Link to another SQL database table

Hello All,
I have a question on linking tables with SQL Server. I have SQL Server 2000 with database A on machine A. I have SQL Server 2000 with database B on machine B. I want to link tables from the database on machine A into a database on machine B. I am not quite sure how to do this - I believe this can be done as I have seen it before. Any information and or resources to direct me to would be greatly appreciated.

ThanksYou can add a linked server using Enterprise Mangler (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/howtosql/ht_servpem_1ozd.asp), or using sp_addlinkedserver (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/tsqlref/ts_sp_adda_8gqa.asp) from within Query Analyzer.

-PatP|||http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/3085211 for detailed explanation.



HTH|||Thanks for the information, I appreciate the responses.

I just have a follow on question. It seems that you can link an entire SQL server but is there any way around this if you cannot have full access to all the databases and tables within?

For example, the SQL Server I need to link to has several databases. I need to link to 4 tables in one database. I will not have the authority to link in the entire database. With Access I can link to a database and select the tables I need to link in, with the SQL Server method I don't see that I can do this (it just may be that I am not doing this right - not too familiar with SQL Server).

Any ideas?
Thanks|||For the linked server privilege to access entire database is not required, you can control the privileges for any logon pertaining to a table in the database.

If the underlying user has required privilege to access the table, then LS connection will be successful and only data can be retrieved from permitted tables.

Refer to the books online for more information on Linked servers and its security.
H
TH|||A linked server gives one server (machine) access to another machine. The user is what determines the permissions, so even though you only expect to be able to "see" or use four tables, depending on the login/user being used you may have access to some other number of tables. You might have a user on your local system that has no permissions at all on the remote system. You might have another local user that would have administrator rights on the remote system, therefore they could access every table.

This probably seems a bit complex after dealing with the much simpler security model that MS-Access (actually Jet, the underlying database engine) provides, but it is actually much more powerful.

-PatP|||Thanks for the information - and thanks to all the responses I am now getting further. In a testing environment I have created the user, limited access to the tables and currently I have used the linked server feature to link in the database.

The main point of doing this was so that I could create a view in my main database to combine data from the linked in database tables. This where I am running into a problem. I keep receiving a message "Could not find "servername" in sysservers, please run sp_addlinkedservers". I have followed the article provided in this thread but was not successful, I cannot get any of the items to execute, I receive syntax errors.

I am not sure if I am in over my head here. Any help would be appreciated.|||Usually at least, linked server information isn't security sensitive. If it is ok, can you post what you tried to execute and what error messages you received? Without at least some hints, I can't help much!

-PatP

Link Between SQL Server 2000 and MSDE Not working! Please HELP !

Hello. I have a SQL Server 2000 Database set up on our network.
We want to run a process on another machine. This machine has MSDE Installed
on it. I have created a new entry in the Linked Server options of the MSDE
Machine to our SQL Server.
However, on trying to query the SQL Server 2000 tables from the MSDE
Database, I get this error:
Error 7302: Could not create an instance of OLE DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB'
I have checked the MDAC_TYP using the MDAC_TYP Checker, and both the SQL
Server and MSDE Machines have the same version running.
I have pinged the SQL Server from the MSDE Server and they can both see each
other.
Any suggestions you might have would be greatly appreciated!!
Thanking you in advance,
m00nm0nkey!!
In message <29E143E6-25FB-4EFF-88B9-D9EE8E23122C@.microsoft.com>,
m00nm0nkey <m00nm0nkey@.discussions.microsoft.com> writes
>Hello. I have a SQL Server 2000 Database set up on our network.
>We want to run a process on another machine. This machine has MSDE Installed
>on it. I have created a new entry in the Linked Server options of the MSDE
>Machine to our SQL Server.
>However, on trying to query the SQL Server 2000 tables from the MSDE
>Database, I get this error:
>Error 7302: Could not create an instance of OLE DB Provider 'SQLOLEDB'
>I have checked the MDAC_TYP using the MDAC_TYP Checker, and both the SQL
>Server and MSDE Machines have the same version running.
>I have pinged the SQL Server from the MSDE Server and they can both see each
>other.
>Any suggestions you might have would be greatly appreciated!!
>Thanking you in advance,
>
Pinging the servers does not prove anything other than each PC is on the
network. Can you connect to the MSDE Server through Enterprise Manager
(adding it to the default Server Group) on the SQL Server machine.
If yes, it is most likely something wrong in how you have defined the
link or referencing the SQL Server in your queries.
If no, then it would suggest the MSDE Server does not have the Network
Protocols enabled (turned off by default in a normal installation).
Alternatively, you may have a firewall or packet filtering enabled on
the MSDE machine blocking ports 1433 (TCP) and 1434 (UDP).
Andrew D. Newbould E-Mail: newsgroups@.NOSPAMzadsoft.com
ZAD Software Systems Web : www.zadsoft.com

Limiting User Resources

I need to find a way to limit the resources that a user can hog on a SQL mac
hine. Is there any way to do this? I know that you can set priority level
to the SQL process, but we are actually wanting to limit a single user that
does mass updates periodica
lly throughout the day so that other users still get decent, if not stellar,
performance. Any ideas?
Thanks,
JoshJosh,
No, you can not throttle a user.
Perform the updates in smaller chucks by using SET ROWCOUNT and performing t
he update in a loop. Do not forget to use a unique where clause so that it s
kips the rows that were already updated in the next iteration.
Here is one article of many out on the web...
http://www.tek-tips.com/gfaqs.cfm/l...id/183/fid/3141
Norman
Norman

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:

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...
>>

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:
>

Limit the total number of reports submitted

I have a machine with 4 physical processors and 16 logical processors. SSRS
allows up to 32 reports to be submitted for processing through subscriptions.
This fails miserably because the machine does not have the memory or
capacity to process this many at a time. Is there a config parameter that
tells SSRS to never submit more than 4 at a time including retries?On Dec 16, 3:18 pm, Earl Newcomer
<EarlNewco...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> I have a machine with 4 physical processors and 16 logical processors. SSRS
> allows up to 32 reports to be submitted for processing through subscriptions.
> This fails miserably because the machine does not have the memory or
> capacity to process this many at a time. Is there a config parameter that
> tells SSRS to never submit more than 4 at a time including retries?
This could be a long shot, but you might try limiting the
MaxActiveReqForOneUser parameter normally found in: C:\Program Files
\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.2\Reporting Services\ReportManager
\RSWebApplication.config. If this does not help, you might try
building a custom .NET delivery application/system to limit the number
of reports. Hope this helps.
Regards,
Enrique Martinez
Sr. Software Consultant|||Ed,
You were right on track. The parameter for subscriptions is in the file:
Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Reporting
Services\ReportServer\RSReportServer.config.
The parameter is under the <service> tag and is:
<MaxQueueThreads>0</MaxQueueThreads>
The default of 0 seems to allow SSRS to submit up to 2 reports per
recognized logical processor. I set this value to 3 and no more than 3
reports were submitted at a time even though we have 16 logical processors
and 4 physical processors.
Thanks for jogging my memory and sending me on the hunt.
"EMartinez" wrote:
> On Dec 16, 3:18 pm, Earl Newcomer
> <EarlNewco...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > I have a machine with 4 physical processors and 16 logical processors. SSRS
> > allows up to 32 reports to be submitted for processing through subscriptions.
> > This fails miserably because the machine does not have the memory or
> > capacity to process this many at a time. Is there a config parameter that
> > tells SSRS to never submit more than 4 at a time including retries?
>
> This could be a long shot, but you might try limiting the
> MaxActiveReqForOneUser parameter normally found in: C:\Program Files
> \Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.2\Reporting Services\ReportManager
> \RSWebApplication.config. If this does not help, you might try
> building a custom .NET delivery application/system to limit the number
> of reports. Hope this helps.
> Regards,
> Enrique Martinez
> Sr. Software Consultant
>|||On Dec 19, 4:46 pm, Earl Newcomer
<EarlNewco...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Ed,
> You were right on track. The parameter for subscriptions is in the file:
> Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL\Reporting
> Services\ReportServer\RSReportServer.config.
> The parameter is under the <service> tag and is:
> <MaxQueueThreads>0</MaxQueueThreads>
> The default of 0 seems to allow SSRS to submit up to 2 reports per
> recognized logical processor. I set this value to 3 and no more than 3
> reports were submitted at a time even though we have 16 logical processors
> and 4 physical processors.
> Thanks for jogging my memory and sending me on the hunt.
> "EMartinez" wrote:
> > On Dec 16, 3:18 pm, Earl Newcomer
> > <EarlNewco...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > I have a machine with 4 physical processors and 16 logical processors. SSRS
> > > allows up to 32 reports to be submitted for processing through subscriptions.
> > > This fails miserably because the machine does not have the memory or
> > > capacity to process this many at a time. Is there a config parameter that
> > > tells SSRS to never submit more than 4 at a time including retries?
> > This could be a long shot, but you might try limiting the
> > MaxActiveReqForOneUser parameter normally found in: C:\Program Files
> > \Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.2\Reporting Services\ReportManager
> > \RSWebApplication.config. If this does not help, you might try
> > building a custom .NET delivery application/system to limit the number
> > of reports. Hope this helps.
> > Regards,
> > Enrique Martinez
> > Sr. Software Consultant
Glad you found your solution. Let me know if I can be of further
assistance.
Regards,
Enrique Martinez
Sr. Software Consultant