I am currently using the SQL Server Express edition with the intention of upgrading to the full version in the future.
I know the size limitation on the Database is 4GB - however does this include the log file as well? Nothing I read says the log file is included however if anyone can give the definitive answer I would be grateful.
Also my log file maximum is set to 2GB what issues are there with reducing this to say 500MB? I assume SQL Server automatically drops the old log data to add new data when the maximum is reached.
I've created a database design and I'm trying to figure out if it's workable or not. I have 2 tables in particular that are sparse (20 columns, but only a few have data - about 100 bytes/row) but will grow very large - to the tune of 700 million rows.
My question is whether or not there is a problem with SQL Server 2005 having 1.5+ billion rows of data even though it will likely only take up 100 gigs or so on disk. Anyone have experience in large numbers of rows like this? We're still doing testing as far determining how slow queries will get.
I was looking around, and I found this info on SQL Server Express:The 4 GB database size limit applies only to data files and not to log files. However, there are no limits to the number of databases that can be attached to the server.Does this mean I can use several different databases in my website, like one separate db containing forum entries, and one with user details and related stuff?
I'm building an ASP.NET application using C# language and SQL Server 2000. This application is dedicated to be hosted on a VIsta Machine.Unfortunately Vista does not supports SQL SERVER 2000 so i must migrate to the SQL SERVER 2005. Since the application is a small application, we couldn't afford buying an SQL SERVER 2005 License so i decided to use SQL SERVER 2005 Express Edition. But i would like to know exactly what are the Limitation on the Express Edition to see if it will work with my application or No. Please Can anyone refer any document that describes in details all the limitation of the Express Edition ??? Thanks a lot.
I have software that uses SQL Server Express as it's database. I am only able to import so many records until it stops and fails to allow me to import anymore.
I'm very new at this but, is there some type of limitation on Table size that's preventing me from importing anymore data?
I'd really appreciate it if someone could help me,
I am using OpenXML to put the XML records into SQL Server 2000. I want to know how big xml file can be inserted without significant problems in SQL Server 2000? Are there any limitations of OpenXML? I am using ntext as the holder for XML stream data.
Here is the stored procedure.
Code Block CREATE PROCEDURE insertDInfo (@OrderDoc ntext) AS DECLARE @hDoc int EXEC sp_xml_preparedocument @hDoc output, @OrderDoc INSERT INTO [DInfo] SELECT * from OPENXML (@hDoc,'Data/Despatch',3) with ( [ID_Key] varchar(60) '@ID_Key', DNumber varchar(50) '@DNumber', PartNumber varchar (50) '@PartNumber', Quantity real '@Quantity', OrderNumber varchar (50) '@OrderNumber', ) ORDER BY DNumber EXEC sp_xml_removedocument @hDoc GO
I have a problem I can't seem to find the solution with this aweful limitations on VARCHAR fields of 255.
Within a stored procedure called Store_Check, I need to dynamically build a string (@string) using VARCHAR(255) since the text datatype can't be used in a stored procedure.
So,this string is built according to whether the Store ID is NOT NULL. So if the StoreID is not null, I start building this string 'Exec Update_Store_Address @StoreID1, @address2'. There are 20 StoreID's passed into Store_Check. IF all 20 StoreID's are not NULL, the executed String greatly exceeds 255 because the string winds up looking like this
I am not executing this string within the StoredCheck procedure. It needs to be passed as ONE string to a VB program and it gets executed by the VB program. Even if I create 4 local variables and concatenate them, it stops at the 255th character.
Also, a local varialbe of type TEXT cannot be declared within stored procedure.
Hi, I was curious if anyone knew if there was a way to get around SQL Express Edition 2005's limitations to support remote connections. If I install SQL Server 2005, will there be a smooth transition between the two on my IIS 5.1 server? My database is extremely simple and only consists of a single table without any complex queries. Idealy, I would like to spend no money since I am a poor collge student doing this as a project. Suggestions?
I had a question about the CPU limitations of SQL express. It says limited to 1 CPU but what if I have multiple instaces since the application is a new service and runs in it 'sown memory space how is it limited to 1 CPU? does the service use multiple processors and the queris are binded to one?
With the limitation of 1Gb of ram and 1 CPU for SQL Express, does that mean we cannot load it on a server with multiple CPU's and more ram, or that we can load it and it will only use 1CPU and 1Gb of ram?
What are the limitations of sql server express edition? For example oracle released Oracle express and its limitation is of maximum user data size of 4 gb.
I am aware that SQL Express has a memory limitation of 1GB. I am trying to determine if this 1GB memory is shared with the Report Server. In other words, if I run a query that requires 600MB of memory, and a report that pushes the Report Server to 600MB of memory, will I exceed the 1GB limit for SQL Express? Or are these two separate processes for memory limitation purposes?
If they are separate processes, are there any limitations to the Report Server as far as performance when using the Express edition of SSRS? If not, would it not make sense to push the Report Server harder than the database when running reports if SQL Express is my target platform? (e.g., do MORE work in the RS, and less in the database itself)
SQL Express Ed is limited to one CPU, what happens if the CPU is a dual core CPU? Does SQL Express care? Does it see a dual core as a single CPU?
As for memory, stupid question, SQL Express is limited to 1 GB RAM, if I run it on a server with say 4GB of ram packed into it, will it affect SQL Express' performance? Will SQL Express even run if there is more than 1GB available? Or will SQL Express simply ignore the extra RAM with no negative consequences?
I've been developing a vb app with sql server 2005 and had planned to use express as the client server so the db could be distributed with the app. After importing 21 csv text files, I realized that I have way too much data. My understanding is that sqlexpress can only work with max 4gb database.
The 21 csv files (total 925mb) brought the db size up to 1.5gb and I still have at least 250 more files to go. Obviously, I need a different approach. What are the size limitations of the non express version of sql server 2005? Any suggestions on the best approach for this type of situation?
I want to store a Zip file as a BLOB, but I get an error: "File 'C:<path of mdf file> ' appears to have been truncated by the operating system. Expected size is 2560KB but actual size is 1536KB " whenever the BLOB exceeds 1MB.
Any suggestions? How can I store larger .ZIP files to the Database? I am using MS SQL 2005 Express and the data type that I gave for the column to store Blob is "varbinary(MAX)".
I am inserting byte array in to this field. It works fine for a zip file less than 1MB but as soon as the zipped file size increases beyond 1MB, lots of error pop-up and then the database is not readable. Its says that, the data in the data base may have been corrupted...
As SQL Server XE can run on one PC maximum, does it mean that it can't support multi users??? I mean could it be installed on one server and to be used by multiple users connected to server with their PCs?
We are primarily a DB2 and Oracle shop. There are movements towards SQL Server for smaller applications. We would like to know if anyone out there has shop standards in determining which database should go with what type of application. What we are looking for are possibly database sizes, number of concurrent users, hardware and software cost, network infrastructure, security, scalability, and development tools. Any information would be appreciated.
Hi all,I'm looking for some ball park estimates on when SQL Server might startto break down, and can't find any reliable info. Any insight is appreciated.Basically, the situation is this: The database structure is very simple;just one table with about 15 columns and about 60-75 million rows. There'sno need for massaging data or complex relations, just simple searches onmaybe a max of 5 columns. Out of the gates we'll be looking at having 30concurrent users and rapidly expanding to about 300-400 concurrent users.I might need to rebuild the database on a daily or weekly basisdepending on how often changes are made to a master file. In the past I'vebeen bit in the butt with the absolute crappiness of SQL Server'sreplication, so I'm going to try to avoid that path if I can (plus I alreadyhave some scripts written to delete and rebuild a similar database on anightly basis). Would it be practical to destroy and rebuild a database thissize on a daily basis?The big question is if searching 60-75 million records is practical inSQL server. If so, what kind of machine would I need to get a nearly instantresponse time per search (.2 second or so) when everyone's banging on it atonce? How many concurrent users can I expect to be able to practicallysupport before SQL Server will start to bog down? Thanks for your thoughts,-Ringo
Why is it, Microsoft manage to write operating systems and officeapplications with every bell and whistle facility known to man. Yet,even after years and years of development they still cannot produce adecent version of MS SQL Server, one without a plethora of flaws andlimitations? Personally I'd sack the MS SQL Server Chief Architect,start addressing some fundementals and do what MS do best - copy thebest functionality of their competitors.Here's a few reasons why I feel MS SQL Server is still a load of crap,and will never be many developers RDBMS of choice :1. Can't use domains in Multi-statement table-valued function tabledefinition2. No concept of table.column.datatype MYTABLE.MYCOLUMN%TYPE forfunction / proc parameters, variables. Schema evolution will requirechanges to dep functions / procs.3. Cannot call non extended user defined procedure from within storedproc - prevents code re-use4. No create or replace for functions / procs. Changes to procsrequire either a change from create to alter, or drop then create5. Functions must return result on final statement - requiresexcessive use of local variables. Why!!!???6. No user specifiable date format routines - must use convert withlimited options7. No treewalk mechanism, not easy to traverse hierarchical structure8. Calling procedures with out parameters require user to alsospecifiy which are out params9. Stored Proc recursion limitations to only 32 nested levels, ratherthan monitoring by stack size.10. No on delete set null referential integrity, this is fundementalin relational databases, has to be done by trigger. Yuk.11. No partitioning on db tables12. Cannot raiseerror in stored functions. No way to inform user ofincorrect parameters etc.13. No facility for sub - procs / funcs - for localised codenormalisation.14. No function overloading15. No concept of grouping similar procs / functions into a collectivepackage - can mean 1000s of procs rather than a handful of packages.16. Non standard func / proc calling - proc non parenthesised but,function defined and called with parenthesis17. Limited column name length in table variables / Multi-statementtable-valued function table definitions18. No intersect, minus operators to complement union and union all19. No exception handling - need I say more about this fundementalrequirement?20. No handling for select statements using proc parameters passed inas null e.g.create procedure sp_test.............select @MyID = IDfrom mytablewhere parent_id = @parent_id.If @parent_id is null, select will not return anything even if valuesfor null parent_id exist.21 No boolean type for use in stored procs / funcs. SQL standards doallow booleans (null, FALSE, TRUE)22 No repeat until - (post predicate loops), while loops can performthis but one extra check often has to be performed23 No equivalent to cursor or table %ROWTYPE, when fetching from amany column cursor, all bind variables have to be declaredindividually24. Declarative Delete cascade in SQL Server is at best rubbish - e.g.No table can appear more than once in the list of all cascadingreferential actions that result from the DELETE or UPDATE. Almost allother RDBMS I've tried seems to manage it.Create Table ForKey(MyID int not null identity primary key,MyText varchar(30))goCreate Table Refs(SomeID int not null primary key,RefID1 int not null foreign key references ForKey(MyID) on deletecascade,RefID2 int not null foreign key references ForKey(MyID) on deletecascade)Server: Msg 1785, Level 16, State 1, Line 2Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint 'FK__Refs__RefID2__1BFD2C07' ontable 'Refs' may cause cycles or multiplecascade paths. Specify ON DELETE NO ACTION or ON UPDATE NO ACTION, ormodify other FOREIGN KEY constraints.Server: Msg 1750, Level 16, State 1, Line 2Could not create constraint. See previous errors.25. Domains cannot be altered without dropping all dependencies(stored procs / funcs) even if type isn't changed but say scale andprecision- this is ridiculous. What is the point of domains?26. No "for loop", while loops can perform this, but resultant code isnot as clear or tidy27. Can't use CURDATE() inside stored procs / funcs. How crap isthat?Don't try and make excuses for MS as I have hundreds, anyone else haveany?Jeager
Whats the limitations of data storage in sqlserver DB. How will be the perforamcne if i have database which will get a data of 400 GB per year and all the data should be there in the table the whole year and then it can be archived.
My office gave me assignment to find out the scope & limitations of the two Microsoft database applications - MS Access and MS SQL Server. After the findings, we have to chose the more appropriate database for our new project, which will have a humble start but may grow big in a year or two.
I will apreciate the info in facts & figures (not only in general).
Hi, I'm not sure if this is where I should post this, but I'm trying to find out what the limitations of SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition (DE) are. I've gone through the Microsoft SQL Server site and they have very little information about the developer edition.Is there a connection limit for DE like 2000 did?
Apologies for the generic subject heading but I have a client who at my suggestion has implemented a reporting solution using SSRS. However, we are now finding serious limitations with this solution, primarily regarding exporting matrix data to Excel. The major concern is that after exporting matrix data you cannot sort, filter or format properly as we cannot repeat the group data, merged cells is also another big problem.
They are now seriously looking at bringing in different technology to address these problems and I was wondering if anybody had any positive ideas, as to how I can provide a way forward and overcome our issues?
Can I easily add an add-in to the existing export options, does SQL 2008 offer any improvements, are there any 3rd party offerings out there?
1) SSRS export to Excel functionallity has an important limitation... is terribly slow when exporting huge amount of data to Excel. 2) Subreport are not supported to export in excel. This is some known issue and limitations of SSRS.
I'm having an issue in encrypting large documents. I know that previous editions ENCRYPTBYKEY had a maximum size of 8,000 byte limitation. Does SQL Server 2014 have any new features that overcomes this limitation?
Using SQL Server 2014 Std Symmetric key with AES_256
I am trying to resize a database initial log file from 500M to 2M. I€™m using€?
ALTER DATABASE <DBNAME> MODIFY FILE ( NAME = <DBLOGFILENAME, SIZE = 2 ) "
And I'm getting "MODIFY FILE failed. Specified size is less than current size." I tried going into the database properties and setting the log file to 2M, but it doesn€™t keep the changes.
Our system guy wants me to find out just exactly how much room is being taken up by the SQL Express databases (I am using two). I am not sure how to do this. Is there any way to find the size, or, lacking that, how many records overall? We will probably need to move up to SQL 2005 soon, but he needs to figure out the memory requirements, etc.
Okay, I know the maximum size limit on a database in SQL 2005 Express is 4GB, but what happens when you exceed that limit? I can't seem to find much info on that topic. What kind of error return would you get from a stored procedure attempting to do an insert that will exceed the 4GB limitation? Also what factors go into that maximum size, factors that might not be completely obvious of course?
