A feature available in oracle, is it available in sql server?

Theres a feature in oracle that allows you to modify tables, colums, values and the data from its enterprise console the same way that you can in sql server. In oracle however theres a button called 'show sql' that allows you to see and copy/paste the resulting sql for the changes made via the console.

I would imagine that sql server has a similar option. The reason i ask is that i would like to more fully learn how to do this through the query analyser and get more familiar with sql involved and I would be able to do this if I could see the resulting sql from enterprise manager.

Hope this makes sense.

I did find something in sql server called 'generate sql' but this doesnt update during changes you make automatically.

Thanksyeah if you have downloaded ther BOL ( which you should) look for ALTER TABLE key word. you can add columns, drop 'em modify 'em etc.

hth|||Thanks for the reply. But, whats the BOL. And what are you talking about?!>?! This doesnt answer my question. I'm talking about the ability to see the resulting sql when modifying it in the enterprise console.|||What you are looking for is called "Save Change Script".

If you are in Enterprise Manager, right click on a table name, and choose "Design". This will take you into the Design Table interface. If you hover over the 3rd icon from the left you will see that it says "save change script" (note that you actually have to make a change in order for this to become active). If you click on this you will see the exact commands that EM is going to execute to accomomdate your changes, and you can opt to save them to disk.

Also, BOL is Books Online, an invaluable free SQL Server reference from Microsoft. It is a huge download but well worth it. You can find it here:SQL Server 2000 Books Online (Updated 2004).

Terri

A book for Report server

Dear all

Please can u suggest a good reference book available to study report server..

Regards

Polachan

I am currently reading Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Reporting Services (Sams Publishing) by Michael Lisin and Jim Joseph. I think it is a good book. I also have the other book written by Brian Larson. That is also a good book. The first book I think delves more into the technical details of how RS works behind the scenes. The Brian Larson book is more for beginners, but we use it most here.

Hope this helps.

|||

Thank u sir..

Can I ask to u one doubt regarding the parameter for drill through related to report server

regards

Polachan

sql

90 compatability mode option not available after upgrade

I upgrade to sql 2005 from sql2000. The problem is that the compatability mode 90 is not available, 8.0 and 7.0 are, when looking at the compatability level in the properties tab. THe GUI, Management studio is loaded and operational.

What do I need to do to make the 90 compatability mode available?

Thanks!

You can use the following T-SQL Sentences to change to Compatibility Mode to 90 for your database.

USE [master]

GO

EXEC dbo.sp_dbcmptlevel @.dbname=N'MyDatabase', @.new_cmptlevel=90

GO

But, i'm sure that this will not work fine for you, because, i look that is possible that your database have enabled some features, that only work in the 80 compatibility mode, because this has been disabled or are obsolete in SQL Server 2005.

Best Regards,

|||

Are you sure you actually installed the 2005 database engine? It sounds as if just the client tools are installed. What version number is reported when you run the following SQL against the master database?

SELECT @.@.version

64bit windows and 32bit SQL

I have a 64bit Windows Server machine running a 32bit version of SQL 2000
Standard. I am running into 'insufficient memory available' errors. I
upgraded the RAM from 4GB to 8GB, but the problem persists.
Do I need to use the /PAE or /3GB boot switch even though I am running a
64bit version of Windows? Do I need AWE setup for SQL to access more
memory?
I figure this has more to do with the 32 bit version of SQL not being able
to access all the memory. Any ideas?SQL 2000 Standard is limited to 2GB RAM.
--
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
"Marc Speed" <vw_marc@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:egONT2E$GHA.1220@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have a 64bit Windows Server machine running a 32bit version of SQL 2000
>Standard. I am running into 'insufficient memory available' errors. I
>upgraded the RAM from 4GB to 8GB, but the problem persists.
> Do I need to use the /PAE or /3GB boot switch even though I am running a
> 64bit version of Windows? Do I need AWE setup for SQL to access more
> memory?
> I figure this has more to do with the 32 bit version of SQL not being able
> to access all the memory. Any ideas?
>
>|||> I am running into 'insufficient memory available' errors.
Throwing more memory at the problem is probably not the solution. Have you
installed SP4? Do you get the error with only certain types of queries?
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Marc Speed" <vw_marc@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:egONT2E$GHA.1220@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have a 64bit Windows Server machine running a 32bit version of SQL 2000
>Standard. I am running into 'insufficient memory available' errors. I
>upgraded the RAM from 4GB to 8GB, but the problem persists.
> Do I need to use the /PAE or /3GB boot switch even though I am running a
> 64bit version of Windows? Do I need AWE setup for SQL to access more
> memory?
> I figure this has more to do with the 32 bit version of SQL not being able
> to access all the memory. Any ideas?
>
>

64bit windows and 32bit SQL

I have a 64bit Windows Server machine running a 32bit version of SQL 2000
Standard. I am running into 'insufficient memory available' errors. I
upgraded the RAM from 4GB to 8GB, but the problem persists.
Do I need to use the /PAE or /3GB boot switch even though I am running a
64bit version of Windows? Do I need AWE setup for SQL to access more
memory?
I figure this has more to do with the 32 bit version of SQL not being able
to access all the memory. Any ideas?SQL 2000 Standard is limited to 2GB RAM.
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com
"Marc Speed" <vw_marc@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:egONT2E$GHA.1220@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have a 64bit Windows Server machine running a 32bit version of SQL 2000
>Standard. I am running into 'insufficient memory available' errors. I
>upgraded the RAM from 4GB to 8GB, but the problem persists.
> Do I need to use the /PAE or /3GB boot switch even though I am running a
> 64bit version of Windows? Do I need AWE setup for SQL to access more
> memory?
> I figure this has more to do with the 32 bit version of SQL not being able
> to access all the memory. Any ideas?
>
>|||> I am running into 'insufficient memory available' errors.
Throwing more memory at the problem is probably not the solution. Have you
installed SP4? Do you get the error with only certain types of queries?
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Marc Speed" <vw_marc@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:egONT2E$GHA.1220@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have a 64bit Windows Server machine running a 32bit version of SQL 2000
>Standard. I am running into 'insufficient memory available' errors. I
>upgraded the RAM from 4GB to 8GB, but the problem persists.
> Do I need to use the /PAE or /3GB boot switch even though I am running a
> 64bit version of Windows? Do I need AWE setup for SQL to access more
> memory?
> I figure this has more to do with the 32 bit version of SQL not being able
> to access all the memory. Any ideas?
>
>

64 bit SQL 2005 memory problem

Large Query immediately eats up all available memory in Server 2003 Server
XP1 SQL 2005 64 bit (8 gig ram). CPU pegs at 99% and nothing else appears to
be able to access SQL Server. Query is attempting to delete possibly as many
as 200 million duplicate entries in a table. Do settings exist in SQL to
limit the amount of processing power any one query can tap into from the
server?
Regards,
Jamie
Hi
Why do you try to delete 200 million rows at one transaction?
Can you divide it to small tranasctions and then perfom deletion?
SET ROWCOUNT 1000
WHILE 1 = 1
BEGIN
DELETE statement Here
IF @.@.ROWCOUNT = 0
BEGIN
BREAK
END
ELSE
BEGIN
CHECKPOINT --or even BACKUP LOG file
END
END
SET ROWCOUNT 0
"thejamie" <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B566306D-F6DC-4CB5-B85A-E0978B158495@.microsoft.com...
> Large Query immediately eats up all available memory in Server 2003 Server
> XP1 SQL 2005 64 bit (8 gig ram). CPU pegs at 99% and nothing else appears
> to
> be able to access SQL Server. Query is attempting to delete possibly as
> many
> as 200 million duplicate entries in a table. Do settings exist in SQL to
> limit the amount of processing power any one query can tap into from the
> server?
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie
|||First i would run this query when nobody is connected to avoid locks etc..
Second if possible split the query in steps instead of doing all deletes in
1 time.
Example...do 1000 deletes atime and so on.
You can set the minimal query memory at the server level, i have no
experience with changing this option .
Good luck.
DBA4ever
"thejamie" wrote:

> Large Query immediately eats up all available memory in Server 2003 Server
> XP1 SQL 2005 64 bit (8 gig ram). CPU pegs at 99% and nothing else appears to
> be able to access SQL Server. Query is attempting to delete possibly as many
> as 200 million duplicate entries in a table. Do settings exist in SQL to
> limit the amount of processing power any one query can tap into from the
> server?
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie
|||Can I point this in another directions? There is something called AWE that
is used to allocate memory and it appears that min and max memory can be
set... in the memory section of the server properties. How will this effect
such a query.
I should have added that this is the only query running on the server and it
is simply a test of what happens under severe conditions. The test indicates
to me that the server memory should be tempered. After the query ran 8
hours, I canceled it. It locked up the server last night and we had to do a
cold boot. In my opinion, despite the recklessness of the delete statement,
a cold boot should rarely if ever be required as the solution to a SQL
problem arising from a mis-directed query.
Regards,
Jamie
"Hate_orphaned_users" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> First i would run this query when nobody is connected to avoid locks etc..
> Second if possible split the query in steps instead of doing all deletes in
> 1 time.
> Example...do 1000 deletes atime and so on.
> You can set the minimal query memory at the server level, i have no
> experience with changing this option .
> Good luck.
> DBA4ever
> "thejamie" wrote:
|||On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 05:20:01 -0800, thejamie
<thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>There is something called AWE that
>is used to allocate memory
AWE is for 32-bit, it does not apply to 64-bit SQL Server.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
|||On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 05:20:01 -0800, thejamie
<thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> After the query ran 8
>hours, I canceled it. It locked up the server last night and we had to do a
>cold boot. In my opinion, despite the recklessness of the delete statement,
>a cold boot should rarely if ever be required as the solution to a SQL
>problem arising from a mis-directed query.
The normal run time for a query that deletes 200 million rows may very
well exceed 8 hours. When such a query is cancelled while running, it
can take longer to toll back the work already done that it took to do
it in the first place, so 12 hours rolling back 8 hours of processing
would not be unexpected.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
|||You should select the "Dynamically configure SQL server memory" option.
Then set the Maximum option to full.
|||> Thanks for that information, Dan. That's what I get for going by the
> documentation! 8-)
I understand, Roy. I was under the same impression until I ran across
Slova's blog.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Roy Harvey" <roy_harvey@.snet.net> wrote in message
news:g97gn2hckaq1h4um92i784tc7kpku4vitk@.4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 07:45:20 -0600, "Dan Guzman"
> <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for that information, Dan. That's what I get for going by the
> documentation! 8-)
> "3 Note that the sp_configure awe enabled option is present on 64-bit
> SQL Server, but it is ignored. It is subject to removal in future
> releases or service packs of 64-bit SQL Server."
> Roy
|||How about the lightweight pooling with Windows fibers? Should Boost SQL
Server priority be checked or unchecked? Should worker threads be set for 0?
Regards,
Jamie
"Roy Harvey" wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 05:20:01 -0800, thejamie
> <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> AWE is for 32-bit, it does not apply to 64-bit SQL Server.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
>
|||The service was restarted and this had no effect on the memory and cpu
usage... the cold boot came next, now the cpu usage and memory are maxed out
again.
Regards,
Jamie
"Dan Guzman" wrote:

> I understand, Roy. I was under the same impression until I ran across
> Slova's blog.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Roy Harvey" <roy_harvey@.snet.net> wrote in message
> news:g97gn2hckaq1h4um92i784tc7kpku4vitk@.4ax.com...
>

64 bit SQL 2005 memory problem

Large Query immediately eats up all available memory in Server 2003 Server
XP1 SQL 2005 64 bit (8 gig ram). CPU pegs at 99% and nothing else appears t
o
be able to access SQL Server. Query is attempting to delete possibly as man
y
as 200 million duplicate entries in a table. Do settings exist in SQL to
limit the amount of processing power any one query can tap into from the
server?
--
Regards,
JamieHi
Why do you try to delete 200 million rows at one transaction?
Can you divide it to small tranasctions and then perfom deletion?
SET ROWCOUNT 1000
WHILE 1 = 1
BEGIN
DELETE statement Here
IF @.@.ROWCOUNT = 0
BEGIN
BREAK
END
ELSE
BEGIN
CHECKPOINT --or even BACKUP LOG file
END
END
SET ROWCOUNT 0
"thejamie" <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B566306D-F6DC-4CB5-B85A-E0978B158495@.microsoft.com...
> Large Query immediately eats up all available memory in Server 2003 Server
> XP1 SQL 2005 64 bit (8 gig ram). CPU pegs at 99% and nothing else appears
> to
> be able to access SQL Server. Query is attempting to delete possibly as
> many
> as 200 million duplicate entries in a table. Do settings exist in SQL to
> limit the amount of processing power any one query can tap into from the
> server?
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie|||First i would run this query when nobody is connected to avoid locks etc..
Second if possible split the query in steps instead of doing all deletes in
1 time.
Example...do 1000 deletes atime and so on.
You can set the minimal query memory at the server level, i have no
experience with changing this option .
Good luck.
DBA4ever
"thejamie" wrote:

> Large Query immediately eats up all available memory in Server 2003 Server
> XP1 SQL 2005 64 bit (8 gig ram). CPU pegs at 99% and nothing else appears
to
> be able to access SQL Server. Query is attempting to delete possibly as m
any
> as 200 million duplicate entries in a table. Do settings exist in SQL to
> limit the amount of processing power any one query can tap into from the
> server?
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie|||Can I point this in another directions? There is something called AWE that
is used to allocate memory and it appears that min and max memory can be
set... in the memory section of the server properties. How will this effect
such a query.
I should have added that this is the only query running on the server and it
is simply a test of what happens under severe conditions. The test indicate
s
to me that the server memory should be tempered. After the query ran 8
hours, I canceled it. It locked up the server last night and we had to do a
cold boot. In my opinion, despite the recklessness of the delete statement
,
a cold boot should rarely if ever be required as the solution to a SQL
problem arising from a mis-directed query.
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Hate_orphaned_users" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> First i would run this query when nobody is connected to avoid locks etc..
> Second if possible split the query in steps instead of doing all deletes i
n
> 1 time.
> Example...do 1000 deletes atime and so on.
> You can set the minimal query memory at the server level, i have no
> experience with changing this option .
> Good luck.
> DBA4ever
> "thejamie" wrote:
>|||On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 05:20:01 -0800, thejamie
<thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>There is something called AWE that
>is used to allocate memory
AWE is for 32-bit, it does not apply to 64-bit SQL Server.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT|||On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 05:20:01 -0800, thejamie
<thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> After the query ran 8
>hours, I canceled it. It locked up the server last night and we had to do
a
>cold boot. In my opinion, despite the recklessness of the delete statemen
t,
>a cold boot should rarely if ever be required as the solution to a SQL
>problem arising from a mis-directed query.
The normal run time for a query that deletes 200 million rows may very
well exceed 8 hours. When such a query is cancelled while running, it
can take longer to toll back the work already done that it took to do
it in the first place, so 12 hours rolling back 8 hours of processing
would not be unexpected.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT|||> Thanks for that information, Dan. That's what I get for going by the
> documentation! 8-)
I understand, Roy. I was under the same impression until I ran across
Slova's blog.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Roy Harvey" <roy_harvey@.snet.net> wrote in message
news:g97gn2hckaq1h4um92i784tc7kpku4vitk@.
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 07:45:20 -0600, "Dan Guzman"
> <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for that information, Dan. That's what I get for going by the
> documentation! 8-)
> "3 Note that the sp_configure awe enabled option is present on 64-bit
> SQL Server, but it is ignored. It is subject to removal in future
> releases or service packs of 64-bit SQL Server."
> Roy|||How about the lightweight pooling with Windows fibers? Should Boost SQL
Server priority be checked or unchecked? Should worker threads be set for
0?
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Roy Harvey" wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 05:20:01 -0800, thejamie
> <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> AWE is for 32-bit, it does not apply to 64-bit SQL Server.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
>|||The service was restarted and this had no effect on the memory and cpu
usage... the cold boot came next, now the cpu usage and memory are maxed out
again.
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Dan Guzman" wrote:

> I understand, Roy. I was under the same impression until I ran across
> Slova's blog.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "Roy Harvey" <roy_harvey@.snet.net> wrote in message
> news:g97gn2hckaq1h4um92i784tc7kpku4vitk@.
4ax.com...
>|||Thanks Hate_Orphaned_Users,
This may be the answer I am looking for. In the meantime, before I can
check this the server may need another cold boot. Will let you know.
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Hate_orphaned_users" wrote:

> You should select the "Dynamically configure SQL server memory" option.
> Then set the Maximum option to full.
>
>
>

64 bit

Has any mention of the 2008 editions been available? As with 2005 the Enterprise edition of SQL Server 2005 was the only one that supported 64bit OS will this be the same for 2008(Ehendricks880@.discussions.microsoft.com) writes: > Has any mention of the 2008 editions been available? As with 2005 the > Enterprise edition of SQL Server 2005 was the only one that supported > 64bit OS will this be the same for 2008 SQL 2005 Standard (and Developer) is available on 64-bit. SQL Express (and I assume Workgroup) runs on x64 as well, but only as 32-bit applications. -- Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx

5 GIG on Advanced 2000 with Std Ed 2000

After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
--
Regards,
JamieHi Jamie,
Can you be specific as to which operation system and SQL version is
currently installed?
Have you added the /3GB switch to boot.ini?
On Jan 20, 9:27 pm, thejamie <theja...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
> After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
> If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
> pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
> is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie|||There is no limitations in SQL Server 2005 Standard editions. Limitation is
all based on the type of operating system
Take a look into below URL.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/0/e/50ec0a69-d69e-4962-b2c9-80bbad125641/RequirementsSQL2005.htm
Thanks
Hari
"thejamie" <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:82B017BD-E9BE-4E06-89BA-B404ACD42F30@.microsoft.com...
> Advanced Server 2000 (with 5 GIG RAM) running Standard Edition 2000 SQL
> Server
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie
>
> "Shoval" wrote:
>> Hi Jamie,
>> Can you be specific as to which operation system and SQL version is
>> currently installed?
>> Have you added the /3GB switch to boot.ini?
>>
>> On Jan 20, 9:27 pm, thejamie <theja...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>> > After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is
>> > available.
>> > If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are
>> > there
>> > pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual
>> > processor,
>> > is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
>> > --
>> > Regards,
>> > Jamie
>>|||thejamie wrote:
> After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is
> available.
SQL server 2000 standard only supports 2 Gb
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa933149(SQL.80).aspx
- Peter
--
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!|||Hari,
The limitation on STANDARD Edition 2000 still exists or did that go away
with SP4?
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> There is no limitations in SQL Server 2005 Standard editions. Limitation is
> all based on the type of operating system
> Take a look into below URL.
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/0/e/50ec0a69-d69e-4962-b2c9-80bbad125641/RequirementsSQL2005.htm
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> "thejamie" <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:82B017BD-E9BE-4E06-89BA-B404ACD42F30@.microsoft.com...
> > Advanced Server 2000 (with 5 GIG RAM) running Standard Edition 2000 SQL
> > Server
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Jamie
> >
> >
> > "Shoval" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jamie,
> >> Can you be specific as to which operation system and SQL version is
> >> currently installed?
> >> Have you added the /3GB switch to boot.ini?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 20, 9:27 pm, thejamie <theja...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is
> >> > available.
> >> > If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are
> >> > there
> >> > pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual
> >> > processor,
> >> > is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
> >> > --
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Jamie
> >>
> >>
>
>|||Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
> SQL server 2000 standard only supports 2 Gb
Ahh I think I might have misunderstood you question slightly :)
You want to upgrade to SQL Server Enterprise?
- Peter
--
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!|||You need either:
* a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit version of SQL Server
* AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) enabled on SQL Server and PAE
(Physical Address Extensions) enabled in your operating system.
When you go to "My Computer", under "Properties" how much RAM do you
see? In the "General" tab, do you see "Physical Address Extensions"
enabled anywhere?
-Dave
--
-Dave Markle
http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
thejamie wrote:
> After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
> If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
> pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
> is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?|||Things are often difficult to explain. To make this more interesting, when
SQL came back online, the SQL properties indicate SQL is now using 4 gig of
ram rather than 2 gig as before. This may not be a true reading. The
machine is a Dell from 2000 with a dual processor - dual processor shows up
as four processors - standard now for a duo core processor but the technology
is older. Definitely using a Standard Edition of SQL - not an Enterprise
version. Is it possible that with extra processors, the standard edition
will assign up to two gig per processor? I spent many nights worrying and it
doesn't appear to be a problem at the moment. More can be said when we bring
in production Monday morning.
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Peter Lykkegaard" wrote:
> Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
> >
> > SQL server 2000 standard only supports 2 Gb
> Ahh I think I might have misunderstood you question slightly :)
> You want to upgrade to SQL Server Enterprise?
> - Peter
> --
> Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
> Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
>
>|||I see four gig now vs two gig before. Physical Address Extensions cannot be
seen. We do not have the /PAE listed in the boot.ini.
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Dave Markle" <"dma[remove_ZZ]ZZrkle" wrote:
> You need either:
> * a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit version of SQL Server
> * AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) enabled on SQL Server and PAE
> (Physical Address Extensions) enabled in your operating system.
> When you go to "My Computer", under "Properties" how much RAM do you
> see? In the "General" tab, do you see "Physical Address Extensions"
> enabled anywhere?
> -Dave
> --
> -Dave Markle
> http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
>
> thejamie wrote:
> > After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
> > If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
> > pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
> > is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
>
>

5 GIG on Advanced 2000 with Std Ed 2000

After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
Regards,
Jamie
Hi Jamie,
Can you be specific as to which operation system and SQL version is
currently installed?
Have you added the /3GB switch to boot.ini?
On Jan 20, 9:27 pm, thejamie <theja...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
> After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
> If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
> pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
> is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie
|||Advanced Server 2000 (with 5 GIG RAM) running Standard Edition 2000 SQL Server
Regards,
Jamie
"Shoval" wrote:

> Hi Jamie,
> Can you be specific as to which operation system and SQL version is
> currently installed?
> Have you added the /3GB switch to boot.ini?
>
> On Jan 20, 9:27 pm, thejamie <theja...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
|||There is no limitations in SQL Server 2005 Standard editions. Limitation is
all based on the type of operating system
Take a look into below URL.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/0/e/50ec0a69-d69e-4962-b2c9-80bbad125641/RequirementsSQL2005.htm
Thanks
Hari
"thejamie" <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:82B017BD-E9BE-4E06-89BA-B404ACD42F30@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Advanced Server 2000 (with 5 GIG RAM) running Standard Edition 2000 SQL
> Server
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie
>
> "Shoval" wrote:
|||Hari,
The limitation on STANDARD Edition 2000 still exists or did that go away
with SP4?
Regards,
Jamie
"Hari Prasad" wrote:

> There is no limitations in SQL Server 2005 Standard editions. Limitation is
> all based on the type of operating system
> Take a look into below URL.
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/compare-features.mspx
> http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/0/e/50ec0a69-d69e-4962-b2c9-80bbad125641/RequirementsSQL2005.htm
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> "thejamie" <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:82B017BD-E9BE-4E06-89BA-B404ACD42F30@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||You need either:
* a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit version of SQL Server
* AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) enabled on SQL Server and PAE
(Physical Address Extensions) enabled in your operating system.
When you go to "My Computer", under "Properties" how much RAM do you
see? In the "General" tab, do you see "Physical Address Extensions"
enabled anywhere?
-Dave
-Dave Markle
http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
thejamie wrote:
> After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available.
> If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
> pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
> is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
|||Things are often difficult to explain. To make this more interesting, when
SQL came back online, the SQL properties indicate SQL is now using 4 gig of
ram rather than 2 gig as before. This may not be a true reading. The
machine is a Dell from 2000 with a dual processor - dual processor shows up
as four processors - standard now for a duo core processor but the technology
is older. Definitely using a Standard Edition of SQL - not an Enterprise
version. Is it possible that with extra processors, the standard edition
will assign up to two gig per processor? I spent many nights worrying and it
doesn't appear to be a problem at the moment. More can be said when we bring
in production Monday morning.
Regards,
Jamie
"Peter Lykkegaard" wrote:

> Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
> Ahh I think I might have misunderstood you question slightly
> You want to upgrade to SQL Server Enterprise?
> - Peter
> --
> Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
> Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
>
>
|||I see four gig now vs two gig before. Physical Address Extensions cannot be
seen. We do not have the /PAE listed in the boot.ini.
Regards,
Jamie
"Dave Markle" <"dma[remove_ZZ]ZZrkle" wrote:

> You need either:
> * a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit version of SQL Server
> * AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) enabled on SQL Server and PAE
> (Physical Address Extensions) enabled in your operating system.
> When you go to "My Computer", under "Properties" how much RAM do you
> see? In the "General" tab, do you see "Physical Address Extensions"
> enabled anywhere?
> -Dave
> --
> -Dave Markle
> http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
>
> thejamie wrote:
>
>

5 GIG on Advanced 2000 with Std Ed 2000

After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is available
.
If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor,
is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
--
Regards,
JamieHi Jamie,
Can you be specific as to which operation system and SQL version is
currently installed?
Have you added the /3GB switch to boot.ini?
On Jan 20, 9:27 pm, thejamie <theja...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
> After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is availab
le.
> If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
> pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor
,
> is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie|||Advanced Server 2000 (with 5 GIG RAM) running Standard Edition 2000 SQL Serv
er
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Shoval" wrote:

> Hi Jamie,
> Can you be specific as to which operation system and SQL version is
> currently installed?
> Have you added the /3GB switch to boot.ini?
>
> On Jan 20, 9:27 pm, thejamie <theja...@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>|||There is no limitations in SQL Server 2005 Standard editions. Limitation is
all based on the type of operating system
Take a look into below URL.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...e-features.mspx
http://download.microsoft.com/downl...entsSQL2005.htm
Thanks
Hari
"thejamie" <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:82B017BD-E9BE-4E06-89BA-B404ACD42F30@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Advanced Server 2000 (with 5 GIG RAM) running Standard Edition 2000 SQL
> Server
> --
> Regards,
> Jamie
>
> "Shoval" wrote:
>|||thejamie wrote:

> After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is
> available.
SQL server 2000 standard only supports 2 Gb
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa933149(SQL.80).aspx
- Peter
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!|||Hari,
The limitation on STANDARD Edition 2000 still exists or did that go away
with SP4?
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Hari Prasad" wrote:

> There is no limitations in SQL Server 2005 Standard editions. Limitation i
s
> all based on the type of operating system
> Take a look into below URL.
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...e-features.mspx
> http://download.microsoft.com/downl...entsSQL2005.htm
> Thanks
> Hari
>
> "thejamie" <thejamie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:82B017BD-E9BE-4E06-89BA-B404ACD42F30@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
> SQL server 2000 standard only supports 2 Gb
Ahh I think I might have misunderstood you question slightly
You want to upgrade to SQL Server Enterprise?
- Peter
Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!|||You need either:
* a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit version of SQL Server
* AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) enabled on SQL Server and PAE
(Physical Address Extensions) enabled in your operating system.
When you go to "My Computer", under "Properties" how much RAM do you
see? In the "General" tab, do you see "Physical Address Extensions"
enabled anywhere?
-Dave
-Dave Markle
http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
thejamie wrote:
> After installing the 5 GIG on the Advanced Server, only two gig is availab
le.
> If an upgrade is made to SQL Server 2005 STD for this machine, are there
> pitfalls to be aware of? Alternatively, Advanced Server is dual processor
,
> is there a strategy available to set each processor to use 2 gig?|||Things are often difficult to explain. To make this more interesting, when
SQL came back online, the SQL properties indicate SQL is now using 4 gig of
ram rather than 2 gig as before. This may not be a true reading. The
machine is a Dell from 2000 with a dual processor - dual processor shows up
as four processors - standard now for a duo core processor but the technolog
y
is older. Definitely using a Standard Edition of SQL - not an Enterprise
version. Is it possible that with extra processors, the standard edition
will assign up to two gig per processor? I spent many nights worrying and i
t
doesn't appear to be a problem at the moment. More can be said when we brin
g
in production Monday morning.
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Peter Lykkegaard" wrote:

> Peter Lykkegaard wrote:
> Ahh I think I might have misunderstood you question slightly
> You want to upgrade to SQL Server Enterprise?
> - Peter
> --
> Hi! I'm a .signature *virus*!
> Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
>
>|||I see four gig now vs two gig before. Physical Address Extensions cannot be
seen. We do not have the /PAE listed in the boot.ini.
--
Regards,
Jamie
"Dave Markle" <"dma[remove_ZZ]ZZrkle" wrote:

> You need either:
> * a 64-bit OS and a 64-bit version of SQL Server
> * AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) enabled on SQL Server and PAE
> (Physical Address Extensions) enabled in your operating system.
> When you go to "My Computer", under "Properties" how much RAM do you
> see? In the "General" tab, do you see "Physical Address Extensions"
> enabled anywhere?
> -Dave
> --
> -Dave Markle
> http://www.markleconsulting.com/blog
>
> thejamie wrote:
>
>