We're looking at rewriting part of one of our applications and FINALLY
moving from SQL 7.0 to SQL 2000.
One reason we haven't is currently the table we index has 3 columns we want
to be able to do a FT search against and since SP3 on SQL 7, MS has
"changed" the rules.
So, our current solution is probably going to be to jam all 3 fields into a
single "superfield" (probably in some sort of XML format for future use.)
(so something like <xml><title>Tale of Two Cities</title><Author>Charles
Dickens</author><body>It was the best of times...</body></xml>) (XML format
has not been decided upon).
Anyway, we also want to be able to have HTML tags within the text.
Now, several questions:
My understanding is SQL 2000 gives us things like:
Change tracking
Scalability beyond 1 million rows (a serious problem right now, as we add
about 1-2 million rows a year.)
What else?
My understanding is the word breaker dll's depend partly on the OS? That
Windows 2003 is "better" in some ways?
Is there one that can give us good "breaking" on HTML (we are currently
stripping it out which causes other issues) and allows decent FORMSOF and
INFLECTIONAL support?
(for example run would find runs, running, ran, etc.)
Is it work upgrading to Windows 2003? (I'm not sure I can justify it unless
the features really help).
Thanks.
--
Greg D. Moore
President Green Mountain Software
Personal: http://stratton.greenms.com
SQL FTS in SQL 7 and SQL 2000 does not index properties. So if you are
expecting to be able to query the Title, or Author independently of the body
you will be unable to do so.
XML is problematic for the same reason if you choose to index it as XML in
columns of the image data type using the document type column. If you index
XML or HTML in the text or char columns your results will be unpredictable
due to how the word breaker treats words that are adjacent to the <, and >
symbols.
I would advise you to render your content as text instead of indexing it as
XML or HTML. You could have two columns one with the content with the tags,
and the other without. You could index the column which does not contain the
HTML or XML tags, and then display the columns which do.
I would not characterize the Win2003 word breakers as better than the
Win2000 ones. I would say they have evolved, perform better, but have their
own idosyncracies. Word breakers will look at the stream of data which is
emmitted by the iFilters and break the stream into words or tokens according
to language rules. It is the iFilters which will examine the data in your
columns and extract the textual stream which it sends to the word breakers.
If you use the document type column and store data in its native form in the
image data type column, SQL FTI will read the value of the document type
column and apply the correct iFilter.
If you choose to do this HTML will be indexed correctly but not the author
(docauthor) or title (doctitle) metatags. XML elements, attributes and
values will not be indexed as they are considered to be properties by the
XML iFilter. Your best bet with XML is to shred it and store it in columns,
or to remove the tags and store it as text or char.
Contains and FreeText both do the linguistic stemming you are looking for.
I have seen performance increases with Win2003 on a rather large Full Text
catalog I have. I can't quantify it, but it is faster.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@.greenms.com> wrote in message
news:ds1bd.295162$bp1.244115@.twister.nyroc.rr.com. ..
> We're looking at rewriting part of one of our applications and FINALLY
> moving from SQL 7.0 to SQL 2000.
> One reason we haven't is currently the table we index has 3 columns we
want
> to be able to do a FT search against and since SP3 on SQL 7, MS has
> "changed" the rules.
> So, our current solution is probably going to be to jam all 3 fields into
a
> single "superfield" (probably in some sort of XML format for future use.)
> (so something like <xml><title>Tale of Two Cities</title><Author>Charles
> Dickens</author><body>It was the best of times...</body></xml>) (XML
format
> has not been decided upon).
> Anyway, we also want to be able to have HTML tags within the text.
> Now, several questions:
> My understanding is SQL 2000 gives us things like:
> Change tracking
> Scalability beyond 1 million rows (a serious problem right now, as we add
> about 1-2 million rows a year.)
> What else?
> My understanding is the word breaker dll's depend partly on the OS? That
> Windows 2003 is "better" in some ways?
> Is there one that can give us good "breaking" on HTML (we are currently
> stripping it out which causes other issues) and allows decent FORMSOF and
> INFLECTIONAL support?
> (for example run would find runs, running, ran, etc.)
> Is it work upgrading to Windows 2003? (I'm not sure I can justify it
unless
> the features really help).
> Thanks.
>
> --
> --
> Greg D. Moore
> President Green Mountain Software
> Personal: http://stratton.greenms.com
>
Showing posts with label limitations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label limitations. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
limitations, compatibility
Hi,
What are the limitations of using the automated conversion tool and how to deal with compatability issues?
Thanks
What are the limitations of using the automated conversion tool and how to deal with compatability issues?
Thanks
I assume the automated conversion tool you refer to is the DTS to SSIS migration tool? Not a big fan, I often think it is easier to stick with DTS until you have a need and/or the time to re-write using SSIS to the full, rather than the shortcuts the migration tool takes.
Try some of these references-
Upgrading DTS
(http://wiki.sqlis.com/default.aspx/SQLISWiki/UpgradingDTS.html)
Limitations to the MSDN Vs of SQL 2000?
Are there any limits to the number of user that can connect or anything like that with SQL 2000 (MSDN Vs)?
Thanks!
Hi,
http://databases.aspfaq.com/database/what-are-the-limitations-of-msde.html
MSDE has no limit in conncection, though it has a query governor to throttle the query execution:
HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
Limitations sql server 2000 Personal edition
SQL Server Personal edition
Enterprise Manager
on Win 2000
I have the above installed on my own computer
I have connected to a remote database using it's IP adress
I can see all the tables - eg NorthWind
With the appropriate login (Server Authentification) should I be able to
create a new database, Create new tables, see permissions and alter them ?
[I have ALSO TRIED www.aspenterprisemanager.com (we-based tool) same
situation can see but I cannaot do anything else!]
BUT have been told my login will allow this!!!!!
[I have also tried connecting through Query Analyser - no creates allowed]
Jim Bunton
Ok - sorted thsi no replies required thanks
"Jim Bunton" <jBunton@.BlueYonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XK37f.173379$RW.126302@.fe2.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
> SQL Server Personal edition
> Enterprise Manager
> on Win 2000
> I have the above installed on my own computer
> I have connected to a remote database using it's IP adress
> I can see all the tables - eg NorthWind
> With the appropriate login (Server Authentification) should I be able to
> create a new database, Create new tables, see permissions and alter them
?
> [I have ALSO TRIED www.aspenterprisemanager.com (we-based tool) same
> situation can see but I cannaot do anything else!]
> BUT have been told my login will allow this!!!!!
> [I have also tried connecting through Query Analyser - no creates allowed]
> --
>
> Jim Bunton
>
Enterprise Manager
on Win 2000
I have the above installed on my own computer
I have connected to a remote database using it's IP adress
I can see all the tables - eg NorthWind
With the appropriate login (Server Authentification) should I be able to
create a new database, Create new tables, see permissions and alter them ?
[I have ALSO TRIED www.aspenterprisemanager.com (we-based tool) same
situation can see but I cannaot do anything else!]
BUT have been told my login will allow this!!!!!
[I have also tried connecting through Query Analyser - no creates allowed]
Jim Bunton
Ok - sorted thsi no replies required thanks
"Jim Bunton" <jBunton@.BlueYonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XK37f.173379$RW.126302@.fe2.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
> SQL Server Personal edition
> Enterprise Manager
> on Win 2000
> I have the above installed on my own computer
> I have connected to a remote database using it's IP adress
> I can see all the tables - eg NorthWind
> With the appropriate login (Server Authentification) should I be able to
> create a new database, Create new tables, see permissions and alter them
?
> [I have ALSO TRIED www.aspenterprisemanager.com (we-based tool) same
> situation can see but I cannaot do anything else!]
> BUT have been told my login will allow this!!!!!
> [I have also tried connecting through Query Analyser - no creates allowed]
> --
>
> Jim Bunton
>
Limitations sql server 2000 Personal edition
SQL Server Personal edition
Enterprise Manager
on Win 2000
I have the above installed on my own computer
I have connected to a remote database using it's IP adress
I can see all the tables - eg NorthWind
With the appropriate login (Server Authentification) should I be able to
create a new database, Create new tables, see permissions and alter them ?
[I have ALSO TRIED www.aspenterprisemanager.com (we-based tool) same
situation can see but I cannaot do anything else!]
BUT have been told my login will allow this!!!!!
[I have also tried connecting through Query Analyser - no creates allowe
d]
--
Jim BuntonOk - sorted thsi no replies required thanks
"Jim Bunton" <jBunton@.BlueYonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XK37f.173379$RW.126302@.fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> SQL Server Personal edition
> Enterprise Manager
> on Win 2000
> I have the above installed on my own computer
> I have connected to a remote database using it's IP adress
> I can see all the tables - eg NorthWind
> With the appropriate login (Server Authentification) should I be able to
> create a new database, Create new tables, see permissions and alter them
?
> [I have ALSO TRIED www.aspenterprisemanager.com (we-based tool) same
> situation can see but I cannaot do anything else!]
> BUT have been told my login will allow this!!!!!
> [I have also tried connecting through Query Analyser - no creates allo
wed]
> --
>
> Jim Bunton
>
Enterprise Manager
on Win 2000
I have the above installed on my own computer
I have connected to a remote database using it's IP adress
I can see all the tables - eg NorthWind
With the appropriate login (Server Authentification) should I be able to
create a new database, Create new tables, see permissions and alter them ?
[I have ALSO TRIED www.aspenterprisemanager.com (we-based tool) same
situation can see but I cannaot do anything else!]
BUT have been told my login will allow this!!!!!
[I have also tried connecting through Query Analyser - no creates allowe
d]
--
Jim BuntonOk - sorted thsi no replies required thanks
"Jim Bunton" <jBunton@.BlueYonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XK37f.173379$RW.126302@.fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> SQL Server Personal edition
> Enterprise Manager
> on Win 2000
> I have the above installed on my own computer
> I have connected to a remote database using it's IP adress
> I can see all the tables - eg NorthWind
> With the appropriate login (Server Authentification) should I be able to
> create a new database, Create new tables, see permissions and alter them
?
> [I have ALSO TRIED www.aspenterprisemanager.com (we-based tool) same
> situation can see but I cannaot do anything else!]
> BUT have been told my login will allow this!!!!!
> [I have also tried connecting through Query Analyser - no creates allo
wed]
> --
>
> Jim Bunton
>
Limitations Server 2000 Personal Edition
SQL Server Personal edition
Enterprise Manager
on Win 2000
I have the above installed on my own computer
I have connected to a remote database using it's IP adress
I can see all the tables - eg NorthWind
With the appropriate login (Server Authentification) should I be able to
create a new database, Create new tables, see permissions and alter them ?
[I have ALSO TRIED www.aspenterprisemanager.com (we-based tool) same
situation can see but I cannaot do anything else!]
BUT have been told my login will allow this!!!!!
[I have also tried connecting through Query Analyser - no creates allowed]
Jim Bunton
It looks like you have read permissions only
http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
"Jim Bunton" wrote:
> SQL Server Personal edition
> Enterprise Manager
> on Win 2000
> I have the above installed on my own computer
> I have connected to a remote database using it's IP adress
> I can see all the tables - eg NorthWind
> With the appropriate login (Server Authentification) should I be able to
> create a new database, Create new tables, see permissions and alter them ?
> [I have ALSO TRIED www.aspenterprisemanager.com (we-based tool) same
> situation can see but I cannaot do anything else!]
> BUT have been told my login will allow this!!!!!
> [I have also tried connecting through Query Analyser - no creates allowed]
> --
>
> Jim Bunton
>
>
Enterprise Manager
on Win 2000
I have the above installed on my own computer
I have connected to a remote database using it's IP adress
I can see all the tables - eg NorthWind
With the appropriate login (Server Authentification) should I be able to
create a new database, Create new tables, see permissions and alter them ?
[I have ALSO TRIED www.aspenterprisemanager.com (we-based tool) same
situation can see but I cannaot do anything else!]
BUT have been told my login will allow this!!!!!
[I have also tried connecting through Query Analyser - no creates allowed]
Jim Bunton
It looks like you have read permissions only
http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
"Jim Bunton" wrote:
> SQL Server Personal edition
> Enterprise Manager
> on Win 2000
> I have the above installed on my own computer
> I have connected to a remote database using it's IP adress
> I can see all the tables - eg NorthWind
> With the appropriate login (Server Authentification) should I be able to
> create a new database, Create new tables, see permissions and alter them ?
> [I have ALSO TRIED www.aspenterprisemanager.com (we-based tool) same
> situation can see but I cannaot do anything else!]
> BUT have been told my login will allow this!!!!!
> [I have also tried connecting through Query Analyser - no creates allowed]
> --
>
> Jim Bunton
>
>
Limitations of SQL7 desktop DBMS?
what are the limitations of the DBMS?The following are the limitations (from what I can remember - some of these might apply to the personal edition for 2000):
2 CPU
2 Gb RAM
4 Gb per database
No publishing for transaction replication
No Distributed Partitioned Views
No Log Shipping
No Parallel DBCC
No Parallel index creation
No Failover clustering
2 CPU
2 Gb RAM
4 Gb per database
No publishing for transaction replication
No Distributed Partitioned Views
No Log Shipping
No Parallel DBCC
No Parallel index creation
No Failover clustering
Limitations of SQL Server Accelerator for BI
We are using BI Accelerator and we faced the problem that it is not possible
to insert new rows. We have some shared dimensions and when we define cubes
we also have to add list of dimensions. Very quickly we fill in the whole
space of the worksheet. The worksheet is protected and basically we do not
have any ability to have the whole Warehouse definition on one workbook. How
could we overcome this problem ?
There is not an easy solution to this.
In the latest version, there is a provision of controlling and invoking the
system via an XML file.
However, you will have to maintain the XML file yourself with your own XML
editor. Look in the 1.2 release notes and additional documentation.
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"ksp" <ksp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FBB639F4-F70C-4756-AE17-2060DB3FC1C1@.microsoft.com...
> We are using BI Accelerator and we faced the problem that it is not
possible
> to insert new rows. We have some shared dimensions and when we define
cubes
> we also have to add list of dimensions. Very quickly we fill in the whole
> space of the worksheet. The worksheet is protected and basically we do not
> have any ability to have the whole Warehouse definition on one workbook.
How
> could we overcome this problem ?
to insert new rows. We have some shared dimensions and when we define cubes
we also have to add list of dimensions. Very quickly we fill in the whole
space of the worksheet. The worksheet is protected and basically we do not
have any ability to have the whole Warehouse definition on one workbook. How
could we overcome this problem ?
There is not an easy solution to this.
In the latest version, there is a provision of controlling and invoking the
system via an XML file.
However, you will have to maintain the XML file yourself with your own XML
editor. Look in the 1.2 release notes and additional documentation.
Dave Wickert [MSFT]
dwickert@.online.microsoft.com
Program Manager
BI SystemsTeam
SQL BI Product Unit (Analysis Services)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"ksp" <ksp@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FBB639F4-F70C-4756-AE17-2060DB3FC1C1@.microsoft.com...
> We are using BI Accelerator and we faced the problem that it is not
possible
> to insert new rows. We have some shared dimensions and when we define
cubes
> we also have to add list of dimensions. Very quickly we fill in the whole
> space of the worksheet. The worksheet is protected and basically we do not
> have any ability to have the whole Warehouse definition on one workbook.
How
> could we overcome this problem ?
Limitations of SQL Server 2000?
Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?
Check out "Maximum Capacity Specifications" in the BOL. Your management is
wrong. SQL Server has handled databases over 10.5 TB in size. Most
problems I've seen with SQL Server (since 1993) have been
application-related.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127156075.664445.58460@.o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?
|||On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.
|||In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
cheaper than the migration.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote in message
news:brvui11h9g0fbtpctk0540mlicbc5jg3io@.4ax.com...
On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.
|||On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.
|||My guess is that an Oracle bigot made it into upper management and simply
decreed that it must be so. Forget about justifying it. Eventually, when
they realize they spent a ton of money and got nothing back, they'll can the
jerk and look at improving their code. Yeah, and maybe I'll win the
lottery. ;-)
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
"jxstern" <jxstern@.nowhere.xyz> wrote in message
news:6km0j1hpfndba26oj7adrgaene8f6c688b@.4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems
>with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?
Check out "Maximum Capacity Specifications" in the BOL. Your management is
wrong. SQL Server has handled databases over 10.5 TB in size. Most
problems I've seen with SQL Server (since 1993) have been
application-related.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127156075.664445.58460@.o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?
|||On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.
|||In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
cheaper than the migration.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote in message
news:brvui11h9g0fbtpctk0540mlicbc5jg3io@.4ax.com...
On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.
|||On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.
|||My guess is that an Oracle bigot made it into upper management and simply
decreed that it must be so. Forget about justifying it. Eventually, when
they realize they spent a ton of money and got nothing back, they'll can the
jerk and look at improving their code. Yeah, and maybe I'll win the
lottery. ;-)
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
"jxstern" <jxstern@.nowhere.xyz> wrote in message
news:6km0j1hpfndba26oj7adrgaene8f6c688b@.4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems
>with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.
Limitations of SQL Server 2000?
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.
There is no row limit - period. The individual is just making it up.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.
|||> Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
Total crap. SQL Server is capable of processing billions of rows and
multiple terabytes of data.
For examples, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...alability.mspx
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||You base your business on wild claims such as that? I have used single
tables with over 2 billion rows in them. One database has over 5 billion
total rows in it. This is on a 4 processor SQL 2000 machine.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
> Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
> Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
> I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
> from.
> I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
> of this online.
> Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
> I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
> of having the biggest and the best.
>
|||My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
so I can relay that back up.
Thank you all for your responses...
|||TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
was more normal), but not impossible.
But it has been gone a long time.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Mnemonic" wrote:
> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
> so I can relay that back up.
> Thank you all for your responses...
>
|||No, that wouldn't be it. SQL Server has never had such a limit for number of rows in a table (this
going back to MS SQL Server 1.0). At least not from an architectural viewpoint. :-)
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A05FBDB-F1ED-44B4-AD2D-CA7782810A24@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
> limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
> Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
> entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
> have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
> was more normal), but not impossible.
> But it has been gone a long time.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "Mnemonic" wrote:
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.
There is no row limit - period. The individual is just making it up.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.
|||> Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
Total crap. SQL Server is capable of processing billions of rows and
multiple terabytes of data.
For examples, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...alability.mspx
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||You base your business on wild claims such as that? I have used single
tables with over 2 billion rows in them. One database has over 5 billion
total rows in it. This is on a 4 processor SQL 2000 machine.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
> Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
> Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
> I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
> from.
> I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
> of this online.
> Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
> I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
> of having the biggest and the best.
>
|||My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
so I can relay that back up.
Thank you all for your responses...
|||TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
was more normal), but not impossible.
But it has been gone a long time.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Mnemonic" wrote:
> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
> so I can relay that back up.
> Thank you all for your responses...
>
|||No, that wouldn't be it. SQL Server has never had such a limit for number of rows in a table (this
going back to MS SQL Server 1.0). At least not from an architectural viewpoint. :-)
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A05FBDB-F1ED-44B4-AD2D-CA7782810A24@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
> limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
> Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
> entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
> have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
> was more normal), but not impossible.
> But it has been gone a long time.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "Mnemonic" wrote:
Limitations of SQL Server 2000?
Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?Check out "Maximum Capacity Specifications" in the BOL. Your management is
wrong. SQL Server has handled databases over 10.5 TB in size. Most
problems I've seen with SQL Server (since 1993) have been
application-related.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127156075.664445.58460@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?|||On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.|||In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
cheaper than the migration.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote in message
news:brvui11h9g0fbtpctk0540mlicbc5jg3io@.4ax.com...
On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.|||On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.|||My guess is that an Oracle bigot made it into upper management and simply
decreed that it must be so. Forget about justifying it. Eventually, when
they realize they spent a ton of money and got nothing back, they'll can the
jerk and look at improving their code. Yeah, and maybe I'll win the
lottery. ;-)
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"jxstern" <jxstern@.nowhere.xyz> wrote in message
news:6km0j1hpfndba26oj7adrgaene8f6c688b@.4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems
>with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?Check out "Maximum Capacity Specifications" in the BOL. Your management is
wrong. SQL Server has handled databases over 10.5 TB in size. Most
problems I've seen with SQL Server (since 1993) have been
application-related.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127156075.664445.58460@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?|||On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.|||In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
cheaper than the migration.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote in message
news:brvui11h9g0fbtpctk0540mlicbc5jg3io@.4ax.com...
On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.|||On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.|||My guess is that an Oracle bigot made it into upper management and simply
decreed that it must be so. Forget about justifying it. Eventually, when
they realize they spent a ton of money and got nothing back, they'll can the
jerk and look at improving their code. Yeah, and maybe I'll win the
lottery. ;-)
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"jxstern" <jxstern@.nowhere.xyz> wrote in message
news:6km0j1hpfndba26oj7adrgaene8f6c688b@.4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems
>with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.
Limitations of SQL Server 2000?
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.There is no row limit - period. The individual is just making it up.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.|||> Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
Total crap. SQL Server is capable of processing billions of rows and
multiple terabytes of data.
For examples, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/administration/2000/scalability.mspx
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||You base your business on wild claims such as that? I have used single
tables with over 2 billion rows in them. One database has over 5 billion
total rows in it. This is on a 4 processor SQL 2000 machine.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
> Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
> Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
> I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
> from.
> I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
> of this online.
> Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
> I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
> of having the biggest and the best.
>|||My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
so I can relay that back up.
Thank you all for your responses...|||TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
was more normal), but not impossible.
But it has been gone a long time.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Mnemonic" wrote:
> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
> so I can relay that back up.
> Thank you all for your responses...
>|||No, that wouldn't be it. SQL Server has never had such a limit for number of rows in a table (this
going back to MS SQL Server 1.0). At least not from an architectural viewpoint. :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A05FBDB-F1ED-44B4-AD2D-CA7782810A24@.microsoft.com...
> TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
> limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
> Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
> entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
> have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
> was more normal), but not impossible.
> But it has been gone a long time.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "Mnemonic" wrote:
>> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
>> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
>> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
>> so I can relay that back up.
>> Thank you all for your responses...
>>
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.There is no row limit - period. The individual is just making it up.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.|||> Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
Total crap. SQL Server is capable of processing billions of rows and
multiple terabytes of data.
For examples, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/administration/2000/scalability.mspx
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||You base your business on wild claims such as that? I have used single
tables with over 2 billion rows in them. One database has over 5 billion
total rows in it. This is on a 4 processor SQL 2000 machine.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
> Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
> Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
> I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
> from.
> I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
> of this online.
> Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
> I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
> of having the biggest and the best.
>|||My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
so I can relay that back up.
Thank you all for your responses...|||TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
was more normal), but not impossible.
But it has been gone a long time.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Mnemonic" wrote:
> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
> so I can relay that back up.
> Thank you all for your responses...
>|||No, that wouldn't be it. SQL Server has never had such a limit for number of rows in a table (this
going back to MS SQL Server 1.0). At least not from an architectural viewpoint. :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A05FBDB-F1ED-44B4-AD2D-CA7782810A24@.microsoft.com...
> TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
> limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
> Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
> entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
> have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
> was more normal), but not impossible.
> But it has been gone a long time.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "Mnemonic" wrote:
>> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
>> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
>> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
>> so I can relay that back up.
>> Thank you all for your responses...
>>
Limitations of SQL Server 2000?
Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?Check out "Maximum Capacity Specifications" in the BOL. Your management is
wrong. SQL Server has handled databases over 10.5 TB in size. Most
problems I've seen with SQL Server (since 1993) have been
application-related.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127156075.664445.58460@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?|||On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.|||In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
cheaper than the migration.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote in message
news:brvui11h9g0fbtpctk0540mlicbc5jg3io@.
4ax.com...
On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.|||On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems wit
h
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.|||My guess is that an Oracle bigot made it into upper management and simply
decreed that it must be so. Forget about justifying it. Eventually, when
they realize they spent a ton of money and got nothing back, they'll can the
jerk and look at improving their code. Yeah, and maybe I'll win the
lottery. ;-)
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"jxstern" <jxstern@.nowhere.xyz> wrote in message
news:6km0j1hpfndba26oj7adrgaene8f6c688b@.
4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems
>with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?Check out "Maximum Capacity Specifications" in the BOL. Your management is
wrong. SQL Server has handled databases over 10.5 TB in size. Most
problems I've seen with SQL Server (since 1993) have been
application-related.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127156075.664445.58460@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?|||On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.|||In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
cheaper than the migration.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote in message
news:brvui11h9g0fbtpctk0540mlicbc5jg3io@.
4ax.com...
On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.|||On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems wit
h
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.|||My guess is that an Oracle bigot made it into upper management and simply
decreed that it must be so. Forget about justifying it. Eventually, when
they realize they spent a ton of money and got nothing back, they'll can the
jerk and look at improving their code. Yeah, and maybe I'll win the
lottery. ;-)
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"jxstern" <jxstern@.nowhere.xyz> wrote in message
news:6km0j1hpfndba26oj7adrgaene8f6c688b@.
4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems
>with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.
Limitations of SQL Server 2000?
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.There is no row limit - period. The individual is just making it up.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.|||> Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
Total crap. SQL Server is capable of processing billions of rows and
multiple terabytes of data.
For examples, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...calability.mspx
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||You base your business on wild claims such as that? I have used single
tables with over 2 billion rows in them. One database has over 5 billion
total rows in it. This is on a 4 processor SQL 2000 machine.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
> Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
> Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
> I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
> from.
> I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
> of this online.
> Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
> I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
> of having the biggest and the best.
>|||My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
so I can relay that back up.
Thank you all for your responses...|||TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25
M
limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
was more normal), but not impossible.
But it has been gone a long time.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Mnemonic" wrote:
> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
> so I can relay that back up.
> Thank you all for your responses...
>|||No, that wouldn't be it. SQL Server has never had such a limit for number of
rows in a table (this
going back to MS SQL Server 1.0). At least not from an architectural viewpoi
nt. :-)
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A05FBDB-F1ED-44B4-AD2D-CA7782810A24@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the
25M
> limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
> Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
> entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
> have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
> was more normal), but not impossible.
> But it has been gone a long time.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "Mnemonic" wrote:
>
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.There is no row limit - period. The individual is just making it up.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.|||> Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
Total crap. SQL Server is capable of processing billions of rows and
multiple terabytes of data.
For examples, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...calability.mspx
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||You base your business on wild claims such as that? I have used single
tables with over 2 billion rows in them. One database has over 5 billion
total rows in it. This is on a 4 processor SQL 2000 machine.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
> Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
> Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
> I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
> from.
> I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
> of this online.
> Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
> I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
> of having the biggest and the best.
>|||My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
so I can relay that back up.
Thank you all for your responses...|||TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25
M
limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
was more normal), but not impossible.
But it has been gone a long time.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Mnemonic" wrote:
> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
> so I can relay that back up.
> Thank you all for your responses...
>|||No, that wouldn't be it. SQL Server has never had such a limit for number of
rows in a table (this
going back to MS SQL Server 1.0). At least not from an architectural viewpoi
nt. :-)
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A05FBDB-F1ED-44B4-AD2D-CA7782810A24@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the
25M
> limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
> Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
> entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
> have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
> was more normal), but not impossible.
> But it has been gone a long time.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "Mnemonic" wrote:
>
Limitations of SQL Server 2000 Personal Edition
Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep getting
an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K records
.
I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
than. The db is set to automatically grow.
TIA
MarkYour error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
> Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
> Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep
> getting
> an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K
> records.
> I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
> than. The db is set to automatically grow.
> TIA
> Mark|||Hello Geoff,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded similar
files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on my
PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried 2
of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work, it's
possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different version
s
of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
same point within the file.
Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the PE
version?
TIA
Mark
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Your error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
> that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
> columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
> delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
> extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
> is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||There are memory and processor usage limitations, but no database size
limitations in PE. Lok up "Maximum Capacity Limitations" in BOL. Also,
pre-expand your SQL Data files to hold the entire import. Auto-grow can
sometimes cause timeout issues.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA717DB-6D9D-4480-ADE8-4B64C9DB5DC6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hello Geoff,
> Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
> probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded
> similar
> files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on
> my
> PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
> It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried
> 2
> of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
> Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work,
> it's
> possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different
> versions
> of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
> same point within the file.
> Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the
> PE
> version?
> TIA
> Mark
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep getting
an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K records
.
I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
than. The db is set to automatically grow.
TIA
MarkYour error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
> Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
> Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep
> getting
> an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K
> records.
> I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
> than. The db is set to automatically grow.
> TIA
> Mark|||Hello Geoff,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded similar
files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on my
PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried 2
of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work, it's
possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different version
s
of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
same point within the file.
Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the PE
version?
TIA
Mark
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Your error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
> that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
> columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
> delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
> extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
> is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||There are memory and processor usage limitations, but no database size
limitations in PE. Lok up "Maximum Capacity Limitations" in BOL. Also,
pre-expand your SQL Data files to hold the entire import. Auto-grow can
sometimes cause timeout issues.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA717DB-6D9D-4480-ADE8-4B64C9DB5DC6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hello Geoff,
> Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
> probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded
> similar
> files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on
> my
> PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
> It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried
> 2
> of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
> Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work,
> it's
> possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different
> versions
> of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
> same point within the file.
> Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the
> PE
> version?
> TIA
> Mark
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
Limitations of SQL Server 2000 Personal Edition
Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep getting
an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K records.
I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
than. The db is set to automatically grow.
TIA
Mark
Your error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
> Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
> Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep
> getting
> an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K
> records.
> I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
> than. The db is set to automatically grow.
> TIA
> Mark
|||Hello Geoff,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded similar
files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on my
PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried 2
of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work, it's
possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different versions
of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
same point within the file.
Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the PE
version?
TIA
Mark
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Your error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
> that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
> columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
> delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
> extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
> is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||There are memory and processor usage limitations, but no database size
limitations in PE. Lok up "Maximum Capacity Limitations" in BOL. Also,
pre-expand your SQL Data files to hold the entire import. Auto-grow can
sometimes cause timeout issues.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA717DB-6D9D-4480-ADE8-4B64C9DB5DC6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hello Geoff,
> Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
> probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded
> similar
> files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on
> my
> PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
> It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried
> 2
> of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
> Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work,
> it's
> possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different
> versions
> of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
> same point within the file.
> Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the
> PE
> version?
> TIA
> Mark
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep getting
an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K records.
I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
than. The db is set to automatically grow.
TIA
Mark
Your error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
> Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
> Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep
> getting
> an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K
> records.
> I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
> than. The db is set to automatically grow.
> TIA
> Mark
|||Hello Geoff,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded similar
files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on my
PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried 2
of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work, it's
possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different versions
of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
same point within the file.
Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the PE
version?
TIA
Mark
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Your error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
> that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
> columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
> delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
> extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
> is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||There are memory and processor usage limitations, but no database size
limitations in PE. Lok up "Maximum Capacity Limitations" in BOL. Also,
pre-expand your SQL Data files to hold the entire import. Auto-grow can
sometimes cause timeout issues.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA717DB-6D9D-4480-ADE8-4B64C9DB5DC6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hello Geoff,
> Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
> probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded
> similar
> files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on
> my
> PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
> It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried
> 2
> of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
> Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work,
> it's
> possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different
> versions
> of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
> same point within the file.
> Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the
> PE
> version?
> TIA
> Mark
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
Limitations of SQL Server 2000 Personal Edition
Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep getting
an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K records.
I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
than. The db is set to automatically grow.
TIA
MarkYour error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
> Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
> Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep
> getting
> an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K
> records.
> I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
> than. The db is set to automatically grow.
> TIA
> Mark|||Hello Geoff,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded similar
files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on my
PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried 2
of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work, it's
possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different versions
of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
same point within the file.
Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the PE
version?
TIA
Mark
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Your error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
> that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
> columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
> delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
> extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
> is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
> > Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
> > Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep
> > getting
> > an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K
> > records.
> >
> > I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
> > than. The db is set to automatically grow.
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > Mark
>
>|||There are memory and processor usage limitations, but no database size
limitations in PE. Lok up "Maximum Capacity Limitations" in BOL. Also,
pre-expand your SQL Data files to hold the entire import. Auto-grow can
sometimes cause timeout issues.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA717DB-6D9D-4480-ADE8-4B64C9DB5DC6@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Geoff,
> Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
> probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded
> similar
> files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on
> my
> PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
> It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried
> 2
> of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
> Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work,
> it's
> possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different
> versions
> of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
> same point within the file.
> Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the
> PE
> version?
> TIA
> Mark
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> Your error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
>> that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number
>> of
>> columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or
>> tab
>> delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
>> extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column.
>> This
>> is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> "MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
>> > Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of
>> > SQL
>> > Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep
>> > getting
>> > an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K
>> > records.
>> >
>> > I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less
>> > than
>> > than. The db is set to automatically grow.
>> >
>> > TIA
>> >
>> > Mark
>>
Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep getting
an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K records.
I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
than. The db is set to automatically grow.
TIA
MarkYour error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
> Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
> Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep
> getting
> an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K
> records.
> I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
> than. The db is set to automatically grow.
> TIA
> Mark|||Hello Geoff,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded similar
files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on my
PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried 2
of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work, it's
possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different versions
of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
same point within the file.
Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the PE
version?
TIA
Mark
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Your error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
> that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
> columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
> delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
> extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
> is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
> > Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
> > Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep
> > getting
> > an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K
> > records.
> >
> > I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
> > than. The db is set to automatically grow.
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > Mark
>
>|||There are memory and processor usage limitations, but no database size
limitations in PE. Lok up "Maximum Capacity Limitations" in BOL. Also,
pre-expand your SQL Data files to hold the entire import. Auto-grow can
sometimes cause timeout issues.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA717DB-6D9D-4480-ADE8-4B64C9DB5DC6@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Geoff,
> Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
> probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded
> similar
> files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on
> my
> PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
> It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried
> 2
> of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
> Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work,
> it's
> possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different
> versions
> of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
> same point within the file.
> Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the
> PE
> version?
> TIA
> Mark
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> Your error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
>> that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number
>> of
>> columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or
>> tab
>> delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
>> extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column.
>> This
>> is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> "MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
>> > Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of
>> > SQL
>> > Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep
>> > getting
>> > an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K
>> > records.
>> >
>> > I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less
>> > than
>> > than. The db is set to automatically grow.
>> >
>> > TIA
>> >
>> > Mark
>>
Limitations of Report Builder
What functionality does Report builder NOT provide that can be achieved within Report Designer through BIDS. Basically what are the limitations of report builder, what can report builder not do?
Thanks
Can anyone help please?
I believe it is the case that you cannot open a report developed in report designer through report builder. Is this true?
|||Report Builder is not a slimmed down version of Report Designer, it is a completely different design time experience. As such I don't think it is quite valid to try to compare them from a feature perspective because they do completely different things.
ReportBuilder is designed for people who don't know anything about the physical structure of the underlying data, and want to build "simple" reports based on predefined semantic models of the data. It is geared for users who want to think in terms of their business entities, and not tables/columns.
|||Ok, but is it correct you cannot edit reports with report builder?
1. Whether they were built using Report Builder
2. Or where built with report designer
Thanks
|||You should be able to edit reports you have previously created using Report Builder.|||The principal difference between Report Builder and Report Designer is the approach one would take to create report and skills level required for it.
Report Designer is a universal tool where one can create any kind of report of any kind of complexity. This requires the author to provide SQL statement that would return data, understand that data and how to group it and how to build aggregates such as Sum/Count/Average etc, design layout, attach fields from query to the layout, write VB expressions, may be custom code (again VB) or custom assemblies that would extend default function library and so on. Once such report is created, it is published and end users execute it to see results.
Report Builder is a new technology that addresses the necessity of quick ad-hoc reports that can be created easily by users without skills in any programming environments, languages and have no idea how physical database is organised. That does not mean that Report Builder is less capable, one can create very sophisticated reports with it. It's just the purpose and the scope are a bit different. Report Builder requires semantic models which currently can be built for MS Sql Server only. In Yukon SP2 model support is extended to include Oracle databases. Note that adhoc reports created in Report Builder can be saved (published) to report server. They also can be loaded into Report Designer, but once changed in RD, they can no longer be loaded back into RB.
Limitations of Report Builder
What functionality does Report builder NOT provide that can be achieved within Report Designer through BIDS. Basically what are the limitations of report builder, what can report builder not do?
Thanks
Can anyone help please?
I believe it is the case that you cannot open a report developed in report designer through report builder. Is this true?
|||Report Builder is not a slimmed down version of Report Designer, it is a completely different design time experience. As such I don't think it is quite valid to try to compare them from a feature perspective because they do completely different things.
ReportBuilder is designed for people who don't know anything about the physical structure of the underlying data, and want to build "simple" reports based on predefined semantic models of the data. It is geared for users who want to think in terms of their business entities, and not tables/columns.
|||Ok, but is it correct you cannot edit reports with report builder?
1. Whether they were built using Report Builder
2. Or where built with report designer
Thanks
|||You should be able to edit reports you have previously created using Report Builder.|||The principal difference between Report Builder and Report Designer is the approach one would take to create report and skills level required for it.
Report Designer is a universal tool where one can create any kind of report of any kind of complexity. This requires the author to provide SQL statement that would return data, understand that data and how to group it and how to build aggregates such as Sum/Count/Average etc, design layout, attach fields from query to the layout, write VB expressions, may be custom code (again VB) or custom assemblies that would extend default function library and so on. Once such report is created, it is published and end users execute it to see results.
Report Builder is a new technology that addresses the necessity of quick ad-hoc reports that can be created easily by users without skills in any programming environments, languages and have no idea how physical database is organised. That does not mean that Report Builder is less capable, one can create very sophisticated reports with it. It's just the purpose and the scope are a bit different. Report Builder requires semantic models which currently can be built for MS Sql Server only. In Yukon SP2 model support is extended to include Oracle databases. Note that adhoc reports created in Report Builder can be saved (published) to report server. They also can be loaded into Report Designer, but once changed in RD, they can no longer be loaded back into RB.
Limitations of MeasureExpression
I have a many to many dimensional problem that I am trying to solve.
Am I right in thinking that MeasureExpression is limited to a simple expression such as [value]*[percantage] and cannot cope with [value]*[percentage1]*[percentage2]?
What I am trying to achieve is similar to the example under the heading Measure Expressions and Many-to-Many Dimensions in the article http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/ms345139.aspx. In this example there is a many to many relationship between Organisation and Store Sales; and the weighted [Amount] is calculated in the MeasureExpression as [Amount]*[Ownership].
They key difference in my scenario is that instead of a single many to many relationship between Organisation and Store Sales I have several relationships so I would need to have a calculation such as [Amount]*[Ownership]*[Sales Director Percentage].
Is there a way that MeasureExpression could support more complex calculations - or is there a better way to achieve this?
Thanks
Yes, the measure expressions are limited to A*B or A/B. You should check out Marco Russo's paper on many-to-many dimensions and see if there is anything in there you can use: http://www.sqlbi.eu/Default.aspx?tabid=80|||Thanks for your input Michael. In fact I had come across that document the previous day, but it doesn't cover my particular scenario. The tricky bit is always that fact that there is a weighting to be applied to each of the many-to-many dimensions.
In the end I decided to handle this in the ETL by breaking down the fact table into constituent parts representing each unique combination and have SSAS aggregate only those needed for each calculation. It seems to me that SSAS is very good at aggregation, but not so good at apportioning values.
We live and learn ...
|||What about this case:
create intermediate measure as AB = A * B and set its visible property to false
and than create your target measure as MyMeasure = AB * C
|||I guess that would work in theory, but since I actually need A * B * C * D * E I would need three invisible measures and one visible one which seems a little clunky.
Having talked this through with a couple of other people I think the solution of breaking this down in the ETL process and having SSAS simply perform the aggregation seems to be the best approach.
Thanks.
|||Hi,
you can try and use Calculated Measures (calculations).
The expressions here can take multiple measures, and also infact invoke .Net assemblies/ stored procedures.
Apart from that , you can use MDX and its array of functions.
check the MSDN site on Calculated Measures.
HTH
Regards
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)