a.AUF_NR = b.AUF_NR AND b.AUF_NR = c.AUF_NR AND c.AUF_NR = f.PC_ORDER_NO AND a.AUF_POS = c.AUF_POS AND c.AUF_POS = f.PC_ORDER_POS AND b.KUNR = e.KU_NR AND f.PC_SGGL_COD = d.IDNR AND a.HISTORY = 0 AND b.AUF_OFF = 0 AND c.VER_ART != ''V'' AND e.KU_VK_EK = 0 AND e.KU_NAME IS NOT NULL ORDER BY a.AUF_NR DESC, a.AUF_POS ASC')
...It is retrieving data from an Oracle linked server. But the execution time is so friggin' long! I tried running it and for around 30 minutes it hasn't shown any results. So I could even tell the exact time it would take to return results. Do you have any tips regarding query optimization? Thanks in advance.
we have an insurance program up and running in our regions and we get random reports of slowness. in an effort to track down all facets of slowness i am looking at all my sql code to make sure it is as efficient as possible. I know a little about SQL and writing SQL statements, enough to help me do my job well. but i do not write optimized code.
if request.form("selPolicyNum") <> "" then sqlPolicyInfo = "SELECT PIEffectiveDate, PIExpirationdate from PIMaster where PIPolicyNum='" & request.form("selPolicyNum") & "'" Set rsPolicyInfo = Server.CreateObject("ADODB.Recordset") Set rsPolicyInfo.ActiveConnection = webLookupConn 'rsPolicyInfo.CursorType = adOpenDynamic 'rsPolicyInfo.LockType = adLockOptimistic rsPolicyInfo.Source = sqlPolicyInfo 'rsPolicyInfo.CursorLocation = adUseClient rsPolicyInfo.Open 'response.write sqlPolicyInfo end if
that is the code used to store a remark into the system. is this code optimized already or should some of the db parameters be changed to make things faster? this is just an example of many of the SQL statements that i may or may not have to fix. thank you for any and all help.
I have the following query that works fine but i'm wondering if there is a way to optimize it better as when I analyze through sql profiler it is at the top of the list of using the cpu
SELECT DISTINCT site, d, (SELECT COUNT(id) FROM anP aPV2 WHERE aPV2.confirmed=1 and aPV2.stage=2 and aPV2.inserted=0 and aPV2.site=aPV1.site and aPV2.d>=aPV1.d and aPV2.d<=aPV1.d) AS mycount FROM anP aPV1 WHERE confirmed=1 AND stage=2 AND inserted=0 ORDER BY site,d
-- minatest table will contain indexes with fragmentation above 10% which need to be defragged -- this will go through all databases -- null indexes will not be affected
exec sp_msforeachdb' use ? INSERT INTO #minatest SELECT db_name(database_id), phystat.page_count, i.fill_factor, OBJECT_NAME(i.object_id), i.name, phystat.avg_fragmentation_in_percent, newfragmentvalue = 0, index_type_desc, index_level FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, ''DETAILED'') phystat JOIN sys.indexes i ON i.object_id = phystat.object_id AND i.index_id = phystat.index_id WHERE phystat.avg_fragmentation_in_percent > 10 AND phystat.page_count < 10000 '
select @Counts = count(Databasename) from #minatest -- sets the maximum amount of fields to go threw as a number
declare targets cursor -- declare cursor with values to search through for select * from #minatest
open targets -- open cursor
fetch next from targets into @DatabaseName,@pagecount,@vfillfactor,@TableName,@IndexName,@FragmentPercentage,@vnewfrag,@index_type_desc,@index_level-- take rows from table
select @i=0 while @@fetch_status=0 and @i<=@Counts-- set loop condition
begin
select @sql = 'USE '+@DatabaseName+'; '+ ' ALTER INDEX '+@IndexName+' ON '+ @TableName+ ' REBUILD with (ONLINE=ON,SORT_IN_TEMPDB=ON,STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE=OFF);' exec sp_executesql @sql select @nfsql = 'select @cnt = avg_fragmentation_in_percent FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(NULL,NULL, NULL, NULL, ''DETAILED'') phystat JOIN '+@DatabaseName+'.sys.indexes i ON i.object_id = phystat.object_id AND i.index_id = phystat.index_id WHERE i.name='''+@IndexName+''' and index_type_desc='''+@index_type_desc+''' and index_level='''+CAST(@index_level as varchar(20))+'''' exec sp_executesql @nfsql ,@params, @cnt=@vnewfrag OUTPUT
update #minatest set newfragmentvalue = @vnewfrag where IndexName = @IndexName and TableName = @TableName select @i=@i+1
fetch next from targets into @DatabaseName,@pagecount,@vfillfactor,@TableName,@IndexName,@FragmentPercentage,@vnewfrag,@index_type_desc,@index_level-- take next field of table
end
close targets DEALLOCATE targets
ALTER TABLE #minatest DROP COLUMN index_type_desc,index_level select * from #minatest -- displays which indexes where defraged and their new frag value drop table #minatest
I have the below query written so that i do not insert entries that is already existing in the table. I am trying to put in 70000 entries at a single shot and it breaks down. Can anybody help me optimize the below query so that it doesnt break? Is there any other way I can write this query?
Please do help me with this. Thanks in advance. The table in which i am inserting the entries has a composite key composed of ACCT_NUM_MIN and ACCT_NUM_MAX. I am getting this from a table which doesnt have a primary key(CORE)
INSERT INTO CRF (CORE_UID,ACCT_NUM_MIN, ACCT_NUM_MAX,BIN, BUS_ID,BUS_NM,ISO_CTRY_CD, REGN_CD, PROD_TYPE_CD, CARD_TYPE) SELECT UID , LEFT(ACCT_NUM_MIN,16), LEFT(ACCT_NUM_MAX,16), BIN, BUS_ID, BUS_NM, ISO_CTRY_CD, REGN_CD, PROD_TYPE_CD, CARD_TYPE FROM CORE o WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM CRF i WHERE o.ACCT_NUM_MIN = i.ACCT_NUM_MIN AND o.ACCT_NUM_MAX = i.ACCT_NUM_MAX)
I have two tables.One has approx 90,000 rows with a field .. let's call in BigInt (and itis defined as a bigint data type).I have a reference table, with approx 10,000,000 rows. In thisreference table, I have starting_bigint and ending_bigint fields. Iwant to pull out all of the reference data from the reference table forall 90,000 rows in the transaction table where the BigInt from thetransaction table is between the starting_bigint and ending_bigint inthe reference table.I have the join working now, but it is not as optimized as I wouldlike. It appears no matter what I do, the query does a full table scanon the 10,000,000 rows in the reference table.Sample codeSELECT ref.*, tran.bigintfrom transactiontable tranINNER JOIN referencetable ref on tran.bigint betweenref.starting_bigint and ending_bigintYes, all 3 of the fields are indexed. I even have a composite index onthe reference table with the starting_bigint and ending_bigint fieldsselected as the composite.Any help would be appreciated.Robert H. KershbergIT DirectorTax Credit CompanyJoin Bytes! or Join Bytes! or Join Bytes!
Hello all,I have a table with thousands of rows and is in this format:id col1 col2 col3 col4--- ------ ----- ------ ------1 nm 78 xyz pir2 bn 45 abc dirI now want to get the data from this table in this format:field val---------------------------col1 nmcol1 bncol2 78col2 45col3 xyzcol3 abccol4 pircol4 dirIn order to do this I am doing a union:select * into #tempUpdate(select 'col1' as field, col1 as val from table1unionselect 'col2' as field, col2 as val from table1unionselect 'col3' as field, col3 as val from table1)the above example query is smaller - I have a much bigger table withabout 80 columns (Imagine the size of my union query :) and this takesa lot of time to execute. Can someone please suggest a better way to dothis?The results of this union query are selected into a temp table, which Ithen use to update another table. I am using SQL Server 2000.my main concern is performance. any ideas please?thanks
To start with, I'll give a simplified overview of my data.BaseRecord (4mil rows, 25k in each Region)ID | Name | Region | etcOtherData (7.5mil rows, 1 or 2 per ID)ID | Type(1/2) | DataProblemTable (4mil rows)ID | ConcatenatedHistoryThe concatenated history field is a nvarchar with up to 20 differentpipe delimited date/code combinations, eg. '01/01/2007X|11/28/2006Q|11/12/2004Q|'Using left outer joins (all from base, the rest optional) I've got aview something like:View (4mil rows)ID | Name | Region | etc | Data | Data2 | ConcatenatedHistoryQuerying it, it takes about 15-20 seconds to do this:Select ID, Name, Region, etc, Data, Data2, ConcatenatedHistory
I have an application that's allows user input, and is translating it bystripping out the html tags and also doing some code translations. The useris able to later edit their input. However it's unfeasible to reversetranslate it back as the logic would be too complicated, and there areinstances where it won't be possible.So, what I'm thinking to do to speed up performance is to duplicate the userdata, one for native data, and the other for the translated data. When useredits their input, the native data is shown. When the application isshowing the data in a page, the translated data is shown.My question is, would it make a performance difference if I store the nativedata and the translated data in the same table, or would it be better tostore the cached data in another table?
selected_item_id as int (PK), cust_id as int (FK), item_id as int (FK), ...
-------
With the following query:
select cust_ID from selected_items_tbl WHERE item_id in (1, 2, n) GROUP BY cust_id, item_id HAVING cust_id in (select cust_id from selected_items_tbl where item_id = 1) AND cust_id in (select cust_id from selected_items_tbl where item_id = 2) AND cust_id in (select cust_id from selected_items_tbl where item_id = n)
-------
Each of these tables has other items included. Selected_Items_tbl holds zero to many of the items from the item_tbl for each customer. If I am searching for a customer who has item 1 AND item 2 AND item n, what would be the most efficient query for this? Currently, the above query is what I am working with. However, it seems that we should be able to do this type of search in a single query (without subqueries).
I have combined three reports into one big report. I would like to someway cache the big report, and then create little reports from the cached report. What would be the best way to go about doing this?
I'm trying to get a query to run which looks at completed orders that have not had another paid order in 180 days. The database I'm running it against is very large so I can't get it to complete. Where's what I've got:
select Date =cast(cl1.cl_rundate as datetime(102)),count(cl1.cl_recno) as 'Completed Initials', cl1.cl_status as Status from dbo.vw_Completedorders cl1 where cl1.lob_lineofbusiness = 'aaa' and cl1.cl_rundate > '20060801' and not exists ( select cl2.cl_company from dbo.vw_Paidorders cl2 where cl2.lob_lineofbusiness = 'aa'and cl2.cl_company = cl1.cl_order and cl2.cl_rundate > '20060101' and datediff(day,cl2.cl_rundate,cl1.cl_rundate) < 180) group by cl1.cl_status, cl1.cl_rundate
Hi, We have 3 tables in sql server for simillar information about 3 different countries. some times I select from all countries so I need to use all tables and some times just one country so I select from one table.
I want to know that is it good to combine these three tables into one and add one field to define the country name? Which way is better, my own way or this new one? Please let me know the advantages and disadvantages of each of these ways.
I'm having problems optimizing a sql select statement that uses a LIKE statement coupled with an OR clause. For simplicity sake, I'll demonstrate this with a scaled down example:
CompanyAddressAssoc is the many-to-many associative table for Company and Address. A search query is required that, given a search string ( i.e. 'TEST' ), return all Company -> Address records where either the CompanyName or AddressName starts with the parameter:
Select c.CompanyID, c.CompanyName, a.AddressName
FROM Company c
LEFT OUTER JOIN CompanyAddressAssoc caa ON caa.CompanyID = c.CompanyID
LEFT OUTER JOIN Address a ON a.AddressID = caa.AddressID
WHERE ((c.CompanyName LIKE 'TEST%') OR (a.AddressName LIKE 'TEST%))
There are proper indexes on all tables. The execution plan creates a hash table on one LIKE query, then meshes in the other LIKE query. This takes a very long time to do, given a dataset of 500,000+ records in Company and Address.
Is there any way to optimize this query, or is it a problem with the base table implementation?
got some MS Access SQL Code that needs converting into TSQL:
SELECT dbo_qryMyServices.FormsServiceID, dbo_qryMyServices.ServiceName, Sum(IIf(IsNull([CompletionDate]),0,1)) AS Completed, Count([pkServiceID])-Sum(IIf(IsNull([CompletionDate]),0,1)) AS Uncompleted, Count(dbo_MyServiceRequests.pkServiceID) AS TotalCount FROM dbo_qryMyServices LEFT JOIN dbo_MyServiceRequests ON dbo_qryMyServices.FormsServiceID = dbo_MyServiceRequests.PostType GROUP BY dbo_qryMyServices.FormsServiceID, dbo_qryMyServices.ServiceName ORDER BY dbo_qryMyServices.ServiceName;
because it's Access and got VBA stuff in it - IIF and ISNULL, I can't figure out how to make it work in proper SQL.
I have created a job which performs linked server inserts, the job is scheduled to run every 15min. The Job inserts to a local linked server, some data from one of our log tables. That linked server inturn gathers more data from other servers and exports that data to another application for further processing.
My problem is that I need to reference local machine (DNS Name) as a variable which can be passed along with the linked server insert. If I can get the Server name dynamically I can run this as a remote job on 2 or 20 or 200 servers and It will give the log data and the name of the source server.
QUESTION: How Do I reference the server name from within TSQL as a variable.
Is there a way to connect to another server in a TSQL script. I would assume that there would be but, I must be missing it somewhere. I found the ESQL CONNECT TO function but, can't seem to get that working either. Any help (even telling me it's not possible) would be appreciated.
I have been building a database in SQL Server Express for some months now using the Windows level authentication login that has given me full access to everything in the database.
The time has now come where I need to create user accounts and grant permissions to specific stored procedures and I'm having trouble doing this.
Can anyone give me a brief rundown of the required T-SQL commands I need to set up a user account that can do nothing but run stored procs (not the system procs which apparently are being discontinued: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182795.aspx).
So far I have:-
CREATE LOGIN db_test_user WITH PASSWORD = 'eXaMpL3Pwd USE db_new CREATE USER db_test_user
The above code executes successfully but when I try and connect (using Management Studio) I get error message 'The user is not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection (error 18452)' which means little to me.
I also tried creating a 'WITHOUT LOGIN' user for the database but could not figure out how to give it a password.
I don't know (/understand) roles/schemas and don't know if I really need them as I only need user access to specific stored procs. I don't ever want them to see the tables for example so they only need the most restricted access.
