|
hamidreza_buddy wrote: is there any difference between SQL statements we send to darabases or all of them support support a single tyoe of SQL statements
Yes and no. Most Structure Query Language statements are the same, but each database (MS SQL, MySQL, Oracle, Firebird, etc) have their own minor differences.
|
|
|
|
|
Most support a industial standard called Sql-92 which will in theory work with any compliant SQL-92 database. But sadly in pratice it doesn't work like that and small quirks make problems porting sql code.
Look where you want to go not where you don't want to crash.
Bikers Bible
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Kerrigan wrote: Most support a industial standard called Sql-92
And some, like SQL Server 2005, now support SQL-99
|
|
|
|
|
I stand corrected 
Look where you want to go not where you don't want to crash.
Bikers Bible
|
|
|
|
|
You were correct in the fist place. You said "most" use SQL-92. I just thought I'd add that "some" now use SQL-99. If I remember correctly, SQL-92 is a subset of SQL-99, so it could be said that everything that is based on SQL-99 is, by default, also based on SQL-92.
|
|
|
|
|
I think SQL-92 relates to 1992 and SQL-99 relates to 1999. But I'm guessing
Look where you want to go not where you don't want to crash.
Bikers Bible
|
|
|
|
|
can anyone tell me what is the maximum number of rows one can store in a table of MS SQL SERVER 2000.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
Per Microsoft's SQL 2000 Books OnLine (BOL) the number of rows are limited by available storage.
To find this in the reference, select index tab, type in rows, size option. Towards the bottom of the first table is this answer.
Regards,
KK Adams
Rock On!
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to what KK Adams said, you also have to take into account the primary key. Since the primary key must be unique you will always end up giving yourself a limitation based on that. For example, the most common primary key is an int. There are just over 4 billion possible values that can be stored in an int therefore a table with an int for a primary key will be restricted to just over 4 billion rows.
If you were to use something else, such as a tinyint, you would be restricted to the range of that type. In the case of a tinyint it would be 256.
|
|
|
|
|
Colin , Adam thanks a lot for the important information.
BTW the primary key in my table is of integer type.. so I expect it would be over 11 billion or so... more than enough 
|
|
|
|
|
cdotpal wrote: BTW the primary key in my table is of integer type.. so I expect it would be over 11 billion or so
No, it would be ~4 billion
|
|
|
|
|
From SQL Books On Line
integer or int
Has a length of 4 bytes, and stores numbers from -2,147,483,648 through 2,147,483,647.
Correct me if I'm wrong; for an integer indentity column you'd only get 2 Billion rows as it'll only use the positive side of the Integer datatype number as its from -2 Billion to +2 Billion
I was going to get an int table and fill it with more than 2 billion rows, but that seemed rather sad just to prove my point.
Look where you want to go not where you don't want to crash.
Bikers Bible
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Kerrigan wrote: for an integer indentity column you'd only get 2 Billion rows as it'll only use the positive side of the Integer
By default yes, you are quite right. When the identity column reaches 2147483647 it will be unable to insert any new rows. If you attempt any more it will generate an error message: "Arithmetic overflow error converting IDENTITY to data type int"
However, there is nothing to stop you setting the identity seed to -2147483648 when the table is created. This will allow you to use the full ~4 billion range of an int.
Frank Kerrigan wrote: I was going to get an int table and fill it with more than 2 billion rows, but that seemed rather sad just to prove my point
Yes, very sad indeed. 
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: Yes, very sad indeed.
lol......
Look where you want to go not where you don't want to crash.
Bikers Bible
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I am having difficulty with my INNER JOINS. Can someone please help me to sort this out?
I have a shipping table, a shipping in shipping type table, and a shipping type table.
Shipping (1) -- (M) ShippingInShippingType (M) -- (1) ShippingType
(1) -- (M) is one to many.
I am trying to get the shipping name from the Shipping table, together with the shipping type information. My SQL Statement looks like this:
SELECT
ShippingTypeID_PK,
ShippingTypeName,
ShippingTypeDescription
FROM
ShippingType
INNER JOIN ShippingInShippingTypes AS "ShippingInShippingTypes1"
ON ShippingType.ShippingTypeID_PK = ShippingInShippingTypes1.ShippingTypeID_FK
INNER JOIN ShippingInShippingTypes AS "ShippingInShippingTypes2"
ON Shipping.ShippingID_PK = ShippingInShippingTypes2.ShippingID_FK;
It complains:
Msg 4104, Level 16, State 1, Procedure sp_ShippingTypes_GetAllShippingTypes, Line 19
The multi-part identifier "Shipping.ShippingID_PK" could not be bound.
I don't understand what it means and how to fix it.
Please can someone help??
Regards,
ma se
|
|
|
|
|
ma se wrote: Shipping (1) -- (M) ShippingInShippingType (M) -- (1) ShippingType
(1) -- (M) is one to many.
I am trying to get the shipping name from the Shipping table, together with the shipping type information.
Try this From caluse with your query:
FROM
ShippingType
INNER JOIN ShippingInShippingTypes
ON ShippingType.ShippingTypeID_PK = ShippingInShippingTypes.ShippingTypeID_FK
INNER JOIN Shipping
ON ShippingInShippingTypes.ShippingID_FK = Shipping.ShippingID_PK;
What i understand from your query is that ShippingInShippingType is a relationship between Shipping and ShippingType tables, and you want to retrieve information from the Shipping table.
If this is so then in my openinion the FROM clause should like that:
FROM Shipping INNER JOIN
ShippingInShippingType ON Shipping.field = ShippingInShippingType.field INNER JOIN
ShippingType ON ShippingInShippingType.field = ShippingType.field
Regards
_____________________________
Success is not something to wait for, its something to work for.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi To all,
I have application, in which one DTS package is copy one file from one server (FTP) to other server (FTP). Now on destination side, they are changing it to SFTP.
So my question in,
1)does sql server 2000 supports tranfer from FTP to SFTP ?
2) does sql server 2005 supports tranfer from FTP tp SFTP ?
3) What do we need to chage DTS so that we can transfer the file?
4) if SQL server not capable, do i need third party tool ?
Note. We have user name and password to access the SFTP server.
Bye and thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
1)does sql server 2000 supports tranfer from FTP to SFTP ?
Not natively
2) does sql server 2005 supports tranfer from FTP tp SFTP ?
Not natively
3) What do we need to chage DTS so that we can transfer the file?
You could create an activeX control and use it in dts. Putty has a command line sftp client, but there are several sftp programs for windows. Try searching on google.
Mike Lasseter
-- modified at 17:21 Friday 21st July, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
Try and find a SFTP that supports command prompts so you can use batch files in DTS i.e. ftp.bat which can be run by DTS.
Look where you want to go not where you don't want to crash.
Bikers Bible
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I am trying to perform a search with a search term sent to a stored procedure. However when I use this
<br />
WHERE <br />
Column LIKE '%@SearchQueryVariable%' <br />
it doesn't work. This doesn't work either
<br />
WHERE <br />
Column LIKE @SearchQueryVariable <br />
Any ideas on how this is done?
-- modified at 4:23 Friday 21st July, 2006
Solved :
<br />
WHERE <br />
Column LIKE '%' + @Search + '%'<br />
|
|
|
|
|
Try this using sp_excuteSQL
<br />
use northwind<br />
<br />
DECLARE @MyLike nvarchar(50)<br />
DECLARE @mySQL nvarchar(200)<br />
<br />
<br />
SET @MyLike = '''%AN%'''<br />
<br />
SET @mySQL = 'SELECT * from Employees Where FirstName Like ' + @MyLike <br />
<br />
exec sp_executeSQL @mySQL<br />
Look where you want to go not where you don't want to crash.
Bikers Bible
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I had Intalled Sqlserver 2005 for Dotnet 2.0 in PC on the Operating System Windows Server 2003
I had Installed Sqlserver2005 in Mixedmode Authentication,
When I make the Connectivity, It Showing Error i.e Login Failed for user
NT Authority\Network Server
When I installed Sqlserver 2005 in same in WindowsXP it working well,
But in WindowsServer2003 only it showning this Error
I used Normal Connection Sting "server;uid;pwd;database;integrated security;"
Give me reply as soon as possible.. when u know this info..
Thanking for you
Balu
|
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing that you're trying to make an ASP.NET website. Integrated Security uses the credentials of the thread making the call to authenticate with the database.
Under Windows XP, IIS 5.1 knows nothing about ASP.NET. The ASP.NET runtime itself starts an ASPNET_WP.EXE worker process, which by default runs under the machine-name\ASPNET account. You can change this by editing the <processModel> element in machine.config.
IIS 6.0 on Windows Server 2003 recognises ASP.NET natively, and uses a standard W3WP.EXE worker process. The worker processes use the identity configured in the Application Pool for the application, which by default is the NETWORK SERVICE account.
You have three choices:
- Create a database server login for the NETWORK SERVICE account;
- Change the application pool's identity to a different account that already has a SQL Server login;
- Use SQL Server authentication and pass a username and password in the connection string.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
hi,
Thnak u for your reply,
I got that connectivity..
|
|
|
|
|
NT Authority\Network Server is anonyous user for ASP.NET 2.0 websites (in 1.1x it was called IUSER_MACHINENAME which is run under a protected thread by ASP.NET.
If you change your IIS to Windows authenication it will pick up your current Windows authenication and pass this to SQL server.
If you require anonyous access web internet then you need to provide an authenicated user to SQL 2005 either via SQL user connection or use impersonation via your web.config using the indentity
<br />
<indentity impresonate="true" userName="username" password="password"><br />
Look where you want to go not where you don't want to crash.
Bikers Bible
-- modified at 18:59 Friday 21st July, 2006
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
