Showing posts with label limits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label limits. Show all posts

Monday, March 19, 2012

Limits to length of Stored Proc

In SQL Server 2000, I've got a rather lengthy stored procedure, which
creates a lot of temporary tables as it processes down through a few
sets of data.
When testing it through Query Analyzer, it runs fine (a bit slow
though). But when I try to run it through the ade, it doesn't do
anything. It runs through the procedure in milliseconds but doesn't
seem to ever actually start it. If I change the calling code in the
ade VBA to refer to a different SP, it will call/run the different SP,
so I don't think its the way I call it.
Is there a limit to the number of lines a stored procedure can have,
or some other limit on memory or transactions?I doubt the proc size is the issue. Have you included SET NOCOUNT ON at
the beginning of the proc?

--
Hope this helps.

Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP

--------
SQL FAQ links (courtesy Neil Pike):

http://www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index...epartmentID=800
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq
--------

"C Kirby" <ckirby@.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:psdqlvklfnjtml6v4jr8ambl2c3fns0lk0@.4ax.com...
> In SQL Server 2000, I've got a rather lengthy stored procedure, which
> creates a lot of temporary tables as it processes down through a few
> sets of data.
> When testing it through Query Analyzer, it runs fine (a bit slow
> though). But when I try to run it through the ade, it doesn't do
> anything. It runs through the procedure in milliseconds but doesn't
> seem to ever actually start it. If I change the calling code in the
> ade VBA to refer to a different SP, it will call/run the different SP,
> so I don't think its the way I call it.
> Is there a limit to the number of lines a stored pr|||Hi

You would not be able to compile the Stored procedure if you have hit a size
limit, although it could be the query cost that is somehow behaving
differently and therefore hitting that limit (see sp_configure/ query
governor cost limit in Books online).

If you can run this through QA it seems most likely that you are not passing
the parameters incorrectly in your code, so try adding some debug
statements! If the procedure is as long as you say, it is probably worth
consider modularising it and splitting it into sub-procedures; you may also
be able to re-write the code to be more efficient. This may also help stop
recompilations.

John

"C Kirby" <ckirby@.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:psdqlvklfnjtml6v4jr8ambl2c3fns0lk0@.4ax.com...
> In SQL Server 2000, I've got a rather lengthy stored procedure, which
> creates a lot of temporary tables as it processes down through a few
> sets of data.
> When testing it through Query Analyzer, it runs fine (a bit slow
> though). But when I try to run it through the ade, it doesn't do
> anything. It runs through the procedure in milliseconds but doesn't
> seem to ever actually start it. If I change the calling code in the
> ade VBA to refer to a different SP, it will call/run the different SP,
> so I don't think its the way I call it.
> Is there a limit to the number of lines a stored procedure can have,
> or some other limit on memory or transactions?|||Thanks for the help.. I do have NOCOUNT set to on, so I don't think
that is the problem.

I've tried to setup the debugging by using the IF @.@.ERROR <>0 ,
Rollback and return X.
I can't seem to get the front end to actually look at the return value
to tell if the sp ran successfully though, so something isn't quite
right with that.

As far as the parameters go, this sp doesn't use any, so I'm not
sending it any. Could this be why the front end isn't reading the
return parameter?

One question on splitting out the different functions into separate
stored procs. The very first thing the sp does is to create a temp
table holding the records to be manipulated. Right now it is named
#temp (or something like that). In order to reference this table from
another sp, should a use the double # ('##temp')?

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:02:09 +0100, "John Bell"
<jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi
>You would not be able to compile the Stored procedure if you have hit a size
>limit, although it could be the query cost that is somehow behaving
>differently and therefore hitting that limit (see sp_configure/ query
>governor cost limit in Books online).
>If you can run this through QA it seems most likely that you are not passing
>the parameters incorrectly in your code, so try adding some debug
>statements! If the procedure is as long as you say, it is probably worth
>consider modularising it and splitting it into sub-procedures; you may also
>be able to re-write the code to be more efficient. This may also help stop
>recompilations.
>John
>
>"C Kirby" <ckirby@.mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:psdqlvklfnjtml6v4jr8ambl2c3fns0lk0@.4ax.com...
>> In SQL Server 2000, I've got a rather lengthy stored procedure, which
>> creates a lot of temporary tables as it processes down through a few
>> sets of data.
>> When testing it through Query Analyzer, it runs fine (a bit slow
>> though). But when I try to run it through the ade, it doesn't do
>> anything. It runs through the procedure in milliseconds but doesn't
>> seem to ever actually start it. If I change the calling code in the
>> ade VBA to refer to a different SP, it will call/run the different SP,
>> so I don't think its the way I call it.
>> Is there a limit to the number of lines a stored procedure can have,
>> or some other limit on memory or transactions?|||> I've tried to setup the debugging by using the IF @.@.ERROR <>0 ,
> Rollback and return X.
> I can't seem to get the front end to actually look at the return value
> to tell if the sp ran successfully though, so something isn't quite
> right with that.
> As far as the parameters go, this sp doesn't use any, so I'm not
> sending it any. Could this be why the front end isn't reading the
> return parameter?

The return value is essentially an output parameter. Does your
procedure return resultsets? If so, you may need to consume those
before the return value is available.

> One question on splitting out the different functions into separate
> stored procs. The very first thing the sp does is to create a temp
> table holding the records to be manipulated. Right now it is named
> #temp (or something like that). In order to reference this table from
> another sp, should a use the double # ('##temp')?

The local temp table (#temp) is visible to the nested procs so you don't
need to resort to a global (##temp) table. An issue with global temp
tables is that you'll need to uniquely name them to handle concurrency.

--
Hope this helps.

Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP

"C Kirby" <ckirby@.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4m7ulvo2b8fbn7d230e30es5pl299c8to3@.4ax.com...
> Thanks for the help.. I do have NOCOUNT set to on, so I don't think
> that is the problem.
> I've tried to setup the debugging by using the IF @.@.ERROR <>0 ,
> Rollback and return X.
> I can't seem to get the front end to actually look at the return value
> to tell if the sp ran successfully though, so something isn't quite
> right with that.
> As far as the parameters go, this sp doesn't use any, so I'm not
> sending it any. Could this be why the front end isn't reading the
> return parameter?
> One question on splitting out the different functions into separate
> stored procs. The very first thing the sp does is to create a temp
> table holding the records to be manipulated. Right now it is named
> #temp (or something like that). In order to reference this table from
> another sp, should a use the double # ('##temp')?
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:02:09 +0100, "John Bell"
> <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi
> >You would not be able to compile the Stored procedure if you have hit
a size
> >limit, although it could be the query cost that is somehow behaving
> >differently and therefore hitting that limit (see sp_configure/ query
> >governor cost limit in Books online).
> >If you can run this through QA it seems most likely that you are not
passing
> >the parameters incorrectly in your code, so try adding some debug
> >statements! If the procedure is as long as you say, it is probably
worth
> >consider modularising it and splitting it into sub-procedures; you
may also
> >be able to re-write the code to be more efficient. This may also help
stop
> >recompilations.
> >John
> >"C Kirby" <ckirby@.mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:psdqlvklfnjtml6v4jr8ambl2c3fns0lk0@.4ax.com...
> >> In SQL Server 2000, I've got a rather lengthy stored procedure,
which
> >> creates a lot of temporary tables as it processes down through a
few
> >> sets of data.
> >> When testing it through Query Analyzer, it runs fine (a bit slow
> >> though). But when I try to run it through the ade, it doesn't do
> >> anything. It runs through the procedure in milliseconds but
doesn't
> >> seem to ever actually start it. If I change the calling code in
the
> >> ade VBA to refer to a different SP, it will call/run the different
SP,
> >> so I don't think its the way I call it.
> >> Is there a limit to the number of lines a stored procedure can
have,
> >> or some other limit on memory or transactions?|||Dan Guzman (danguzman@.nospam-earthlink.net) writes:
> The return value is essentially an output parameter. Does your
> procedure return resultsets? If so, you may need to consume those
> before the return value is available.

To add to what Dan says here, it depends on whether you are using
client-side or server-side cursor. With client-side cursors you can
access the return value directly.

But we are a bit in the dark here, as we have not seen any of your
code, neither the ADO code, nor the SQL code.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar@.algonet.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||You guys have *no* idea how much I appreciate the help!!

Here's the code that I am using to call the sp from the Access ade

'call stored procedure
docmd.hourglass true
Set com = New ADODB.Command
With com
.ActiveConnection = getadoconnectstring("SM")
.CommandText = "qryBSTransPost"
.CommandType = adCmdStoredProc
.CommandTimeout = 0
.Execute , , adAsyncExecute

If .Parameters(0) <> 0 Then
'operation failed
MsgBox "Fail"
Else
DoCmd.Hourglass False
MsgBox "Transaction Import Complete", vbOKOnly, "Brokerage
Transactions Imported"
End If

End With
Set com = Nothing

This is all going into a pre-exisiting software package that has the
getadoconnectionstring function. Since the simple stored procs work
with this call, I'm going to say that the connection is ok.

Due to the length of the sp, I won't post it, but would be glad to let
anyone see it (even though it is *ugly*!!). It does not return any
records. It basically looks at a table, picks the records that meet a
certain criteria, creates a temp table to hold the Primary keys to
those records, then runs through a series of data manipulations using
more temp tables, then adds those created records into a couple of
different tables, then changes some values in the original records so
that they no longer meet the initial criteria.

This is the final section of the sp:
IF @.@.ERROR <> 0
BEGIN
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
RETURN 11
END

COMMIT TRANSACTION
GO

Regardless of what actually happens with the sp when I call it from
the ade, the .parameter(0) value never triggers the 'fail' option..

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 22:26:36 +0000 (UTC), Erland Sommarskog
<sommar@.algonet.se> wrote:

>Dan Guzman (danguzman@.nospam-earthlink.net) writes:
>> The return value is essentially an output parameter. Does your
>> procedure return resultsets? If so, you may need to consume those
>> before the return value is available.
>To add to what Dan says here, it depends on whether you are using
>client-side or server-side cursor. With client-side cursors you can
>access the return value directly.
>But we are a bit in the dark here, as we have not seen any of your
>code, neither the ADO code, nor the SQL code.|||Is there some reason you are using the adAsyncExecute option here? If
not, you might try removing the option from your Execute method.

It looks to me like your code isn't written to handle asynchronous proc
execution. The code is checking the return value even though the proc
may still be executing. The code probably works with your other procs
simply because they complete before you check the result.

Also, note @.@.ERROR is changed after every SQL statement so you need to
check it after each statement and perform error processing then. For
example:

BEGIN TRAN
INSERT INTO MyTable VALUES(1)
IF @.@.ERROR <> 0 GOTO ErrorHandler
INSERT INTO MyTable VALUES(2)
IF @.@.ERROR <> 0 GOTO ErrorHandler
COMMIT
RETURN 0

ErrorHandler:
IF @.@.TRANCOUNT > 0 ROLLBACK
RETURN 11

--
Hope this helps.

Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP

"C Kirby" <ckirby@.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:d2bvlvgj5c2hqv1mm6fqohdsh641pmifp3@.4ax.com...
> You guys have *no* idea how much I appreciate the help!!
> Here's the code that I am using to call the sp from the Access ade
> 'call stored procedure
> docmd.hourglass true
> Set com = New ADODB.Command
> With com
> .ActiveConnection = getadoconnectstring("SM")
> .CommandText = "qryBSTransPost"
> .CommandType = adCmdStoredProc
> .CommandTimeout = 0
> .Execute , , adAsyncExecute
> If .Parameters(0) <> 0 Then
> 'operation failed
> MsgBox "Fail"
> Else
> DoCmd.Hourglass False
> MsgBox "Transaction Import Complete", vbOKOnly, "Brokerage
> Transactions Imported"
> End If
> End With
> Set com = Nothing
> This is all going into a pre-exisiting software package that has the
> getadoconnectionstring function. Since the simple stored procs work
> with this call, I'm going to say that the connection is ok.
> Due to the length of the sp, I won't post it, but would be glad to let
> anyone see it (even though it is *ugly*!!). It does not return any
> records. It basically looks at a table, picks the records that meet a
> certain criteria, creates a temp table to hold the Primary keys to
> those records, then runs through a series of data manipulations using
> more temp tables, then adds those created records into a couple of
> different tables, then changes some values in the original records so
> that they no longer meet the initial criteria.
> This is the final section of the sp:
> IF @.@.ERROR <> 0
> BEGIN
> ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
> RETURN 11
> END
> COMMIT TRANSACTION
> GO
>
> Regardless of what actually happens with the sp when I call it from
> the ade, the .parameter(0) value never triggers the 'fail' option..
>
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 22:26:36 +0000 (UTC), Erland Sommarskog
> <sommar@.algonet.se> wrote:
> >Dan Guzman (danguzman@.nospam-earthlink.net) writes:
> >> The return value is essentially an output parameter. Does your
> >> procedure return resultsets? If so, you may need to consume those
> >> before the return value is available.
> >To add to what Dan says here, it depends on whether you are using
> >client-side or server-side cursor. With client-side cursors you can
> >access the return value directly.
> >But we are a bit in the dark here, as we have not seen any of your
> >code, neither the ADO code, nor the SQL code.|||Looks like that was the problem, Dan! I removed the adAsync option
and the procedure is running!!!! Thanks for the help!!

I'm going to take a shot at splitting the the sp into a few sub
procedures and then see if I can get the return value to work..

Thanks for all the help from everybody!!!!!!!

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 03:02:13 GMT, "Dan Guzman"
<danguzman@.nospam-earthlink.net> wrote:

>Is there some reason you are using the adAsyncExecute option here? If
>not, you might try removing the option from your Execute method.
>It looks to me like your code isn't written to handle asynchronous proc
>execution. The code is checking the return value even though the proc
>may still be executing. The code probably works with your other procs
>simply because they complete before you check the result.
>Also, note @.@.ERROR is changed after every SQL statement so you need to
>check it after each statement and perform error processing then. For
>example:
>BEGIN TRAN
>INSERT INTO MyTable VALUES(1)
>IF @.@.ERROR <> 0 GOTO ErrorHandler
>INSERT INTO MyTable VALUES(2)
>IF @.@.ERROR <> 0 GOTO ErrorHandler
>COMMIT
>RETURN 0
>ErrorHandler:
>IF @.@.TRANCOUNT > 0 ROLLBACK
>RETURN 11

Limits SQLServer Express

Hi, can someone explain which are the limits o maximum values that SQLServer Express permit?

I dont see anywhere a compare table in which it says, 10 concurrent connections, etc.

Thanks in advance.

The only limitations that apply are shown here: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx

There is no longer a workload governor.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.


http://www.sqlserver2005.de

Limits on rows in a table

Hi

We received the following in an email from a third-party supplier (who
naturally has a solution for the problem as described). It sounds like
gibberish to me, but does anyone have any comments?

<quote>
SQL in its current incarnation hits a performance brick wall when a
table contains more than about 75 million rows. This is not a
configuration limit as the table could be grown a lot larger but the
performance issue generates problems for ??; primarily during
search and retrieval of archived objects; although if the database
engine is being heavily hit for retrieval the archiving process can
slow down as well.
</quote
Chloe Crowder
British Librarychloe.crowder@.bl.uk wrote:
> Hi
> We received the following in an email from a third-party supplier (who
> naturally has a solution for the problem as described). It sounds like
> gibberish to me, but does anyone have any comments?
> <quote>
> SQL in its current incarnation hits a performance brick wall when a
> table contains more than about 75 million rows. This is not a
> configuration limit as the table could be grown a lot larger but the
> performance issue generates problems for ??; primarily during
> search and retrieval of archived objects; although if the database
> engine is being heavily hit for retrieval the archiving process can
> slow down as well.
> </quote
I've never heard something like this before. Maybe it's a problem
limited to a specific application. Maybe the app uses the DB in bad
ways (wrong indexing...)?

robert|||chloe.crowder@.bl.uk wrote:
> Hi
> We received the following in an email from a third-party supplier (who
> naturally has a solution for the problem as described). It sounds like
> gibberish to me, but does anyone have any comments?
> <quote>
> SQL in its current incarnation hits a performance brick wall when a
> table contains more than about 75 million rows. This is not a
> configuration limit as the table could be grown a lot larger but the
> performance issue generates problems for ??; primarily during
> search and retrieval of archived objects; although if the database
> engine is being heavily hit for retrieval the archiving process can
> slow down as well.
> </quote>
> Chloe Crowder
> British Library

"SQL in its current incarnation..."

SQL is a language and it has no such limitations. Did they mean to
refer to Microsoft SQL Server? Either way, their claim is plain
nonsense.

--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP

Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.

SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/...US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||(chloe.crowder@.bl.uk) writes:
> We received the following in an email from a third-party supplier (who
> naturally has a solution for the problem as described). It sounds like
> gibberish to me, but does anyone have any comments?
><quote>
> SQL in its current incarnation hits a performance brick wall when a
> table contains more than about 75 million rows. This is not a
> configuration limit as the table could be grown a lot larger but the
> performance issue generates problems for ??; primarily during
> search and retrieval of archived objects; although if the database
> engine is being heavily hit for retrieval the archiving process can
> slow down as well.
></quote
SQL [Server] in its current incarnation? Nah, rather the current
incarnation of the application from the supplier hits a brick wall, and
the supplier needs to clean up its act.

OK, a 75-million is no game for kids, and it requires more careful coding
and design than a 750000 row table.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||Erland is correct; I personally am running an app that generates
40,000,000 rows of data a day, and it performs well (and it's not a
super server, either). I also suck data out of app by a vendor that
has less than 100,000 rows per day, and it takes hours using their
method.

Not saying you should point the finger at your vendor, but if the
performance of their app is mission-critical, and they value your
business, you need to have a conversation with them about SQL tuning.
Could be something you're doing, or it could be something they're
doing. But it's probably not the engine (unless you're running SQL
Server on a bare-bones server).

Stu|||chloe.crowder@.bl.uk wrote:
> Hi
> We received the following in an email from a third-party supplier (who
> naturally has a solution for the problem as described). It sounds like
> gibberish to me, but does anyone have any comments?
> <quote>
> SQL in its current incarnation hits a performance brick wall when a
> table contains more than about 75 million rows. This is not a
> configuration limit as the table could be grown a lot larger but the
> performance issue generates problems for ??; primarily during
> search and retrieval of archived objects; although if the database
> engine is being heavily hit for retrieval the archiving process can
> slow down as well.
> </quote
Translation 1:

We charge little money for our services, and we need to have profits so
we contract amateurs to do the job and when there are problems we
complain against something/someone not related to us. If you want a
solution pay us more money.

Translation 2:

We didn't think about a table with 75 million rows, we don't want to
look like stupids and lose you as a customer.

etc, etc...

One thing is sure, your supplier is not honest, don't trust them!

> Chloe Crowder
> British Library|||Thanks everyone - I was 99.9% sure it was rubbish and the problem was
with their app, but I thought I should check.

Chloe

Limits on parameters and query complexity?

I have a huge SQL statement with subqueries in the From and Where clauses.
When I run it in SQL Query Analyzer, it runs fine, but if I put it into the
Data tab of a report, Visual Studio just hangs.
I've been able to create the parameter list manually (adding them to the
Report Parameters dialog), and then when I paste the query in without the
Where clause, it works ok. I can then start adding lines to the Where
clause, but as soon as I get enough lines for about 10 parameters or so, it
hangs up again.
I know nothing's wrong with the SQL itself since it runs in Query Analyzer
without a hitch; am I looking at a bug in RS?Sounds like a bug. If you have a good repro, please send it to me at
bradsy@.microsoft.com
--
| From: "DJM" <msnews@.puddlestheshark.com>
| Subject: Limits on parameters and query complexity?
| Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:53:09 -0700
| Lines: 14
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
| X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
| Message-ID: <uG8e6AvEFHA.548@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.reportingsvcs
| NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.140.73.34
| Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl
| Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.reportingsvcs:35923
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.reportingsvcs
|
| I have a huge SQL statement with subqueries in the From and Where
clauses.
| When I run it in SQL Query Analyzer, it runs fine, but if I put it into
the
| Data tab of a report, Visual Studio just hangs.
|
| I've been able to create the parameter list manually (adding them to the
| Report Parameters dialog), and then when I paste the query in without the
| Where clause, it works ok. I can then start adding lines to the Where
| clause, but as soon as I get enough lines for about 10 parameters or so,
it
| hangs up again.
|
| I know nothing's wrong with the SQL itself since it runs in Query
Analyzer
| without a hitch; am I looking at a bug in RS?
|
|
|

Limits on number of merge subscribers?

I'm testing merge replication between a SQL server 2000
publisher and multiple MSDE subscribers. The publication
consists of somewhere around 200 articles (tables, views,
store procs). All subscriptions are pull subscriptions.
My test environment has roughly 10 subscribers.
So far the solution seems to work nicely.
Does anyone know what kind of performance issues I may run
into if the number of subscribers increased to 50 or 100?
It there a theoretical limit or is it simply a question of
machine capability and band width?
Pat,
I haven't ever used more than a dozen simultaneous subscribers, but this
article details scaling up to 2000 subscribers and the correlation with
download speed, effect of RAM, processors etc:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...mergperf.mspx.
BTW, as far as I know there is no documented limit to the number of
subscribers.
HTH,
Paul Ibison

Monday, March 12, 2012

Limits on Number of database...

I have created "around 25 excluding system databases" number of databases in
one SQL server instance. Is there any limits on number of SQL server
databases which affects the performance of SQL Server.
I am using SQL 2K.
Thanks,
Akshay
"Akshay Sen" <ASen89@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eblLuwVCFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I have created "around 25 excluding system databases" number of databases
>in
> one SQL server instance. Is there any limits on number of SQL server
> databases which affects the performance of SQL Server.
> I am using SQL 2K.
> Thanks,
> Akshay
>
It depends..
How heavily is each database used?
How big is your system (processors, memory etc.).
It's not really the number of databases that is an issue, but rather how
they are being used. One thing to note however is that with a lot of
databases, it may take longer for the SQL Server to come back online as it
does some work with each database when the system is restarted.
HTH
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
|||Makes sense. Thanks
Akshay
"Rick Sawtell" <quickening@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:#azT90VCFHA.520@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Akshay Sen" <ASen89@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eblLuwVCFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> It depends..
> How heavily is each database used?
> How big is your system (processors, memory etc.).
> It's not really the number of databases that is an issue, but rather how
> they are being used. One thing to note however is that with a lot of
> databases, it may take longer for the SQL Server to come back online as it
> does some work with each database when the system is restarted.
> HTH
> Rick Sawtell
> MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
>
>
|||Also keep in mind that the SQLServer:Database performance counters are only
collected on the first 99 databses.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Akshay Sen" <ASen89@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e1aaZ3VCFHA.868@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Makes sense. Thanks
Akshay
"Rick Sawtell" <quickening@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:#azT90VCFHA.520@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Akshay Sen" <ASen89@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eblLuwVCFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> It depends..
> How heavily is each database used?
> How big is your system (processors, memory etc.).
> It's not really the number of databases that is an issue, but rather how
> they are being used. One thing to note however is that with a lot of
> databases, it may take longer for the SQL Server to come back online as it
> does some work with each database when the system is restarted.
> HTH
> Rick Sawtell
> MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
>
>

Limits on Number of database...

I have created "around 25 excluding system databases" number of databases in
one SQL server instance. Is there any limits on number of SQL server
databases which affects the performance of SQL Server.
I am using SQL 2K.
Thanks,
Akshay"Akshay Sen" <ASen89@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eblLuwVCFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I have created "around 25 excluding system databases" number of databases
>in
> one SQL server instance. Is there any limits on number of SQL server
> databases which affects the performance of SQL Server.
> I am using SQL 2K.
> Thanks,
> Akshay
>
It depends..
How heavily is each database used?
How big is your system (processors, memory etc.).
It's not really the number of databases that is an issue, but rather how
they are being used. One thing to note however is that with a lot of
databases, it may take longer for the SQL Server to come back online as it
does some work with each database when the system is restarted.
HTH
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA|||Makes sense. Thanks
Akshay
"Rick Sawtell" <quickening@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:#azT90VCFHA.520@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Akshay Sen" <ASen89@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eblLuwVCFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> It depends..
> How heavily is each database used?
> How big is your system (processors, memory etc.).
> It's not really the number of databases that is an issue, but rather how
> they are being used. One thing to note however is that with a lot of
> databases, it may take longer for the SQL Server to come back online as it
> does some work with each database when the system is restarted.
> HTH
> Rick Sawtell
> MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
>
>|||Also keep in mind that the SQLServer:Database performance counters are only
collected on the first 99 databses.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Akshay Sen" <ASen89@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e1aaZ3VCFHA.868@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Makes sense. Thanks
Akshay
"Rick Sawtell" <quickening@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:#azT90VCFHA.520@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Akshay Sen" <ASen89@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eblLuwVCFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> It depends..
> How heavily is each database used?
> How big is your system (processors, memory etc.).
> It's not really the number of databases that is an issue, but rather how
> they are being used. One thing to note however is that with a lot of
> databases, it may take longer for the SQL Server to come back online as it
> does some work with each database when the system is restarted.
> HTH
> Rick Sawtell
> MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
>
>

Limits on Number of database...

I have created "around 25 excluding system databases" number of databases in
one SQL server instance. Is there any limits on number of SQL server
databases which affects the performance of SQL Server.
I am using SQL 2K.
Thanks,
Akshay"Akshay Sen" <ASen89@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eblLuwVCFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I have created "around 25 excluding system databases" number of databases
>in
> one SQL server instance. Is there any limits on number of SQL server
> databases which affects the performance of SQL Server.
> I am using SQL 2K.
> Thanks,
> Akshay
>
It depends..
How heavily is each database used?
How big is your system (processors, memory etc.).
It's not really the number of databases that is an issue, but rather how
they are being used. One thing to note however is that with a lot of
databases, it may take longer for the SQL Server to come back online as it
does some work with each database when the system is restarted.
HTH
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA|||Makes sense. Thanks
Akshay
"Rick Sawtell" <quickening@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:#azT90VCFHA.520@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Akshay Sen" <ASen89@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eblLuwVCFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >I have created "around 25 excluding system databases" number of databases
> >in
> > one SQL server instance. Is there any limits on number of SQL server
> > databases which affects the performance of SQL Server.
> > I am using SQL 2K.
> > Thanks,
> > Akshay
> >
> >
>
> It depends..
> How heavily is each database used?
> How big is your system (processors, memory etc.).
> It's not really the number of databases that is an issue, but rather how
> they are being used. One thing to note however is that with a lot of
> databases, it may take longer for the SQL Server to come back online as it
> does some work with each database when the system is restarted.
> HTH
> Rick Sawtell
> MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
>
>|||Also keep in mind that the SQLServer:Database performance counters are only
collected on the first 99 databses.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Akshay Sen" <ASen89@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e1aaZ3VCFHA.868@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Makes sense. Thanks
Akshay
"Rick Sawtell" <quickening@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:#azT90VCFHA.520@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Akshay Sen" <ASen89@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eblLuwVCFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >I have created "around 25 excluding system databases" number of databases
> >in
> > one SQL server instance. Is there any limits on number of SQL server
> > databases which affects the performance of SQL Server.
> > I am using SQL 2K.
> > Thanks,
> > Akshay
> >
> >
>
> It depends..
> How heavily is each database used?
> How big is your system (processors, memory etc.).
> It's not really the number of databases that is an issue, but rather how
> they are being used. One thing to note however is that with a lot of
> databases, it may take longer for the SQL Server to come back online as it
> does some work with each database when the system is restarted.
> HTH
> Rick Sawtell
> MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
>
>

LIMITs on MIRROR with SQL Server SE

Hi folks. I'm trying to clear up some licensing confusion I"ve come across. First, if I use MIRROR on SS SE I am limited to a single REDO thread and Sycn mode. I see that on the Web. Will the singel REDO thread hurt the ability for the Secondary to keep up? Any one done any tests?

My confusion comes from a document that came across my desk a long time ago that showed that if you use MIRROR on SQL Server SE you are limited to 4 processors for the entire cluster. So if you wanted a balanced failover you would have to have two 2-ways in essence. Is this true? Is it not longer true? I can't seem to find any mention of this....did someone give me bad advice? Help! Thanks.

Licensing will not hurt any performance, only the number of transactions will have the recovery of REDO and UNDO process during the recovery.

|||In standard edition you wont get parallel redo and database snapshots features in the case of database mirroring.

Limits in SQL 2000

I have a database with 10,000 records and I want to just see record
1000 - 1025 is there an easy way to do this with a query. I have found
info for my SQL using limits but it does not work with SQL Server 2000.
Please help.

Thanks in advance.Robert P (rphilipson@.legaleze.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

I have a database with 10,000 records and I want to just see record
1000 - 1025 is there an easy way to do this with a query. I have found
info for my SQL using limits but it does not work with SQL Server 2000.


Assuming that you want to do paging for display on a web page,
see SQL Server MVP's Aaron Bertrand article on the topic on
http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2120.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

Limits in Reporting Services

I read a post from one of the MVPs that stated "If you mean that the result
set has 90,000 records or 180,000 records then you have the wrong product. RS
is not designed to generate reports that are 1500+ pages."
Is there documentation available about the limits of RS (i.e. max number of
records, max number of pages, etc.)? I realize that it depends on the amount
of memory available, but I'd like to get the limits for the 2 GB process
maximum (numbers for 3GB with the /3GB option would be nice also).
Additionally, how is this affected by multiple users? Is it a sum total of
all requests or are the requests queued?
I looked in the docs first for this info and wasn't able to find it.
Thanks for your help."brett" wrote:
> I read a post from one of the MVPs that stated "If you mean that the result
> set has 90,000 records or 180,000 records then you have the wrong product. RS
> is not designed to generate reports that are 1500+ pages."
> Is there documentation available about the limits of RS (i.e. max number of
> records, max number of pages, etc.)? I realize that it depends on the amount
> of memory available, but I'd like to get the limits for the 2 GB process
> maximum (numbers for 3GB with the /3GB option would be nice also).
> Additionally, how is this affected by multiple users? Is it a sum total of
> all requests or are the requests queued?
> I looked in the docs first for this info and wasn't able to find it.
> Thanks for your help.
Hi Brett,
Are you outputting to pdf files. I have recently experienced a similar
problem where the reports timeout and don't work if there are over 4000
pages. We tried throttling the memory allocated to SQL on the box as well as
changing memory limits in the config file within Reporting services but that
has not seemed to do the trick.|||I am not aware of any document like that. PDF and Excel rendering take a lot
of processing power. Rendering to CSV is much much faster (I had a case
where Excel took 5 minutes and the same data rendered as CSV in about 15
seconds). That is a possible work around for you for large datasets.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"brett" <brett@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5318C3D8-3051-45C4-AC1B-2D206C7AC2E8@.microsoft.com...
> I read a post from one of the MVPs that stated "If you mean that the
result
> set has 90,000 records or 180,000 records then you have the wrong product.
RS
> is not designed to generate reports that are 1500+ pages."
> Is there documentation available about the limits of RS (i.e. max number
of
> records, max number of pages, etc.)? I realize that it depends on the
amount
> of memory available, but I'd like to get the limits for the 2 GB process
> maximum (numbers for 3GB with the /3GB option would be nice also).
> Additionally, how is this affected by multiple users? Is it a sum total
of
> all requests or are the requests queued?
> I looked in the docs first for this info and wasn't able to find it.
> Thanks for your help.|||Rob,
Our application renders to the gui first, so that's where we are
encountering our problem. It's clearly a memory issue. I'm able to render
over 7K+ pages in the GUI, but then we get the OutOfMemory exception when we
go above that.
When I up the process memory limit to 3GB, I'm able to render more pages so
it's clearly a memory issue as the exception states.
I'm trying to get documentation so we can understand what the limits are so
we can tell our users what to expect. Telling them "don't run big reports"
isn't acceptable:)
"rob" wrote:
>
> "brett" wrote:
> > I read a post from one of the MVPs that stated "If you mean that the result
> > set has 90,000 records or 180,000 records then you have the wrong product. RS
> > is not designed to generate reports that are 1500+ pages."
> >
> > Is there documentation available about the limits of RS (i.e. max number of
> > records, max number of pages, etc.)? I realize that it depends on the amount
> > of memory available, but I'd like to get the limits for the 2 GB process
> > maximum (numbers for 3GB with the /3GB option would be nice also).
> >
> > Additionally, how is this affected by multiple users? Is it a sum total of
> > all requests or are the requests queued?
> >
> > I looked in the docs first for this info and wasn't able to find it.
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
>
> Hi Brett,
> Are you outputting to pdf files. I have recently experienced a similar
> problem where the reports timeout and don't work if there are over 4000
> pages. We tried throttling the memory allocated to SQL on the box as well as
> changing memory limits in the config file within Reporting services but that
> has not seemed to do the trick.|||Thanks for the feedback Bruce.
What we are wrestling with is there is a max amount of data the RS can
render and it's tied to memory. When our customers ask how big of a machine
they need to buy, we need to be able to give them some guidance based on
their data sets. We also need to be able to tell them (or prevent them in
code) what size of reports they can run.
If it's not documented, we'll have to test different memory configurations
and datasets...not a great use of resources.
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> I am not aware of any document like that. PDF and Excel rendering take a lot
> of processing power. Rendering to CSV is much much faster (I had a case
> where Excel took 5 minutes and the same data rendered as CSV in about 15
> seconds). That is a possible work around for you for large datasets.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "brett" <brett@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5318C3D8-3051-45C4-AC1B-2D206C7AC2E8@.microsoft.com...
> > I read a post from one of the MVPs that stated "If you mean that the
> result
> > set has 90,000 records or 180,000 records then you have the wrong product.
> RS
> > is not designed to generate reports that are 1500+ pages."
> >
> > Is there documentation available about the limits of RS (i.e. max number
> of
> > records, max number of pages, etc.)? I realize that it depends on the
> amount
> > of memory available, but I'd like to get the limits for the 2 GB process
> > maximum (numbers for 3GB with the /3GB option would be nice also).
> >
> > Additionally, how is this affected by multiple users? Is it a sum total
> of
> > all requests or are the requests queued?
> >
> > I looked in the docs first for this info and wasn't able to find it.
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
>
>|||One potential for large Excel data is to render it in CSV and specify ANSII
format (rather than the default of Unicode which Report Manager uses). Excel
doesn't handle Unicode CSV. If rendered in ANSII CSV then Excel will
appropriate put it in the correct columns. Might be a good solution for
people that want a data dump to perform their own analysis on.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"brett" <brett@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:290F0D39-1C39-436E-9597-75208873EEA3@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for the feedback Bruce.
> What we are wrestling with is there is a max amount of data the RS can
> render and it's tied to memory. When our customers ask how big of a
machine
> they need to buy, we need to be able to give them some guidance based on
> their data sets. We also need to be able to tell them (or prevent them in
> code) what size of reports they can run.
> If it's not documented, we'll have to test different memory configurations
> and datasets...not a great use of resources.
> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> > I am not aware of any document like that. PDF and Excel rendering take a
lot
> > of processing power. Rendering to CSV is much much faster (I had a case
> > where Excel took 5 minutes and the same data rendered as CSV in about 15
> > seconds). That is a possible work around for you for large datasets.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Loehle-Conger
> > MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> >
> > "brett" <brett@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:5318C3D8-3051-45C4-AC1B-2D206C7AC2E8@.microsoft.com...
> > > I read a post from one of the MVPs that stated "If you mean that the
> > result
> > > set has 90,000 records or 180,000 records then you have the wrong
product.
> > RS
> > > is not designed to generate reports that are 1500+ pages."
> > >
> > > Is there documentation available about the limits of RS (i.e. max
number
> > of
> > > records, max number of pages, etc.)? I realize that it depends on the
> > amount
> > > of memory available, but I'd like to get the limits for the 2 GB
process
> > > maximum (numbers for 3GB with the /3GB option would be nice also).
> > >
> > > Additionally, how is this affected by multiple users? Is it a sum
total
> > of
> > > all requests or are the requests queued?
> > >
> > > I looked in the docs first for this info and wasn't able to find it.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your help.
> >
> >
> >|||We've actually had certain reports bring a server down because it was
taking so much memory and CPU time. Interestingly, the PDF format of
the same report didn't take very long nor did it bring the machine down.
Bruce L-C [MVP] wrote:
> I am not aware of any document like that. PDF and Excel rendering take a lot
> of processing power. Rendering to CSV is much much faster (I had a case
> where Excel took 5 minutes and the same data rendered as CSV in about 15
> seconds). That is a possible work around for you for large datasets.
>|||Our customer requirement is for the reports to be rendered in PDF format so
the CSV is not an option. There is also a logo graphic that is on each page
that adds to the problem as well.
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> One potential for large Excel data is to render it in CSV and specify ANSII
> format (rather than the default of Unicode which Report Manager uses). Excel
> doesn't handle Unicode CSV. If rendered in ANSII CSV then Excel will
> appropriate put it in the correct columns. Might be a good solution for
> people that want a data dump to perform their own analysis on.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "brett" <brett@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:290F0D39-1C39-436E-9597-75208873EEA3@.microsoft.com...
> > Thanks for the feedback Bruce.
> >
> > What we are wrestling with is there is a max amount of data the RS can
> > render and it's tied to memory. When our customers ask how big of a
> machine
> > they need to buy, we need to be able to give them some guidance based on
> > their data sets. We also need to be able to tell them (or prevent them in
> > code) what size of reports they can run.
> >
> > If it's not documented, we'll have to test different memory configurations
> > and datasets...not a great use of resources.
> >
> > "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> >
> > > I am not aware of any document like that. PDF and Excel rendering take a
> lot
> > > of processing power. Rendering to CSV is much much faster (I had a case
> > > where Excel took 5 minutes and the same data rendered as CSV in about 15
> > > seconds). That is a possible work around for you for large datasets.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bruce Loehle-Conger
> > > MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> > >
> > > "brett" <brett@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:5318C3D8-3051-45C4-AC1B-2D206C7AC2E8@.microsoft.com...
> > > > I read a post from one of the MVPs that stated "If you mean that the
> > > result
> > > > set has 90,000 records or 180,000 records then you have the wrong
> product.
> > > RS
> > > > is not designed to generate reports that are 1500+ pages."
> > > >
> > > > Is there documentation available about the limits of RS (i.e. max
> number
> > > of
> > > > records, max number of pages, etc.)? I realize that it depends on the
> > > amount
> > > > of memory available, but I'd like to get the limits for the 2 GB
> process
> > > > maximum (numbers for 3GB with the /3GB option would be nice also).
> > > >
> > > > Additionally, how is this affected by multiple users? Is it a sum
> total
> > > of
> > > > all requests or are the requests queued?
> > > >
> > > > I looked in the docs first for this info and wasn't able to find it.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your help.
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>|||I agree with the MVP - a 4000+ page report is really just a fancy
data-feed.
I often have customers request such reports, and my typical response is
that Sql Reporting Services is not the right tool for the job. Just
because you "Can" do something doesnt mean that you should.
Also, assuming you do get this working, if you legitimately have a
4000+ page PDF report, then I have sympathy for the end-user who tries
to open it in Adobe Acrobat. I have seen Adobe Acrobat opening
sub-500 page PDF documents bring a high-end PC to its knees, so I am
fearful of what a 4000 page doc would be like.
There are plenty of alternatives...split the report into 40 PDF
documents @. 100 pages, extract the data to file, then use a 3rd party
PDF renderer to create the file, convince the users to accept an
ETL-generated CSV file, etc.
TIP: If you are the admin of a Sql Reporting Services instance, set a
report development standard for report developers to limit the number
of rows in a DataSet and the number of Pages rendered.
Typically my max threshold for data in a report DataSet is 5000 rows @.
5 columns (or equivilent). Also, my guideline for report-length is to
restrict report output to < 100 pages.
I hope this helps.
Lance Hunt
http://weblogs.asp.net/lhunt/|||"There are more reporting requirements in heaven and on earth, Lance,
than are dreamt of in your reporting architecture."|||We are working on supporting larger report sizes but yes, if you want to do
a pure data dump, Reporting Services is not the best tool for the job.
--
Brian Welcker
Group Program Manager
Microsoft SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Lance" <lancehunt@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116022906.085455.213970@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I agree with the MVP - a 4000+ page report is really just a fancy
> data-feed.
> I often have customers request such reports, and my typical response is
> that Sql Reporting Services is not the right tool for the job. Just
> because you "Can" do something doesnt mean that you should.
> Also, assuming you do get this working, if you legitimately have a
> 4000+ page PDF report, then I have sympathy for the end-user who tries
> to open it in Adobe Acrobat. I have seen Adobe Acrobat opening
> sub-500 page PDF documents bring a high-end PC to its knees, so I am
> fearful of what a 4000 page doc would be like.
> There are plenty of alternatives...split the report into 40 PDF
> documents @. 100 pages, extract the data to file, then use a 3rd party
> PDF renderer to create the file, convince the users to accept an
> ETL-generated CSV file, etc.
> TIP: If you are the admin of a Sql Reporting Services instance, set a
> report development standard for report developers to limit the number
> of rows in a DataSet and the number of Pages rendered.
> Typically my max threshold for data in a report DataSet is 5000 rows @.
> 5 columns (or equivilent). Also, my guideline for report-length is to
> restrict report output to < 100 pages.
> I hope this helps.
> Lance Hunt
> http://weblogs.asp.net/lhunt/
>|||What other third party PDF rendering tool you would suggest? How do I split
current PDF report into many pages thru Reporting Services? I got the same
report that genearats more than 2500 pages and RS threw out 'OutofMemory'
execption. THanks.
-Chuck
"Lance" wrote:
> I agree with the MVP - a 4000+ page report is really just a fancy
> data-feed.
> I often have customers request such reports, and my typical response is
> that Sql Reporting Services is not the right tool for the job. Just
> because you "Can" do something doesnt mean that you should.
> Also, assuming you do get this working, if you legitimately have a
> 4000+ page PDF report, then I have sympathy for the end-user who tries
> to open it in Adobe Acrobat. I have seen Adobe Acrobat opening
> sub-500 page PDF documents bring a high-end PC to its knees, so I am
> fearful of what a 4000 page doc would be like.
> There are plenty of alternatives...split the report into 40 PDF
> documents @. 100 pages, extract the data to file, then use a 3rd party
> PDF renderer to create the file, convince the users to accept an
> ETL-generated CSV file, etc.
> TIP: If you are the admin of a Sql Reporting Services instance, set a
> report development standard for report developers to limit the number
> of rows in a DataSet and the number of Pages rendered.
> Typically my max threshold for data in a report DataSet is 5000 rows @.
> 5 columns (or equivilent). Also, my guideline for report-length is to
> restrict report output to < 100 pages.
> I hope this helps.
> Lance Hunt
> http://weblogs.asp.net/lhunt/
>|||Hi,
Since there's a conclusion here that reporting services is not the right
tool to work around for generating reports that have like more than 150 K
records, is there any solution to this? I mean even if we were to use excel,
excel files only support 65K plus records right?
Thanks
"brett" wrote:
> I read a post from one of the MVPs that stated "If you mean that the result
> set has 90,000 records or 180,000 records then you have the wrong product. RS
> is not designed to generate reports that are 1500+ pages."
> Is there documentation available about the limits of RS (i.e. max number of
> records, max number of pages, etc.)? I realize that it depends on the amount
> of memory available, but I'd like to get the limits for the 2 GB process
> maximum (numbers for 3GB with the /3GB option would be nice also).
> Additionally, how is this affected by multiple users? Is it a sum total of
> all requests or are the requests queued?
> I looked in the docs first for this info and wasn't able to find it.
> Thanks for your help.|||There are at least a few different ways to do this, but I recommend
starting at the end-user and working backwards.
If this report ultimately only needs to be machine-readable, then
choose a data-format such as XML, CSV, MDB (access). Then, work
backwards to figure-out the best technology to deliver this file(s).
If your end-users require this to be a human-readable report, then what
format do they want it in? HTML, Excel, XML, PDF, plain-text, etc.
Also, its unlikely that any person would need to read the entire report
top-to-bottom in one session, so figure-out how they plan to use the
report and break it up accordingly. Possibly this report could be
broken-down into several hundred HTML pages with a table-of-contents to
enable navigation. You may be able to use something such as XML-FO to
help automate this, or a simple XSL and a VBS script to chunk the data.
Hope this helps...
Lance Hunt
http://www.lance-hunt.net/|||It would be fascinating to learn the motivation behind this rather odd
requirement.|||That was me. RS does everything in memory (RAM). This makes sense from a
performance viewpoint but when you get to large amounts of data then that
really makes a difference. The other issue is just efficiency of rendering.
Rendering to PDF and Excel is much slower than HTML or CSV. They have
emphasized fidelity rather than performance. If doing large amounts to Excel
then the following will be very very fast. You need to have a link to do
this because Report Manager defaults to unicode which Excel puts all in one
column. In RS 2005 you will be able to configure Report Manager to use ASCII
CSV export.
Here is an example of a Jump to URL link I use. This causes Excel to come up
with the data in a separate window:
="javascript:void(window.open('" & Globals!ReportServerUrl &
"?/SomeFolder/SomeReport&ParamName=" & Parameters!ParamName.Value &
"&rs:Format=CSV&rc:Encoding=ASCII','_blank'))"
Very nice and very fast.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"et_ck" <etck@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:09627F24-3E35-4ABC-A353-DED4A8865DEF@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Since there's a conclusion here that reporting services is not the right
> tool to work around for generating reports that have like more than 150 K
> records, is there any solution to this? I mean even if we were to use
> excel,
> excel files only support 65K plus records right?
> Thanks
> "brett" wrote:
>> I read a post from one of the MVPs that stated "If you mean that the
>> result
>> set has 90,000 records or 180,000 records then you have the wrong
>> product. RS
>> is not designed to generate reports that are 1500+ pages."
>> Is there documentation available about the limits of RS (i.e. max number
>> of
>> records, max number of pages, etc.)? I realize that it depends on the
>> amount
>> of memory available, but I'd like to get the limits for the 2 GB process
>> maximum (numbers for 3GB with the /3GB option would be nice also).
>> Additionally, how is this affected by multiple users? Is it a sum total
>> of
>> all requests or are the requests queued?
>> I looked in the docs first for this info and wasn't able to find it.
>> Thanks for your help.|||I'm with the masses here... what the hell would you do with a 400
page printed report? It's pointless, no-one will read through it. Yo
need to find out what your customer wants to do with it
Personally I'm a fan of exception reports where you actually buil
logic into your report rather than just spewing data from
database
Likewise, with reporting services you could build a summary repor
where the user can interactively drill to more detail which would b
a subset of your 4000 pages|||This is probably some braindead legal requirement, even the most
hideous of paper wasters would not ask for something like this.

Limits

Is there a database size limitation with the desktop SQL edition'SQL Server Express is designed to meet the needs of simple applications. It
is limited to using 1 CPU and up to 1GB RAM, with a 4GB maximum database
size.
Regards,
Dave Patrick ...Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
"Richard Douglass" wrote:
| Is there a database size limitation with the desktop SQL edition'
|
|
||||The size of a database cannot exceed 2 GB when using the SQL Server
2000 Desktop Engine or the Microsoft Data Engine (MSDE) 1.0
Denis the SQL Menace
http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
Richard Douglass wrote:
> Is there a database size limitation with the desktop SQL edition'

Limits

Is there a database size limitation with the desktop SQL edition'The size of a database cannot exceed 2 GB when using the SQL Server
2000 Desktop Engine or the Microsoft Data Engine (MSDE) 1.0
Denis the SQL Menace
http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
Richard Douglass wrote:
> Is there a database size limitation with the desktop SQL edition'|||SQL Server Express is designed to meet the needs of simple applications. It
is limited to using 1 CPU and up to 1GB RAM, with a 4GB maximum database
size.
--
Regards,
Dave Patrick ...Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
"Richard Douglass" wrote:
| Is there a database size limitation with the desktop SQL edition'
|
|
|

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

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 in SQL Server 2005 Express

Is there any information on any limits in the facilities available in SQL
Server 2005 Express (compared with Standard edition)?
For example: database size, maximum number of users etc.
What features are not available in the Express edition?
Thanks,
Steve.There is a 4GB limit for database size in SQL Server Express. As far as
number of users I do not think there is any limitation. Here is the complete
feature comparison chart for the different editions:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...e-features.mspx
HTH,
Plamen Ratchev
http://www.SQLStudio.com|||Hello,
Only advantage in SQL Express over SQL 2005 Standard edition is it is FREE
OF COST. SQL Express have below limitations:-
1. Maximum 4 GB database size
2. Allow only 1 GB RAM
3.Allow only 1 CPU
4. No Profiler
5. No SQL Agent to schedule jobs
The list goes on and on...
Thanks
Hari
"Sawlmgsj" <Sawlmgsj@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:948DDF45-3E76-4146-8610-3471873770C1@.microsoft.com...
> Is there any information on any limits in the facilities available in SQL
> Server 2005 Express (compared with Standard edition)?
> For example: database size, maximum number of users etc.
> What features are not available in the Express edition?
> Thanks,
> Steve.
>|||Many thanks for your comments and the link to Ms.
Steve.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:

> Hello,
> Only advantage in SQL Express over SQL 2005 Standard edition is it is FREE
> OF COST. SQL Express have below limitations:-
> 1. Maximum 4 GB database size
> 2. Allow only 1 GB RAM
> 3.Allow only 1 CPU
> 4. No Profiler
> 5. No SQL Agent to schedule jobs
> The list goes on and on...
> Thanks
> Hari
>
>
> "Sawlmgsj" <Sawlmgsj@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:948DDF45-3E76-4146-8610-3471873770C1@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Friday, February 24, 2012

Limitations in SQL Server 2005 Express

Is there any information on any limits in the facilities available in SQL
Server 2005 Express (compared with Standard edition)?
For example: database size, maximum number of users etc.
What features are not available in the Express edition?
Thanks,
Steve.
There is a 4GB limit for database size in SQL Server Express. As far as
number of users I do not think there is any limitation. Here is the complete
feature comparison chart for the different editions:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
HTH,
Plamen Ratchev
http://www.SQLStudio.com
|||Hello,
Only advantage in SQL Express over SQL 2005 Standard edition is it is FREE
OF COST. SQL Express have below limitations:-
1. Maximum 4 GB database size
2. Allow only 1 GB RAM
3.Allow only 1 CPU
4. No Profiler
5. No SQL Agent to schedule jobs
The list goes on and on...
Thanks
Hari
"Sawlmgsj" <Sawlmgsj@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:948DDF45-3E76-4146-8610-3471873770C1@.microsoft.com...
> Is there any information on any limits in the facilities available in SQL
> Server 2005 Express (compared with Standard edition)?
> For example: database size, maximum number of users etc.
> What features are not available in the Express edition?
> Thanks,
> Steve.
>
|||Many thanks for your comments and the link to Ms.
Steve.
"Hari Prasad" wrote:

> Hello,
> Only advantage in SQL Express over SQL 2005 Standard edition is it is FREE
> OF COST. SQL Express have below limitations:-
> 1. Maximum 4 GB database size
> 2. Allow only 1 GB RAM
> 3.Allow only 1 CPU
> 4. No Profiler
> 5. No SQL Agent to schedule jobs
> The list goes on and on...
> Thanks
> Hari
>
>
> "Sawlmgsj" <Sawlmgsj@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:948DDF45-3E76-4146-8610-3471873770C1@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Limitations in SQL Server 2005 Express

Is there any information on any limits in the facilities available in SQL
Server 2005 Express (compared with Standard edition)?
For example: database size, maximum number of users etc.
What features are not available in the Express edition?
Thanks,
Steve.There is a 4GB limit for database size in SQL Server Express. As far as
number of users I do not think there is any limitation. Here is the complete
feature comparison chart for the different editions:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
HTH,
Plamen Ratchev
http://www.SQLStudio.com|||Hello,
Only advantage in SQL Express over SQL 2005 Standard edition is it is FREE
OF COST. SQL Express have below limitations:-
1. Maximum 4 GB database size
2. Allow only 1 GB RAM
3.Allow only 1 CPU
4. No Profiler
5. No SQL Agent to schedule jobs
The list goes on and on...
Thanks
Hari
"Sawlmgsj" <Sawlmgsj@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:948DDF45-3E76-4146-8610-3471873770C1@.microsoft.com...
> Is there any information on any limits in the facilities available in SQL
> Server 2005 Express (compared with Standard edition)?
> For example: database size, maximum number of users etc.
> What features are not available in the Express edition?
> Thanks,
> Steve.
>|||Many thanks for your comments and the link to Ms.
Steve.
--
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hello,
> Only advantage in SQL Express over SQL 2005 Standard edition is it is FREE
> OF COST. SQL Express have below limitations:-
> 1. Maximum 4 GB database size
> 2. Allow only 1 GB RAM
> 3.Allow only 1 CPU
> 4. No Profiler
> 5. No SQL Agent to schedule jobs
> The list goes on and on...
> Thanks
> Hari
>
>
> "Sawlmgsj" <Sawlmgsj@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:948DDF45-3E76-4146-8610-3471873770C1@.microsoft.com...
> > Is there any information on any limits in the facilities available in SQL
> > Server 2005 Express (compared with Standard edition)?
> >
> > For example: database size, maximum number of users etc.
> > What features are not available in the Express edition?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Steve.
> >
>
>