Why would something perform better on SQL 7.0 than SQL 2000?
The system runs fine for about 4 hours, then we will experience across the board timeouts. After stopping and re-starting the SQL Server service, performance is great.
Microsoft is telling us we need more clustered indexes (the database IS poorly tuned, but SQL 7.0 didn't seem to have a problem without them).
hello,I've been assigned to do performance tuning on an SQL2000 database(around 10GB in size, several instances).So far, I see a single RAID5 array, 4CPU (xeon 700MHZ), 4GB RAM.I see the raid5 as a bottleneck. I'd setup a raid 10 and seperate thelogs, database and OS(win2k).The one thing that was a bit odd to me was that I was told this placedoesn't use indexes. The company is a house builder. They are prettylarge.The IT manager isn't a programmer so she couldn't explain to me why noindexes are used. She told me the programmers just don't use indexes.Before I start investing more time on this, I'd really like to learnabout why you wouldn't want to use indexes - especially on such a largedatabase!Thanks,Oskar
i have sql2000 & sql2005 on the same machine. I am unable to register my localhost in sql2000, get an access denied error. How can I make my localhost use sql2000 database?
i am in the process of Migrating SQL 2000 to my new SQL2000 server i want to know the what would the best way for me to migrate one SQL server to another SQL server on the same network and rename the new server to the old server and bring it up for use in our ecommerce website.
Hello Everyone,I have a very complex performance issue with our production database.Here's the scenario. We have a production webserver server and adevelopment web server. Both are running SQL Server 2000.I encounted various performance issues with the production server with aparticular query. It would take approximately 22 seconds to return 100rows, thats about 0.22 seconds per row. Note: I ran the query in singleuser mode. So I tested the query on the Development server by taking abackup (.dmp) of the database and moving it onto the dev server. I ranthe same query and found that it ran in less than a second.I took a look at the query execution plan and I found that they we'rethe exact same in both cases.Then I took a look at the various index's, and again I found nodifferences in the table indices.If both databases are identical, I'm assumeing that the issue is relatedto some external hardware issue like: disk space, memory etc. Or couldit be OS software related issues, like service packs, SQL Serverconfiguations etc.Here's what I've done to rule out some obvious hardware issues on theprod server:1. Moved all extraneous files to a secondary harddrive to free up spaceon the primary harddrive. There is 55gb's of free space on the disk.2. Applied SQL Server SP4 service packs3. Defragmented the primary harddrive4. Applied all Windows Server 2003 updatesHere is the prod servers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.67GHZTotal Physical Memory 2GB, Available Physical Memory 815MBWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1Here is the dev serers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.80GHz2GB DDR2-SDRAMWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1I'm not sure what else to do, the query performance is an order ofmagnitude difference and I can't explain it. To me its is a hardware oroperating system related issue.Any Ideas would help me greatly!Thanks,Brian T*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Hello Everyone,I have a very complex performance issue with our production database.Here's the scenario. We have a production webserver server and adevelopment web server. Both are running SQL Server 2000.I encounted various performance issues with the production server witha particular query. It would take approximately 22 seconds to return100 rows, thats about 0.22 seconds per row. Note: I ran the query insingle user mode. So I tested the query on the Development server bytaking a backup (.dmp) of the database and moving it onto the devserver. I ran the same query and found that it ran in less than asecond.I took a look at the query execution plan and I found that they we'rethe exact same in both cases.Then I took a look at the various index's, and again I found nodifferences in the table indices.If both databases are identical, I'm assumeing that the issue isrelated to some external hardware issue like: disk space, memory etc.Or could it be OS software related issues, like service packs, SQLServer configuations etc.Here's what I've done to rule out some obvious hardware issues on theprod server:1. Moved all extraneous files to a secondary harddrive to free up spaceon the primary harddrive. There is 55gb's of free space on the disk.2. Applied SQL Server SP4 service packs3. Defragmented the primary harddrive4. Applied all Windows Server 2003 updatesHere is the prod servers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.67GHZTotal Physical Memory 2GB, Available Physical Memory 815MBWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1Here is the dev serers system specs:2x Intel Xeon 2.80GHz2GB DDR2-SDRAMWindows Server 2003 SE /w SP1I'm not sure what else to do, the query performance is an order ofmagnitude difference and I can't explain it. To me its is a hardware oroperating systemrelated issue.Any Ideas would help me greatly!Thanks,Brian T
Hi,I have made a web application using SQL Server 2005 Express with a few admin pages that require login. I used the SQL Server Managment Studio Express to setup users and groups and it works fine. But the web server has SQL Server 2000 and all I get is a user id and password to access the database. It seems I cannot use the Login control I put on my "login.aspx" page becuase it uses the integrated authentication which chokes on 2000. I am afraid I wonlt be able to use some of the 2.0 features such as profiles, ... Is this the way 2.0 works with SQL Server 2000? Should I ditch the ISP if they only give me a single access to database with no provisions to create users. (I was told I had to create a "Users" table and manually assign ids and passwords and that I can only use the user id and password they supplied to setup the connection string in the script.)I appreciate your help.
I am developing a Crystal Reports App in VS2005 (VB). I was originally working on an XP machine with MSDE and stored procedures where it worked fine. I then transferred the development to a Win2003 machine with SQL2000 and am now getting the following error; Failed to open a rowset. Description: 'Get_Calls_By_MLO_Date' expects parameter '@DT1' which was not supplied. Plus some other error detail. Here is the SP. CREATE PROCEDURE Get_Calls_By_MLO_By_Date @DT1 datetime, @DT2 datetimeASSELECT MLO, CallNo, DT, Type FROM ActionsWHERE dt >= @DT1 AND dt <= @DT2 AND ActionID=1 ORDER BY MLO, DTGO If I transfer everything back to the XP machine it works fine. Any ideas? Thanks Terry.
How to lock a Row in SQL2000 so that nobody can select that row. I applied ROWLOCK, but i am not finding the way. My query is "SELECT * FROM tablename WITH (ROWLOCK)" Is this the correct way to write locks. I would be thankful if u help me
I am exporting data to an Excel file via a scheduled DTS package. I need to be able to either overwrite the existing Excel file or delete it. I haven't found a way to do this yet. Any help, comments, or direction will be appreciated. TIA Paul
We're beginning to migrate our 6.5 DB's to SQL2000. A question came up regarding naming conventions for stored procedures. In BOL it says that for SQL2000:
"Stored procedures with the prefix sp_ are first looked up in master. If a user-defined stored procedure has the same name as a system-supplied stored procedure residing in master, SQL Server always finds the system-supplied stored procedure. "
Behavior in 6.5 was the opposite: SQL Server searched the current database followed by a search in master.
We started several months ago renaming user stored procedures to "usp_XXX", but we still have many non-system sp's that still use "sp_". I'm looking for opinions of whether we should bite the bullet now and rename all our non-system sp's at this time; prior to moving our production environment to SQL2000. Will we see a performance gain since SQL will not have to hit master first before going to the current DB?
When bcp'ing in data into an sql 6.5 table that is NOT nullable, records in the text file that contain nulls are ommited, but valid records without nulls are inserted. However, using exactly the same table structure and files on a newly installed sql 2000 server (sp2), as soon as the first invalid record in the text file (i.e. with a null value)is encountered, bcp'ing is terminated and NO records are inserted. I can't find any option in bcp/sql 2000 to allow me to carry out a load as before. The help files state that the default no. of invalid records allowed is 10 (both versions sql), and explicitly setting the -m option of bcp to 10 still doesn't work. Most of the data i receive has at least one duff record Is there an option in sql 2000 that allows me to have x number of duff records inserted before a full rollsback occurs?
I can't find anything in technet, msdn or books online.
Does SQL 2000 standard edition support replication if it would be configured as a subscriber. Is SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition required for a Publisher and Distributor or can you get away with standard edition. In a web site environment how many CALs are needed when users access the database via webservers and middleware.
I am experimenting with the FOR XML AUTO clause in SQL2000, but instead of nicely structured XML I get one continuous string oftags that can't be parsed by IE5.5
The BOL seem to indicate just running the query in Query Analyser will produce nicely formatted XML output - can anybody tell me what is wrong?
I need some strong points for the management to convince them to upgrade to sql2000 now than waiting for 6 months. We are currently in process of developing this new product. All development is on sql7. I want to upgrade our database to sql2000 now rather than waiting after the release which might be in another 3 months.
I crashed my HP portable that has SQL2000 ENT installed and I re-installed XP-Pro +SP1 and when I install SQL2000 ENT it refused to install saying ENT cannot install in this O/S. Did I miss anything ?
I went and checked another XP-Pro W/S and SQL2000 is intalled OK.
Is it possible to fire a update trigger from SQL6.5 table to update a SQL2000 server database table field value? (upgrade this 'legacy' to sql2k now is not an option)
If it is not possible, is there a way to accomplish it?
Hi, I noticed that when I installed SQL2000,with "typical install", the default, the following will be used: SQL collation (dictionary order, case-insensitive, assent sensitive) sp_helpsort will give SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AI
Is there any difference if I choose the "custom install", then and choose the windows locale which gives the result of sp_helpsort: Latin1_General_CI_AI
SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AI is supposed for backward compatibilty, so are they actually equivalent ?? Any impact or difference we have to be aware of ?? Anyone knows..Thx
I will be upgrading my SQL7 Servers (SP1) to SQL2000 and NT4 to WIN2000 this year. Unfortunately, I will not be able to get new boxes to do this, so I will have to do the upgrades on the systems I have. Our network people have not yet developed a plan for the WIN2K upgrade of our entire network. I will have to upgrade the SQL Servers before they have their plan together. If I want, I can upgrade the SQL Servers to WIN2K before the rest of the network. Assuming that the WIN2K upgrade and the SQL Server upgrade can not be done at the same time, which would be the better order (and why), upgrading to WIN2K and staying at SQL7 first or upgrading to SQL2000 and staying at NT4? The primary goal is to get the indexed views to improve performance on reports and queries.
I use ISA2000 +SQL2000. All log write to datebase in SQL. I need help. I want delete all records old 40 days. I run scripts {delete from MyTable where LogTime < DateAdd(d, -40, GetDate())}, but my trunsaction log state more 1G and task stop with error. How i can resolve this problem???
We are beginning our research to migrate from our current SQL 6.5 and are wondering if we should migrate to SQL2000 rather than to SQL 7. First of all, is this possible or will we need to migrate to SQL 7 before migrating to SQL2000? Also where can I find good resources to learn more about the changes in SQL 7 as well as those in SQL 2000?
I am attempting a very simple bcp out to a text file in SQL 2000 for the first time. I've tried various syntax but the command consistently hangs no matter which i use. Nothing is being directed to the output log............
"bcp rfsspd..bcp_product_view out product.out -T -c -b500 -r>>test.log"
I have no problems with this command in SQL 6.5, could it be initial setup or config of 2000 or something really daft????
