Link to dbf file

Hi. I have a dbf file that has about 1.2 million lines of
data. That file is produced by another system's
proecesses. I'm wondering if there's a way for me to link
my SQL Server database to that file? Any suggestions would
be great. Thanks!
dbf file is: M:\Data\Shipped.dbfHi,
Yes, it is possible.
You can create a linked server from the Enterprise Manager (EM). Please try
the steps.
1. Create an ODBC DSN for the .dbf file by using 'ODBC Data Source
Administrator' in Administarive tools.
2. Select Microsoft OLE Provider for ODBC drivers to create a new linked
server. You should specify the datasource and catalog in the boxes.
3. In security tab, you should configure it to access this .dbf file
without problem.
You can do the same using TSQL, Have a look into the below link, You have
various options to connect to DBase and Foxpro dbf files.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?q...le&hl=en&lr=&ie
=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=VA.0000447d.0110b58c%40compuserve.com&rnum=7
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"mj" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:133ab01c411ed$1a65b150$a101280a@.phx
.gbl...
> Hi. I have a dbf file that has about 1.2 million lines of
> data. That file is produced by another system's
> proecesses. I'm wondering if there's a way for me to link
> my SQL Server database to that file? Any suggestions would
> be great. Thanks!
> dbf file is: M:\Data\Shipped.dbf
>

Link to dbf file

Hi. I have a dbf file that has about 1.2 million lines of
data. That file is produced by another system's
proecesses. I'm wondering if there's a way for me to link
my SQL Server database to that file? Any suggestions would
be great. Thanks!
dbf file is: M:\Data\Shipped.dbf
Hi,
Yes, it is possible.
You can create a linked server from the Enterprise Manager (EM). Please try
the steps.
1. Create an ODBC DSN for the .dbf file by using 'ODBC Data Source
Administrator' in Administarive tools.
2. Select Microsoft OLE Provider for ODBC drivers to create a new linked
server. You should specify the datasource and catalog in the boxes.
3. In security tab, you should configure it to access this .dbf file
without problem.
You can do the same using TSQL, Have a look into the below link, You have
various options to connect to DBase and Foxpro dbf files.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?q=...e&hl=en&lr=&ie
=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=VA.0000447d.0110b58c%40compuserve.com&rnum= 7
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"mj" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:133ab01c411ed$1a65b150$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi. I have a dbf file that has about 1.2 million lines of
> data. That file is produced by another system's
> proecesses. I'm wondering if there's a way for me to link
> my SQL Server database to that file? Any suggestions would
> be great. Thanks!
> dbf file is: M:\Data\Shipped.dbf
>

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:
>

Limitations of SQL Server 2000 Personal Edition

Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep getting
an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K records
.
I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
than. The db is set to automatically grow.
TIA
MarkYour error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
> Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
> Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep
> getting
> an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K
> records.
> I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
> than. The db is set to automatically grow.
> TIA
> Mark|||Hello Geoff,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded similar
files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on my
PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried 2
of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work, it's
possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different version
s
of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
same point within the file.
Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the PE
version?
TIA
Mark
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Your error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
> that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
> columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
> delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
> extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
> is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||There are memory and processor usage limitations, but no database size
limitations in PE. Lok up "Maximum Capacity Limitations" in BOL. Also,
pre-expand your SQL Data files to hold the entire import. Auto-grow can
sometimes cause timeout issues.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA717DB-6D9D-4480-ADE8-4B64C9DB5DC6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hello Geoff,
> Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
> probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded
> similar
> files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on
> my
> PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
> It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried
> 2
> of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
> Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work,
> it's
> possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different
> versions
> of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
> same point within the file.
> Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the
> PE
> version?
> TIA
> Mark
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>

Limitations of SQL Server 2000 Personal Edition

Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep getting
an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K records.
I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
than. The db is set to automatically grow.
TIA
Mark
Your error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
> Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
> Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep
> getting
> an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K
> records.
> I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
> than. The db is set to automatically grow.
> TIA
> Mark
|||Hello Geoff,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded similar
files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on my
PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried 2
of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work, it's
possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different versions
of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
same point within the file.
Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the PE
version?
TIA
Mark
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Your error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
> that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
> columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
> delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
> extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
> is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||There are memory and processor usage limitations, but no database size
limitations in PE. Lok up "Maximum Capacity Limitations" in BOL. Also,
pre-expand your SQL Data files to hold the entire import. Auto-grow can
sometimes cause timeout issues.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA717DB-6D9D-4480-ADE8-4B64C9DB5DC6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hello Geoff,
> Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
> probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded
> similar
> files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on
> my
> PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
> It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried
> 2
> of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
> Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work,
> it's
> possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different
> versions
> of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
> same point within the file.
> Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the
> PE
> version?
> TIA
> Mark
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

Limitations of SQL Server 2000 Personal Edition

Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep getting
an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K records.
I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
than. The db is set to automatically grow.
TIA
MarkYour error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
> Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
> Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep
> getting
> an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K
> records.
> I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
> than. The db is set to automatically grow.
> TIA
> Mark|||Hello Geoff,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded similar
files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on my
PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried 2
of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work, it's
possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different versions
of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
same point within the file.
Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the PE
version?
TIA
Mark
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Your error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
> that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number of
> columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or tab
> delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
> extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column. This
> is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> "MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
> > Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of SQL
> > Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep
> > getting
> > an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K
> > records.
> >
> > I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less than
> > than. The db is set to automatically grow.
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > Mark
>
>|||There are memory and processor usage limitations, but no database size
limitations in PE. Lok up "Maximum Capacity Limitations" in BOL. Also,
pre-expand your SQL Data files to hold the entire import. Auto-grow can
sometimes cause timeout issues.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6FA717DB-6D9D-4480-ADE8-4B64C9DB5DC6@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Geoff,
> Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I realized the message it
> probably correct, although I suspect it's an error because I loaded
> similar
> files to the server at my office, and now when I'm trying to load them on
> my
> PC at home, I'm running into this problem.
> It could be a problem in the tab delimited file as you say, but I've tried
> 2
> of the 3 text files, and I get the same error message at record 454,157.
> Since these text files aren't the exact same files as I loaded at work,
> it's
> possible that there is a cliche in my PC creating slightly different
> versions
> of the files than my work PC, but not likely to generate the error at the
> same point within the file.
> Do you know though if there are limitations on the size of the db on the
> PE
> version?
> TIA
> Mark
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>> Your error message isn't related to capacity. The system is telling you
>> that there is an extra column in a record. SQL requires a fixed number
>> of
>> columns inan import source file. Most likely you are using a comma or
>> tab
>> delimited file. Inside that file there is a character string that has an
>> extra delimiter character so SQL interprets that as an extra column.
>> This
>> is fairly common on a data import from a non-scrubbed source.
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>> "MChrist" <MChrist@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:41821F63-5257-411B-9C8F-19E0CC3E6FF2@.microsoft.com...
>> > Can someone tell me what the record limit is or db size is for PE of
>> > SQL
>> > Server 2000. I'm trying to import 33.6 million records, and I keep
>> > getting
>> > an error message that says the data contains an extra column at 454K
>> > records.
>> >
>> > I've tried the HELP, but I only see the Terrabyte limits. Is PE less
>> > than
>> > than. The db is set to automatically grow.
>> >
>> > TIA
>> >
>> > Mark
>>