Link to Oracel database

Hi all
I am running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition and I want to create a link server to an oracle database. I have installed Oracle client on the server, but when try to test the connection using Oracle Net Configuration Assistant, I'm getting error: "TNS:listener could not resolve SERVICE_NAME given in connect description"
I have read article 280106 (troubleshooting) that didn't help
I appreciate any guidance
RayThe Net Assistant doesn't always generate correct
tnsnames.ora and listener.ora files. You most likely have
something missing in one of these files.
Make sure the Oracle home is specified correctly and that
you have a SID_LIST_LISTENER entry which specifies the sid
that the listener is listening for.
-Sue
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:46:10 -0700, Ray
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hi all,
>I am running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition and I want to create a link server to an oracle database. I have installed Oracle client on the server, but when try to test the connection using Oracle Net Configuration Assistant, I'm getting error: "TNS:listener could not resolve SERVICE_NAME given in connect description".
>I have read article 280106 (troubleshooting) that didn't help.
>I appreciate any guidance.
>Ray

Link to Oracel database

Hi all,
I am running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition and I want to create a link server to an oracle database. I have installed Oracle client on the server, but when try to test the connection using Oracle Net Configuration Assistant, I'm getting error: "TNS:l
istener could not resolve SERVICE_NAME given in connect description".
I have read article 280106 (troubleshooting) that didn't help.
I appreciate any guidance.
Ray
The Net Assistant doesn't always generate correct
tnsnames.ora and listener.ora files. You most likely have
something missing in one of these files.
Make sure the Oracle home is specified correctly and that
you have a SID_LIST_LISTENER entry which specifies the sid
that the listener is listening for.
-Sue
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:46:10 -0700, Ray
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hi all,
>I am running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition and I want to create a link server to an oracle database. I have installed Oracle client on the server, but when try to test the connection using Oracle Net Configuration Assistant, I'm getting error: "TNS:
listener could not resolve SERVICE_NAME given in connect description".
>I have read article 280106 (troubleshooting) that didn't help.
>I appreciate any guidance.
>Ray

Link to Oracel database

Hi all,
I am running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition and I want to create a link
server to an oracle database. I have installed Oracle client on the server,
but when try to test the connection using Oracle Net Configuration Assistant
, I'm getting error: "TNS:l
istener could not resolve SERVICE_NAME given in connect description".
I have read article 280106 (troubleshooting) that didn't help.
I appreciate any guidance.
RayThe Net Assistant doesn't always generate correct
tnsnames.ora and listener.ora files. You most likely have
something missing in one of these files.
Make sure the Oracle home is specified correctly and that
you have a SID_LIST_LISTENER entry which specifies the sid
that the listener is listening for.
-Sue
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:46:10 -0700, Ray
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hi all,
>I am running SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition and I want to create a link server
to an oracle database. I have installed Oracle client on the server, but when try to
test the connection using Oracle Net Configuration Assistant, I'm getting error: "T
NS:
listener could not resolve SERVICE_NAME given in connect description".
>I have read article 280106 (troubleshooting) that didn't help.
>I appreciate any guidance.
>Ray

LInk Tables

Hi,
I have created a link server within my enterprise. I can see the
server - which is on a c-isam db - and all the the tables.
What I am unable to do is query any of the tables.
Link Server = Rubicon
Table Name = qc_raw_mat_cat.
select * from rubicon..qc_raw_mat_cat
What have I missed / messed up?
Many thanks
example
select * from rubicon..qc_raw_mat_catTo reference a table in a linked server, you need to use
LinkedServer.CatalogOrDatabase.SchemaOrOwner.Object
Try:
select *
from rubicon...qc_raw_mat_cat
-Sue
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 00:23:02 -0700, "MMouse99"
<MMouse99@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>I have created a link server within my enterprise. I can see the
>server - which is on a c-isam db - and all the the tables.
>What I am unable to do is query any of the tables.
>Link Server = Rubicon
>Table Name = qc_raw_mat_cat.
>select * from rubicon..qc_raw_mat_cat
>What have I missed / messed up?
>Many thanks
>
>example
>select * from rubicon..qc_raw_mat_cat

LInk Tables

Hi,
I have created a link server within my enterprise. I can see the
server - which is on a c-isam db - and all the the tables.
What I am unable to do is query any of the tables.
Link Server = Rubicon
Table Name = qc_raw_mat_cat.
select * from rubicon..qc_raw_mat_cat
What have I missed / messed up?
Many thanks
example
select * from rubicon..qc_raw_mat_cat
To reference a table in a linked server, you need to use
LinkedServer.CatalogOrDatabase.SchemaOrOwner.Objec t
Try:
select *
from rubicon...qc_raw_mat_cat
-Sue
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 00:23:02 -0700, "MMouse99"
<MMouse99@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>I have created a link server within my enterprise. I can see the
>server - which is on a c-isam db - and all the the tables.
>What I am unable to do is query any of the tables.
>Link Server = Rubicon
>Table Name = qc_raw_mat_cat.
>select * from rubicon..qc_raw_mat_cat
>What have I missed / messed up?
>Many thanks
>
>example
>select * from rubicon..qc_raw_mat_cat
sql

link sql servers using enterprise manage

Hi
Can anyone explain me the options for linked servers in the enterprise
manager.
I've tried to link another sql server but i'm gettng errors.> Can anyone explain me the options for linked servers in the enterprise
> manager.
Check the "Configuring Linked Servers" topic in Books OnLine
(mk:@.MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files\Micros
oft%20SQL%20Server\80\Tools\Books\ad
minsql.chm::/ad_1_server_4uuq.htm).

> I've tried to link another sql server but i'm gettng errors.
Any specific errors?
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com|||do u know the ip address of your second server if yes then enter the name or
the ipaddress then give the username as u use for your local server and admi
n
as username for remote server and give the password as your local server
password
and in the server option use select the above five options
and set ok
it will work for u but keep one thing in mind that u can not see the tables
or views u can only execute the hetrogenious queries.
from
sufian
"Dejan Sarka" wrote:

> Check the "Configuring Linked Servers" topic in Books OnLine
> (mk:@.MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files\Micros
oft%20SQL%20Server\80\Tools\Books\
ad
> minsql.chm::/ad_1_server_4uuq.htm).
>
> Any specific errors?
> --
> Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
> Associate Mentor
> www.SolidQualityLearning.com
>
>

Link Server settings

Hello:
I am trying to create linked server ( another SQL Server) to my SQL Server,
using Enterprise Manager, but new alias pointed me only to master database.
How can I change settings of the link server to get access to pubs database?
Thanks,
GBYou could change the default database for the user the linked server is
configured to use, using sp_defaultdb on the remote server.
Or, use the USE statement or proper 4-part naming to qualify the database
name you are accessing from the local server. e.g. you should not be saying
this:
SELECT <col_list> FROM LinkedServer...TableName;
You should be saying:
SELECT <col_list> FROM LinkedServer.DatabaseName.dbo.TableName;
"GB" <v7v1k3@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y_zvf.57264$OU5.43252@.clgrps13...
> Hello:
> I am trying to create linked server ( another SQL Server) to my SQL
> Server,
> using Enterprise Manager, but new alias pointed me only to master
> database.
> How can I change settings of the link server to get access to pubs
> database?
> Thanks,
> GB
>|||You could change the default database for the user the linked server is
configured to use, using sp_defaultdb on the remote server.
Or, use the USE statement or proper 4-part naming to qualify the database
name you are accessing from the local server. e.g. you should not be saying
this:
SELECT <col_list> FROM LinkedServer...TableName;
You should be saying:
SELECT <col_list> FROM LinkedServer.DatabaseName.dbo.TableName;
"GB" <v7v1k3@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y_zvf.57264$OU5.43252@.clgrps13...
> Hello:
> I am trying to create linked server ( another SQL Server) to my SQL
> Server,
> using Enterprise Manager, but new alias pointed me only to master
> database.
> How can I change settings of the link server to get access to pubs
> database?
> Thanks,
> GB
>|||What you see in Enterprise Manager is simply the default database for the
account that you are using to authenticate to the linked server. Changed th
e
default database for that user, and refresh and you will see another
databases tables.
You will still be able to access all databases to which that user has access
.
kevin
"GB" wrote:

> Hello:
> I am trying to create linked server ( another SQL Server) to my SQL Server
,
> using Enterprise Manager, but new alias pointed me only to master database
.
> How can I change settings of the link server to get access to pubs databas
e?
> Thanks,
> GB
>
>

Limts of SQL 2005 Enterprise

I know this might seem like a strange question, but we currently have a
database that very few people have heard of TurboPower FlashFiler
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/tpflashfiler/). We have had issues with it
as we approach 100 users. We have installed SQL 2005 Enterprise for the
goal of moving the database from TurboPower FlashFiler to SQL. But now the
developer has introduced that thought of going to NexusDB (www.nexusdb.com)
instead of SQL. The question from managment was asked "How many users can
access SQL?" They want an acutal number. Is there any articles of
performance test that test the upper limits of SQL or anything like a case
study where a company had 10,000 users accessing a database, etc.
Thanks,
MarkHave a look here:
Performance and Scalability: SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition
Benchmarks
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/compare/benchmarks.mspx
_________________________________________________________
Vera Noest
MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
SQL troubleshooting: http://sql.veranoest.net
___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___
"M.Siler" <John.Doe@.NoSpam.com> wrote on 23 aug 2007 in
microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:
> I know this might seem like a strange question, but we currently
> have a database that very few people have heard of TurboPower
> FlashFiler (http://sourceforge.net/projects/tpflashfiler/). We
> have had issues with it as we approach 100 users. We have
> installed SQL 2005 Enterprise for the goal of moving the
> database from TurboPower FlashFiler to SQL. But now the
> developer has introduced that thought of going to NexusDB
> (www.nexusdb.com) instead of SQL. The question from managment
> was asked "How many users can access SQL?" They want an acutal
> number. Is there any articles of performance test that test
> the upper limits of SQL or anything like a case study where a
> company had 10,000 users accessing a database, etc.
> Thanks,
> Mark|||"M.Siler" <John.Doe@.NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:eUvz8cc5HHA.5424@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I know this might seem like a strange question, but we currently have a
>database that very few people have heard of TurboPower FlashFiler
>(http://sourceforge.net/projects/tpflashfiler/). We have had issues with it
>as we approach 100 users. We have installed SQL 2005 Enterprise for the
>goal of moving the database from TurboPower FlashFiler to SQL. But now the
>developer has introduced that thought of going to NexusDB (www.nexusdb.com)
>instead of SQL. The question from managment was asked "How many users can
>access SQL?" They want an acutal number. Is there any articles of
>performance test that test the upper limits of SQL or anything like a case
>study where a company had 10,000 users accessing a database, etc.
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
Tell management that there is no fixed limit on the number of users. There
is plenty of evidence for SQL Server supporting thousands of users and multi
terabytes of data. See:
http://www.microsoft.com/SQL/BIGDATA/default.mspx
http://www.tpc.org/
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:50:26 -0400, "M.Siler" <John.Doe@.NoSpam.com>
wrote:
>I know this might seem like a strange question, but we currently have a
>database that very few people have heard of TurboPower FlashFiler
>(http://sourceforge.net/projects/tpflashfiler/). We have had issues with it
>as we approach 100 users. We have installed SQL 2005 Enterprise for the
>goal of moving the database from TurboPower FlashFiler to SQL. But now the
>developer has introduced that thought of going to NexusDB (www.nexusdb.com)
>instead of SQL. The question from managment was asked "How many users can
>access SQL?" They want an acutal number. Is there any articles of
>performance test that test the upper limits of SQL or anything like a case
>study where a company had 10,000 users accessing a database, etc.
Even a modest server should support 100+ rich clients if the software
and data model are halfway decent. OTOH, a bad app and a bad database
can bog with one.
On the third hand, via a middle tier, you can support thousands of
sessions at the same time, I've been there in many shops.
Nexusdb? Doesn't sound like it's even meant to be a server.
Josh|||> Nexusdb? Doesn't sound like it's even meant to be a server.
Sorry just to clarify that :)
Our biggest site that we support *ourselves* is an Australian based a debt
collection agency. They have established their own offshore call center and
developed their own software on the basis of NexusDB. At the moment this
software runs with approximately 200 concurrent users spread over Australia,
India and the UK with the central database server located in
Brisbane/Australia and is thus online 24x7. If you need we can arrange for
them to provide reference/testimonial for NexusDB.
NexusDB was designed for small to medium sized environments. It clearly has
its limits in scalability and SQL Server surely has many benefits that
NexusDB doesn't have, still we think it has several advantages over MS-SQL:
* cost: the normal NexusDB Server is royalty free and comes as
developer licenses. So after the initial costs there is no further
cost, not for you and not for your clients/customers no matter how
many applications you ship to how many clients/users you want.
* support: we are a small company that knows very well that we
depend on our customers being happy. In the case of problems you're
can talk directly to the developers of the system instead of
support reps that have less knowledge than yourself and just work
off their flow diagram. If you need it we optionally provide service
level agreements with guaranteed response times
* footprint: NexusDB server is a 4.5 mb executable including SQL
engine and that's all you need.
* resources: NexusDB server runs very well on any hardware running
WinNT4 starting from 256MB memory.
* server installation: NexusDB server is very easy to install. Copy
the exceutable and a premade ini-config and start
* zero admin: NexusDB server doesn't need a database administrator as
everything is readily available in the clear and simple user interface
* best of both worlds: table/cursor based and SQL access in one.
NexusDB allows to mix and match and thus use the best approach for
every single one of your needs.
* no runtime libraries: a NexusDB client doesn't need any additional
runtime files or database client installation. All you need is the
executable
* SQL2003 compliance: NexusDB sticks as close possible to the SQL2003
standard instead of using its own proprietary language. This makes
integration of other databases and tools much easier
* another big point in above case is that converting from a table based
flashfiler based application is very easy and should be doable in
just a few days or less (including testing). You will almost
certainly see a big improvement in speed and stability and possibly
save you from developing a completely new system right now
* full source: YES, you get the full source code of server and client
with your license. down to the last line.
There are a lot more advantages from a purely technical point of view
covering things like full extensibility, customizable data compression &
encryption and great flexibility. get more info on www.nexusdb.com if you
like.

Limiting tables displayed in new window for SQL 2000 Enterprise Manager

Can anyone tell me if there's a way to create new windows from the
tables section of a database in Enterprise Manager such that I can
limit the tables included in that window? Ultimately, I'm looking for
a solution whereby I can group tables, stored procedures, etc. into
logical groups that can then be displayed using different MMC
consoles. I'm looking for either a GUI-level or programatic approach.

Thank you,
Dax WestermanUsing EM as is no. You can build your own version of EM though and display
whatever you want using SQL-DMO.

--
--

Allan Mitchell MCSE,MCDBA, (Microsoft SQL Server MVP)
www.SQLDTS.com - The site for all your DTS needs.
I support PASS - the definitive, global community
for SQL Server professionals - http://www.sqlpass.org

"Dax Westerman" <daxw@.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:273bcb55.0404300435.7ac4ba6b@.posting.google.c om...
> Can anyone tell me if there's a way to create new windows from the
> tables section of a database in Enterprise Manager such that I can
> limit the tables included in that window? Ultimately, I'm looking for
> a solution whereby I can group tables, stored procedures, etc. into
> logical groups that can then be displayed using different MMC
> consoles. I'm looking for either a GUI-level or programatic approach.
> Thank you,
> Dax Westerman

Limited Functionality on Side-by-Side Install

We are testing our SQL 2000 db on a test box in which we loaded SQL 2000 first and then installed SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Trial edition side by side. I am trying to execute new functions in SQL 2005 against the Northwind db to test and these functions are not recognized. What am I missing?

What specific functions are you trying to run? I'm also moving this thread to T-SQL so they can help answer your questions.

Thanks,
Sam

|||

Older sample databases like pubs, northwind are in 80 compatibility mode. So newer keywords or certain syntax of statements or functions behave differently in that compatibility mode. You can either change the compatibility mode of the northwind database by running "sp_dbcmptlevel 'Northwind', '90" or create a new database which will automatically be in 90 compat mode or use the new AdventureWorks sample database. For more details on older compatibility modes and what it affects, see the topic below:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178653.aspx

limited # of db's?

Running SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition. Is there a limit to the number of
databases one installaion can support, other than disk space/hardware
limitations?
32,767 per instance. In BOL under 'maximum capacity specifications' there is
a list of this type of data.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison (SQL Server MVP)

limited # of db's?

Running SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition. Is there a limit to the number of
databases one installaion can support, other than disk space/hardware
limitations?32,767 per instance. In BOL under 'maximum capacity specifications' there is
a list of this type of data.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison (SQL Server MVP)

Limitations of SQL Server 2000?

Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?
Check out "Maximum Capacity Specifications" in the BOL. Your management is
wrong. SQL Server has handled databases over 10.5 TB in size. Most
problems I've seen with SQL Server (since 1993) have been
application-related.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
<MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM> wrote in message
news:1127156075.664445.58460@.o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
Hello, we are running SQL 2000 Enterprise on a quad 2.8Ghz proc server
running 2003 Enterprise. Plenty of ram and hard drive space. I've also
just got access to a 8 CPU server which we've just begun using as well.
Now I'm hearing word from my management that we will be moving towards
Oracle because of a limitation with SQL Server 2000. All because an
individual sites SQL server cannot deal with more than 25 million rows.
I personally have tables with over 150 million records, but I haven't
tried to dump 25 million into
I have no idea where this comes from, and I doubt there is any
supporting evidence. I'm not opposed to Oracle, just wondering why we
are trying to fix what isn't broken.
Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
similar scenario?
|||On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.
|||In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
cheaper than the migration.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@.gte.net> wrote in message
news:brvui11h9g0fbtpctk0540mlicbc5jg3io@.4ax.com...
On 19 Sep 2005 11:54:35 -0700, MICHAEL_SUNLIN@.COUNTRYWIDE.COM wrote:
>Can anybody point me towards what this limitation, or describe a
>similar scenario?
No, but half the developers in Los Angeles have worked at Countrywide
at some time in the last ten years, and are aware of this Oracle
project. It was begun when the mortgage boom was at its peak about
three years ago and all their current SQLServer systems hit capacity.
In a fit of pique, panic, and good salesmanship from Oracle, a new
project was born, has gone through about three names at last count,
and is now 300% over budget and schedule. Need one say more? Just
that, with new hardware and some extended tuning, they're still
happily running on SQLServer.
J.
|||On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.
|||My guess is that an Oracle bigot made it into upper management and simply
decreed that it must be so. Forget about justifying it. Eventually, when
they realize they spent a ton of money and got nothing back, they'll can the
jerk and look at improving their code. Yeah, and maybe I'll win the
lottery. ;-)
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
..
"jxstern" <jxstern@.nowhere.xyz> wrote in message
news:6km0j1hpfndba26oj7adrgaene8f6c688b@.4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:38:45 -0400, "Tom Moreau"
<tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote:
>In the same vein, I usually tell people that if they have perf problems
>with
>SQL Server, they can migrate to Oracle and if they have perf problems with
>Oracle, they can migrate to SQL Server. How so? Because they'll have to
>clean up their code in order to do the migration. It isn't the migration
>that pays the dividend, it's the code/design cleanup that does. It's much
>cheaper than the migration.
Prezactly.
In this case, there was (and I assume still is) also an extremely
ambitious plan to merge and rationalize a bunch of related databases
into a single company-wide schema, or meta-schema, or ontology, or
phylogeny, or taxonomy, or whatever it is everyone has always thought
they were doing on such projects. It's like Captain Queeg proving the
mess boys took the strawberries, I think, an obsession that takes hold
and distracts from any real progress.
Anybody ever see one of these project succeed? I haven't, but I
suspect that some, maybe 10%, actually get deployed, at least.
Whether *any* show a positive ROI, I really wonder.
J.

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.

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?

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.

Limit View in SQL 2005

When adding users to the SQL Server, is there a way to limit what DB's the
user can actually view when using Enterprise Manager?
i.e. When User1 logs into Enterprise Manger, they can only see DB1 in the
list of DB's, they can't see Master, Model, or any others?
The objective is to let a company connect to their Database, without see
what other clients/databases are hosted on the same DB server.
ThanksHi Kevin,
This is indeed possible in SQL Server 2005 but the master and tempdb
databases will be visible to all users - there is no way you can get
around that. Every user needs to have access to these databases. It's
just the way SQL Server works.
In order to explain how to make USER databases invisible to others I am
attaching the following script. It simulates a situation with three
databases, each belonging to different companies. Each company has its
own login.
create database company1_db
create database company2_db
create database company3_db
go
create login company1 with password = 'password1234*'
go
create login company2 with password = 'password1234*'
go
create login company3 with password = 'password1234*'
go
--At this point, all three logins (company1, company2 and company3)
--can see all user databases (company1_db, company2_db and company3_db).
use master
go
deny view any database to public
--At this point, all three logins (company1, company2 and company3)
--can see just the master and tempdb databases.
use company1_db
go
sp_changedbowner 'company1'
use company2_db
go
sp_changedbowner 'company2'
use company3_db
go
sp_changedbowner 'company3'
--At this point, the three logins (company1, company2 and company3)
--can see the master and tempdb databases as well as their own database.
Hope this helps!
Jonathan
Kevin A wrote:
> When adding users to the SQL Server, is there a way to limit what DB's the
> user can actually view when using Enterprise Manager?
> i.e. When User1 logs into Enterprise Manger, they can only see DB1 in the
> list of DB's, they can't see Master, Model, or any others?
> The objective is to let a company connect to their Database, without see
> what other clients/databases are hosted on the same DB server.
> Thanks
>|||JPD (jpd@.nospamplease.com) writes:
> use master
> go
> deny view any database to public
> --At this point, all three logins (company1, company2 and company3)
> --can see just the master and tempdb databases.
> use company1_db
> go
> sp_changedbowner 'company1'
>
> use company2_db
> go
> sp_changedbowner 'company2'
>
> use company3_db
> go
> sp_changedbowner 'company3'
But the apparent problem with that is there for every company are several
logins.
What SQL 2005 offers is clearly not sufficient. For this reason I submitted
this entry on Connect a while back:
https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLSe...=2738
30
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx