Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?
Check out "Maximum Capacity Specifications" in the BOL. Your management is
wrong. SQL Server has handled databases over 10.5 TB in size. Most
problems I've seen with SQL Server (since 1993) have been
application-related.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127156075.664445.58460@.o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?
|||On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.
|||In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
cheaper than the migration.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote in message
news:brvui11h9g0fbtpctk0540mlicbc5jg3io@.4ax.com...
On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.
|||On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.
|||My guess is that an Oracle bigot made it into upper management and simply
decreed that it must be so. Forget about justifying it. Eventually, when
they realize they spent a ton of money and got nothing back, they'll can the
jerk and look at improving their code. Yeah, and maybe I'll win the
lottery. ;-)
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
"jxstern" <jxstern@.nowhere.xyz> wrote in message
news:6km0j1hpfndba26oj7adrgaene8f6c688b@.4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems
>with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.
Showing posts with label quad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label quad. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Limitations of SQL Server 2000?
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.
There is no row limit - period. The individual is just making it up.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.
|||> Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
Total crap. SQL Server is capable of processing billions of rows and
multiple terabytes of data.
For examples, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...alability.mspx
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||You base your business on wild claims such as that? I have used single
tables with over 2 billion rows in them. One database has over 5 billion
total rows in it. This is on a 4 processor SQL 2000 machine.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
> Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
> Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
> I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
> from.
> I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
> of this online.
> Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
> I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
> of having the biggest and the best.
>
|||My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
so I can relay that back up.
Thank you all for your responses...
|||TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
was more normal), but not impossible.
But it has been gone a long time.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Mnemonic" wrote:
> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
> so I can relay that back up.
> Thank you all for your responses...
>
|||No, that wouldn't be it. SQL Server has never had such a limit for number of rows in a table (this
going back to MS SQL Server 1.0). At least not from an architectural viewpoint. :-)
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A05FBDB-F1ED-44B4-AD2D-CA7782810A24@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
> limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
> Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
> entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
> have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
> was more normal), but not impossible.
> But it has been gone a long time.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "Mnemonic" wrote:
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.
There is no row limit - period. The individual is just making it up.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.
|||> Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
Total crap. SQL Server is capable of processing billions of rows and
multiple terabytes of data.
For examples, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...alability.mspx
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||You base your business on wild claims such as that? I have used single
tables with over 2 billion rows in them. One database has over 5 billion
total rows in it. This is on a 4 processor SQL 2000 machine.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
> Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
> Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
> I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
> from.
> I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
> of this online.
> Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
> I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
> of having the biggest and the best.
>
|||My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
so I can relay that back up.
Thank you all for your responses...
|||TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
was more normal), but not impossible.
But it has been gone a long time.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Mnemonic" wrote:
> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
> so I can relay that back up.
> Thank you all for your responses...
>
|||No, that wouldn't be it. SQL Server has never had such a limit for number of rows in a table (this
going back to MS SQL Server 1.0). At least not from an architectural viewpoint. :-)
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A05FBDB-F1ED-44B4-AD2D-CA7782810A24@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
> limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
> Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
> entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
> have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
> was more normal), but not impossible.
> But it has been gone a long time.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "Mnemonic" wrote:
Limitations of SQL Server 2000?
Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?Check out "Maximum Capacity Specifications" in the BOL. Your management is
wrong. SQL Server has handled databases over 10.5 TB in size. Most
problems I've seen with SQL Server (since 1993) have been
application-related.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127156075.664445.58460@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?|||On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.|||In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
cheaper than the migration.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote in message
news:brvui11h9g0fbtpctk0540mlicbc5jg3io@.4ax.com...
On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.|||On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.|||My guess is that an Oracle bigot made it into upper management and simply
decreed that it must be so. Forget about justifying it. Eventually, when
they realize they spent a ton of money and got nothing back, they'll can the
jerk and look at improving their code. Yeah, and maybe I'll win the
lottery. ;-)
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"jxstern" <jxstern@.nowhere.xyz> wrote in message
news:6km0j1hpfndba26oj7adrgaene8f6c688b@.4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems
>with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?Check out "Maximum Capacity Specifications" in the BOL. Your management is
wrong. SQL Server has handled databases over 10.5 TB in size. Most
problems I've seen with SQL Server (since 1993) have been
application-related.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127156075.664445.58460@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?|||On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.|||In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
cheaper than the migration.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote in message
news:brvui11h9g0fbtpctk0540mlicbc5jg3io@.4ax.com...
On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.|||On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.|||My guess is that an Oracle bigot made it into upper management and simply
decreed that it must be so. Forget about justifying it. Eventually, when
they realize they spent a ton of money and got nothing back, they'll can the
jerk and look at improving their code. Yeah, and maybe I'll win the
lottery. ;-)
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"jxstern" <jxstern@.nowhere.xyz> wrote in message
news:6km0j1hpfndba26oj7adrgaene8f6c688b@.4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems
>with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.
Limitations of SQL Server 2000?
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.There is no row limit - period. The individual is just making it up.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.|||> Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
Total crap. SQL Server is capable of processing billions of rows and
multiple terabytes of data.
For examples, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/administration/2000/scalability.mspx
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||You base your business on wild claims such as that? I have used single
tables with over 2 billion rows in them. One database has over 5 billion
total rows in it. This is on a 4 processor SQL 2000 machine.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
> Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
> Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
> I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
> from.
> I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
> of this online.
> Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
> I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
> of having the biggest and the best.
>|||My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
so I can relay that back up.
Thank you all for your responses...|||TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
was more normal), but not impossible.
But it has been gone a long time.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Mnemonic" wrote:
> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
> so I can relay that back up.
> Thank you all for your responses...
>|||No, that wouldn't be it. SQL Server has never had such a limit for number of rows in a table (this
going back to MS SQL Server 1.0). At least not from an architectural viewpoint. :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A05FBDB-F1ED-44B4-AD2D-CA7782810A24@.microsoft.com...
> TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
> limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
> Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
> entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
> have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
> was more normal), but not impossible.
> But it has been gone a long time.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "Mnemonic" wrote:
>> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
>> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
>> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
>> so I can relay that back up.
>> Thank you all for your responses...
>>
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.There is no row limit - period. The individual is just making it up.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.|||> Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
Total crap. SQL Server is capable of processing billions of rows and
multiple terabytes of data.
For examples, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/administration/2000/scalability.mspx
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||You base your business on wild claims such as that? I have used single
tables with over 2 billion rows in them. One database has over 5 billion
total rows in it. This is on a 4 processor SQL 2000 machine.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
> Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
> Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
> I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
> from.
> I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
> of this online.
> Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
> I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
> of having the biggest and the best.
>|||My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
so I can relay that back up.
Thank you all for your responses...|||TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
was more normal), but not impossible.
But it has been gone a long time.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Mnemonic" wrote:
> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
> so I can relay that back up.
> Thank you all for your responses...
>|||No, that wouldn't be it. SQL Server has never had such a limit for number of rows in a table (this
going back to MS SQL Server 1.0). At least not from an architectural viewpoint. :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A05FBDB-F1ED-44B4-AD2D-CA7782810A24@.microsoft.com...
> TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25M
> limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
> Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
> entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
> have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
> was more normal), but not impossible.
> But it has been gone a long time.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "Mnemonic" wrote:
>> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
>> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
>> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
>> so I can relay that back up.
>> Thank you all for your responses...
>>
Limitations of SQL Server 2000?
Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?Check out "Maximum Capacity Specifications" in the BOL. Your management is
wrong. SQL Server has handled databases over 10.5 TB in size. Most
problems I've seen with SQL Server (since 1993) have been
application-related.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127156075.664445.58460@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?|||On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.|||In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
cheaper than the migration.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote in message
news:brvui11h9g0fbtpctk0540mlicbc5jg3io@.
4ax.com...
On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.|||On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems wit
h
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.|||My guess is that an Oracle bigot made it into upper management and simply
decreed that it must be so. Forget about justifying it. Eventually, when
they realize they spent a ton of money and got nothing back, they'll can the
jerk and look at improving their code. Yeah, and maybe I'll win the
lottery. ;-)
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"jxstern" <jxstern@.nowhere.xyz> wrote in message
news:6km0j1hpfndba26oj7adrgaene8f6c688b@.
4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems
>with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?Check out "Maximum Capacity Specifications" in the BOL. Your management is
wrong. SQL Server has handled databases over 10.5 TB in size. Most
problems I've seen with SQL Server (since 1993) have been
application-related.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127156075.664445.58460@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?|||On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.|||In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
cheaper than the migration.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote in message
news:brvui11h9g0fbtpctk0540mlicbc5jg3io@.
4ax.com...
On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.|||On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems wit
h
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.|||My guess is that an Oracle bigot made it into upper management and simply
decreed that it must be so. Forget about justifying it. Eventually, when
they realize they spent a ton of money and got nothing back, they'll can the
jerk and look at improving their code. Yeah, and maybe I'll win the
lottery. ;-)
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
"jxstern" <jxstern@.nowhere.xyz> wrote in message
news:6km0j1hpfndba26oj7adrgaene8f6c688b@.
4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems
>with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.
Limitations of SQL Server 2000?
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.There is no row limit - period. The individual is just making it up.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.|||> Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
Total crap. SQL Server is capable of processing billions of rows and
multiple terabytes of data.
For examples, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...calability.mspx
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||You base your business on wild claims such as that? I have used single
tables with over 2 billion rows in them. One database has over 5 billion
total rows in it. This is on a 4 processor SQL 2000 machine.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
> Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
> Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
> I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
> from.
> I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
> of this online.
> Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
> I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
> of having the biggest and the best.
>|||My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
so I can relay that back up.
Thank you all for your responses...|||TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25
M
limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
was more normal), but not impossible.
But it has been gone a long time.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Mnemonic" wrote:
> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
> so I can relay that back up.
> Thank you all for your responses...
>|||No, that wouldn't be it. SQL Server has never had such a limit for number of
rows in a table (this
going back to MS SQL Server 1.0). At least not from an architectural viewpoi
nt. :-)
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A05FBDB-F1ED-44B4-AD2D-CA7782810A24@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the
25M
> limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
> Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
> entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
> have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
> was more normal), but not impossible.
> But it has been gone a long time.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "Mnemonic" wrote:
>
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.There is no row limit - period. The individual is just making it up.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
.
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
from.
I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
of this online.
Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
of having the biggest and the best.|||> Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
Total crap. SQL Server is capable of processing billions of rows and
multiple terabytes of data.
For examples, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...calability.mspx
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||You base your business on wild claims such as that? I have used single
tables with over 2 billion rows in them. One database has over 5 billion
total rows in it. This is on a 4 processor SQL 2000 machine.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127160347.131024.187710@.g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is there a "25 million row" limit to SQL Server? We are running 2000
> Enterprise on a quad processor, 1.5 TB, 4 GB RAM machine under 2003
> Server Enterprise edition. Management is saying that we will be
> adopting oracle (eventually) as there is a 25 million row limitation to
> SQL Server 2000. This is all based on one individual's claims.
> I have no idea what type of operation this alleged limitation comes
> from.
> I have never heard of a thing, nor can I find any supporting evidence
> of this online.
> Any ideas on what they can be talking about?
> I'm not opposed to oracle, just think this we are buying for the sake
> of having the biggest and the best.
>|||My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
so I can relay that back up.
Thank you all for your responses...|||TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the 25
M
limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
was more normal), but not impossible.
But it has been gone a long time.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"Mnemonic" wrote:
> My posts are nothing more than seeking knowledge. I'm just a worker bee
> asking some questions, because it could have been a combination of
> hearsay/telephone game. I felt it would be worthwhile to double check
> so I can relay that back up.
> Thank you all for your responses...
>|||No, that wouldn't be it. SQL Server has never had such a limit for number of
rows in a table (this
going back to MS SQL Server 1.0). At least not from an architectural viewpoi
nt. :-)
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2A05FBDB-F1ED-44B4-AD2D-CA7782810A24@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> TJI and show my age, it is possible that the individual that gave you the
25M
> limit was an oldtimer and not just wrong.
> Back in the dark ages of the '80s and early '90s, an object limit was not
> entirely unusual. Sybase (SS's predecessaor) and earl SS of those days may
> have had a limit. 25M is a bit unusual (8M or 32M or some magic multiple
> was more normal), but not impossible.
> But it has been gone a long time.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "Mnemonic" wrote:
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)