when trying New Query in MS SQL 2005 management studio I get the following error :
cannot find the file
C:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\90\Tools\Binn\VSShell\Common7\IDE\sqlworkbe nchprojectitems\Sql\SQLFile.sql
is someone could paste me here the content of SQLFile.sql ?
thank youan emty file !
it works
Showing posts with label management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label management. Show all posts
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
A bit of Crystal Reports 8.5 help
Hi all, first post!
I'm working for a company that runs a business management system which uses an old version of Crystal Reports (version 8.5!) for reporting on pretty much anything the system can output.
I don't know how much it differs from the newer versions, but i'm new to the system (two days experience and counting) and I'm after a couple of pointers.
1) I am trying to output stock levels for products which are both in and out of stock. Now, due to some sillyness when the BMS was designed, if a product is out of stock, it has doesn't have a row in the bins_lots table (where stock levels are kept), rather than 0.
Therefore, if I do a report which outputs the stock levels of a product (part, items that are out of stock are missing from the report, rather than having a 0 next to their name.
Is it possible to tell Crystal that if a product exists but doesn't have an entry in bins_lots (where stock amounts are kept) then it should be 0?
I'd find this easy if it were a normal If Statement, but Crystal has to be difficult with its wierd way of doing conditionals.
2) Secondly, again due to the BMS design, if a product is on order, the amount in the order is logged in multiple purchase orders. Producing a query will give me duplicate entries for products. I know I can 'hide duplicates', but it results in a messy report.
Can I make Crystal add all of these numbers together (i.e. where product = 'AD-03', add quantity of due products together) and output the final result without using the subtotal/group functions.
All help appreciated :)1) Left join to the bins_lots table. When the amount column is null then there's no stock.
e.g. a formula to return the stock level would be (assuming your column is called amount)
if isnull({bins_lots.amount}) then 0 else {bins_lots.amount}
2) Well, I don't really know how you're going to add numbers without grouping / total functions. Why is grouping an issue? Why can't you group on the product, hide the detail, and print in the product group footer to get 1 record per product? Nothing messy there.
I'm working for a company that runs a business management system which uses an old version of Crystal Reports (version 8.5!) for reporting on pretty much anything the system can output.
I don't know how much it differs from the newer versions, but i'm new to the system (two days experience and counting) and I'm after a couple of pointers.
1) I am trying to output stock levels for products which are both in and out of stock. Now, due to some sillyness when the BMS was designed, if a product is out of stock, it has doesn't have a row in the bins_lots table (where stock levels are kept), rather than 0.
Therefore, if I do a report which outputs the stock levels of a product (part, items that are out of stock are missing from the report, rather than having a 0 next to their name.
Is it possible to tell Crystal that if a product exists but doesn't have an entry in bins_lots (where stock amounts are kept) then it should be 0?
I'd find this easy if it were a normal If Statement, but Crystal has to be difficult with its wierd way of doing conditionals.
2) Secondly, again due to the BMS design, if a product is on order, the amount in the order is logged in multiple purchase orders. Producing a query will give me duplicate entries for products. I know I can 'hide duplicates', but it results in a messy report.
Can I make Crystal add all of these numbers together (i.e. where product = 'AD-03', add quantity of due products together) and output the final result without using the subtotal/group functions.
All help appreciated :)1) Left join to the bins_lots table. When the amount column is null then there's no stock.
e.g. a formula to return the stock level would be (assuming your column is called amount)
if isnull({bins_lots.amount}) then 0 else {bins_lots.amount}
2) Well, I don't really know how you're going to add numbers without grouping / total functions. Why is grouping an issue? Why can't you group on the product, hide the detail, and print in the product group footer to get 1 record per product? Nothing messy there.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
8.00.0276 still showing within SQL Server 2005
Hello:
We upgraded SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005, last week. No issues arose.
But, when we opened the SQL Server 2005 Management Studio, the phrase
"8.00.0276" appeared next to the name of the SQL Server on the left (above
databases and so forth). That appears to the be the SQL 2000 version number.
Does that mean that the upgrade did not actually happen? I have
documentation on how to upgrade SQL 2000, and we followed it. Isn't it just
a matter of putting in the 2005 CD, telling it what instance to upgrade, and
"doing it"?
Thanks!
childofthe1980sSeems you are looking at the wrong instance or you didn't do the upgrade of the database engine. You
can connect and execute below, just to be certain:
select @.@.version
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"childofthe1980s" <childofthe1980s@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:234CC08B-B0DA-4653-9D07-4EC2D5E5137A@.microsoft.com...
> Hello:
> We upgraded SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005, last week. No issues arose.
> But, when we opened the SQL Server 2005 Management Studio, the phrase
> "8.00.0276" appeared next to the name of the SQL Server on the left (above
> databases and so forth). That appears to the be the SQL 2000 version number.
> Does that mean that the upgrade did not actually happen? I have
> documentation on how to upgrade SQL 2000, and we followed it. Isn't it just
> a matter of putting in the 2005 CD, telling it what instance to upgrade, and
> "doing it"?
> Thanks!
> childofthe1980s
We upgraded SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005, last week. No issues arose.
But, when we opened the SQL Server 2005 Management Studio, the phrase
"8.00.0276" appeared next to the name of the SQL Server on the left (above
databases and so forth). That appears to the be the SQL 2000 version number.
Does that mean that the upgrade did not actually happen? I have
documentation on how to upgrade SQL 2000, and we followed it. Isn't it just
a matter of putting in the 2005 CD, telling it what instance to upgrade, and
"doing it"?
Thanks!
childofthe1980sSeems you are looking at the wrong instance or you didn't do the upgrade of the database engine. You
can connect and execute below, just to be certain:
select @.@.version
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"childofthe1980s" <childofthe1980s@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:234CC08B-B0DA-4653-9D07-4EC2D5E5137A@.microsoft.com...
> Hello:
> We upgraded SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005, last week. No issues arose.
> But, when we opened the SQL Server 2005 Management Studio, the phrase
> "8.00.0276" appeared next to the name of the SQL Server on the left (above
> databases and so forth). That appears to the be the SQL 2000 version number.
> Does that mean that the upgrade did not actually happen? I have
> documentation on how to upgrade SQL 2000, and we followed it. Isn't it just
> a matter of putting in the 2005 CD, telling it what instance to upgrade, and
> "doing it"?
> Thanks!
> childofthe1980s
8.00.0276 still showing within SQL Server 2005
Hello:
We upgraded SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005, last week. No issues arose.
But, when we opened the SQL Server 2005 Management Studio, the phrase
"8.00.0276" appeared next to the name of the SQL Server on the left (above
databases and so forth). That appears to the be the SQL 2000 version number.
Does that mean that the upgrade did not actually happen? I have
documentation on how to upgrade SQL 2000, and we followed it. Isn't it just
a matter of putting in the 2005 CD, telling it what instance to upgrade, and
"doing it"?
Thanks!
childofthe1980s
Seems you are looking at the wrong instance or you didn't do the upgrade of the database engine. You
can connect and execute below, just to be certain:
select @.@.version
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"childofthe1980s" <childofthe1980s@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:234CC08B-B0DA-4653-9D07-4EC2D5E5137A@.microsoft.com...
> Hello:
> We upgraded SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005, last week. No issues arose.
> But, when we opened the SQL Server 2005 Management Studio, the phrase
> "8.00.0276" appeared next to the name of the SQL Server on the left (above
> databases and so forth). That appears to the be the SQL 2000 version number.
> Does that mean that the upgrade did not actually happen? I have
> documentation on how to upgrade SQL 2000, and we followed it. Isn't it just
> a matter of putting in the 2005 CD, telling it what instance to upgrade, and
> "doing it"?
> Thanks!
> childofthe1980s
We upgraded SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005, last week. No issues arose.
But, when we opened the SQL Server 2005 Management Studio, the phrase
"8.00.0276" appeared next to the name of the SQL Server on the left (above
databases and so forth). That appears to the be the SQL 2000 version number.
Does that mean that the upgrade did not actually happen? I have
documentation on how to upgrade SQL 2000, and we followed it. Isn't it just
a matter of putting in the 2005 CD, telling it what instance to upgrade, and
"doing it"?
Thanks!
childofthe1980s
Seems you are looking at the wrong instance or you didn't do the upgrade of the database engine. You
can connect and execute below, just to be certain:
select @.@.version
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"childofthe1980s" <childofthe1980s@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:234CC08B-B0DA-4653-9D07-4EC2D5E5137A@.microsoft.com...
> Hello:
> We upgraded SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005, last week. No issues arose.
> But, when we opened the SQL Server 2005 Management Studio, the phrase
> "8.00.0276" appeared next to the name of the SQL Server on the left (above
> databases and so forth). That appears to the be the SQL 2000 version number.
> Does that mean that the upgrade did not actually happen? I have
> documentation on how to upgrade SQL 2000, and we followed it. Isn't it just
> a matter of putting in the 2005 CD, telling it what instance to upgrade, and
> "doing it"?
> Thanks!
> childofthe1980s
8.00.0276 still showing within SQL Server 2005
Hello:
We upgraded SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005, last week. No issues arose.
But, when we opened the SQL Server 2005 Management Studio, the phrase
"8.00.0276" appeared next to the name of the SQL Server on the left (above
databases and so forth). That appears to the be the SQL 2000 version number
.
Does that mean that the upgrade did not actually happen? I have
documentation on how to upgrade SQL 2000, and we followed it. Isn't it just
a matter of putting in the 2005 CD, telling it what instance to upgrade, and
"doing it"?
Thanks!
childofthe1980sSeems you are looking at the wrong instance or you didn't do the upgrade of
the database engine. You
can connect and execute below, just to be certain:
select @.@.version
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"childofthe1980s" <childofthe1980s@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messa
ge
news:234CC08B-B0DA-4653-9D07-4EC2D5E5137A@.microsoft.com...
> Hello:
> We upgraded SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005, last week. No issues aros
e.
> But, when we opened the SQL Server 2005 Management Studio, the phrase
> "8.00.0276" appeared next to the name of the SQL Server on the left (above
> databases and so forth). That appears to the be the SQL 2000 version numb
er.
> Does that mean that the upgrade did not actually happen? I have
> documentation on how to upgrade SQL 2000, and we followed it. Isn't it ju
st
> a matter of putting in the 2005 CD, telling it what instance to upgrade, a
nd
> "doing it"?
> Thanks!
> childofthe1980s
We upgraded SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005, last week. No issues arose.
But, when we opened the SQL Server 2005 Management Studio, the phrase
"8.00.0276" appeared next to the name of the SQL Server on the left (above
databases and so forth). That appears to the be the SQL 2000 version number
.
Does that mean that the upgrade did not actually happen? I have
documentation on how to upgrade SQL 2000, and we followed it. Isn't it just
a matter of putting in the 2005 CD, telling it what instance to upgrade, and
"doing it"?
Thanks!
childofthe1980sSeems you are looking at the wrong instance or you didn't do the upgrade of
the database engine. You
can connect and execute below, just to be certain:
select @.@.version
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"childofthe1980s" <childofthe1980s@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messa
ge
news:234CC08B-B0DA-4653-9D07-4EC2D5E5137A@.microsoft.com...
> Hello:
> We upgraded SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005, last week. No issues aros
e.
> But, when we opened the SQL Server 2005 Management Studio, the phrase
> "8.00.0276" appeared next to the name of the SQL Server on the left (above
> databases and so forth). That appears to the be the SQL 2000 version numb
er.
> Does that mean that the upgrade did not actually happen? I have
> documentation on how to upgrade SQL 2000, and we followed it. Isn't it ju
st
> a matter of putting in the 2005 CD, telling it what instance to upgrade, a
nd
> "doing it"?
> Thanks!
> childofthe1980s
Thursday, March 8, 2012
64-bit versus 32-bit
Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64 versions.
I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and functions all
work and act the same.Hi,
There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
handling the memory.
see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
> development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
> the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
> versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
> functions all work and act the same.
>|||Hi,
I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server dedicated
to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased the
new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
and
If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in 64
bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
Thanks.
Kelvin
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
> handling the memory.
> see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
> news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
> > development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
> > the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
> > versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
> > functions all work and act the same.
> >
>
>|||The database format is the same for 32 and 64 bit SQL Server. So you can both restore and attach a
database from 32 bit to 64 bit.
You can also run 32 bit SQL Server engine on 64 bit OS if x64. But I recommend pure 64 bit, of
course.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Kelvin" <Kelvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A8F125A-CA70-4312-93B3-E2ECAE0F7F44@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
> We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
> As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server dedicated
> to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
> Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
> Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased the
> new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
> 32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
> and
> If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in 64
> bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
> Thanks.
> Kelvin
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hi,
>> There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
>> handling the memory.
>> see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
>> news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> > Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
>> > development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
>> > the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
>> > versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
>> > functions all work and act the same.
>> >
>>|||"Kelvin" <Kelvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A8F125A-CA70-4312-93B3-E2ECAE0F7F44@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
> We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
> As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server
> dedicated
> to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
> Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
> Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased
> the
> new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
> 32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
The database itself is compatible between 32-bit and 64-bit.
So you should have no problems.
> and
> If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in
> 64
> bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
> Thanks.
> Kelvin
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hi,
>> There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
>> handling the memory.
>> see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
>> news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> > Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
>> > development or management point? I realize that there are differences
>> > in
>> > the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
>> > versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
>> > functions all work and act the same.
>> >
>>
development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64 versions.
I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and functions all
work and act the same.Hi,
There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
handling the memory.
see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
> development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
> the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
> versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
> functions all work and act the same.
>|||Hi,
I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server dedicated
to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased the
new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
and
If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in 64
bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
Thanks.
Kelvin
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
> handling the memory.
> see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
> news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
> > development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
> > the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
> > versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
> > functions all work and act the same.
> >
>
>|||The database format is the same for 32 and 64 bit SQL Server. So you can both restore and attach a
database from 32 bit to 64 bit.
You can also run 32 bit SQL Server engine on 64 bit OS if x64. But I recommend pure 64 bit, of
course.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Kelvin" <Kelvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A8F125A-CA70-4312-93B3-E2ECAE0F7F44@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
> We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
> As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server dedicated
> to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
> Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
> Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased the
> new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
> 32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
> and
> If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in 64
> bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
> Thanks.
> Kelvin
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hi,
>> There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
>> handling the memory.
>> see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
>> news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> > Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
>> > development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
>> > the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
>> > versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
>> > functions all work and act the same.
>> >
>>|||"Kelvin" <Kelvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A8F125A-CA70-4312-93B3-E2ECAE0F7F44@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
> We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
> As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server
> dedicated
> to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
> Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
> Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased
> the
> new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
> 32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
The database itself is compatible between 32-bit and 64-bit.
So you should have no problems.
> and
> If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in
> 64
> bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
> Thanks.
> Kelvin
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>> Hi,
>> There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
>> handling the memory.
>> see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
>> Thanks
>> Hari
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
>> news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> > Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
>> > development or management point? I realize that there are differences
>> > in
>> > the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
>> > versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
>> > functions all work and act the same.
>> >
>>
64-bit versus 32-bit
Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64 versions.
I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and functions all
work and act the same.Hi,
There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
handling the memory.
see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
> development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
> the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
> versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
> functions all work and act the same.
>|||Hi,
I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server dedicated
to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased the
new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
and
If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in 64
bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
Thanks.
Kelvin
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
> handling the memory.
> see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
> news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>|||The database format is the same for 32 and 64 bit SQL Server. So you can bot
h restore and attach a
database from 32 bit to 64 bit.
You can also run 32 bit SQL Server engine on 64 bit OS if x64. But I recomme
nd pure 64 bit, of
course.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Kelvin" <Kelvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A8F125A-CA70-4312-93B3-E2ECAE0F7F44@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
> We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
> As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server dedicate
d
> to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
> Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
> Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased th
e
> new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
> 32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
> and
> If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in
64
> bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
> Thanks.
> Kelvin
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>|||"Kelvin" <Kelvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A8F125A-CA70-4312-93B3-E2ECAE0F7F44@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
> We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
> As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server
> dedicated
> to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
> Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
> Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased
> the
> new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
> 32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
The database itself is compatible between 32-bit and 64-bit.
So you should have no problems.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> and
> If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in
> 64
> bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
> Thanks.
> Kelvin
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>
development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64 versions.
I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and functions all
work and act the same.Hi,
There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
handling the memory.
see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Is there a difference in SQL Server 2005 64-bit versus 32-bit from a
> development or management point? I realize that there are differences in
> the hardware requirements and that there is 32-bit, X64, and IA64
> versions. I wanted to know if sp's, back-ups, data types, queries and
> functions all work and act the same.
>|||Hi,
I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server dedicated
to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased the
new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
and
If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in 64
bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
Thanks.
Kelvin
"Hari Prasad" wrote:
> Hi,
> There is no difference interms of development..The major differnece is in
> handling the memory.
> see this link to get the capacity specs for 32 and 64 bits:-
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
> Thanks
> Hari
> SQL Server MVP
> "Chris Ruggiero" <chris.ruggiero@.gaboing.com> wrote in message
> news:edDAV1qxGHA.3500@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>|||The database format is the same for 32 and 64 bit SQL Server. So you can bot
h restore and attach a
database from 32 bit to 64 bit.
You can also run 32 bit SQL Server engine on 64 bit OS if x64. But I recomme
nd pure 64 bit, of
course.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Kelvin" <Kelvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A8F125A-CA70-4312-93B3-E2ECAE0F7F44@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
> I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
> We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
> As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server dedicate
d
> to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
> Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
> Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased th
e
> new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
> 32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
> and
> If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in
64
> bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
> Thanks.
> Kelvin
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>|||"Kelvin" <Kelvin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8A8F125A-CA70-4312-93B3-E2ECAE0F7F44@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm new to SQL so any guidance is appreciated.
> We have 3 MS SQL based applications currently running on SBS 2003 Premium.
> As the data has grown so much, we will be purchasing a new server
> dedicated
> to SQL alone. The new server will be 64 bit capable (Xeons not Itaniums).
> Not understanding the mechanics of it all, my question is this :-
> Will the current SQL databases run without modification if we purchased
> the
> new server with 64bit Windows Server 2003 and 64bit SQL Server 2005 or are
> 32bit SQL databases not compatible with the 64bit SQL Server ?
The database itself is compatible between 32-bit and 64-bit.
So you should have no problems.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> and
> If forced to, will the database (or SQL itself) run properly if we put in
> 64
> bit Windows Server 2003 and 32 bit SQL Server 2005 ?
> Thanks.
> Kelvin
> "Hari Prasad" wrote:
>
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
64-bit problem
Hi,
I have an issue with a 64-bit clustered installation that I've just
completed, obviously the management tools can run on the itaniums and
I've put them on a 32-bit server on the same LAN.
My problem concerns creating the full-text indexes that I used to have
on a database. In a nutshell the MMC keeps telling me that the
Full-Text Search service must be running in order to do it (and the
MMC icon does show itself as being RED) but when I click on the
properties for it I get the correct response back that it is really
active. Everything to do with Full-Text is greyed out.
I know that I could script it but ideally I'll like to know if there's
some sort of hack available to make this work properly instead.
Thanks in advance for your help,
Mike
Mike,
Can you post the full output from -- SELECT @.@.version -- from your 64-bit
server? I'm assuming you're using the SQL Server 2000 (64-bit) EE version,
but need to confirm this. Additionally, what account ("System
account"/LocalSystem or DOMAIN\account) are you using for the MSSQLServer
account?
I've some experience with 64-bit SQL Server as I did some benchmarking tests
with Unisys at their lab in L.A. and the MSSearch service was functional,
however I didn't have the time to do FTS testing as we were busy testing
64-bit vs. 32-bit performance comparisons.
Since this is a clustered environment, this issue most likely is related to
either what account you have MSSQLServer running under or perhaps an
installation of the FTS components problem.
Thanks,
John
"Mike" <mike.metcalf@.4projects.com> wrote in message
news:678e073d.0411170818.5ae2e5f3@.posting.google.c om...
> Hi,
> I have an issue with a 64-bit clustered installation that I've just
> completed, obviously the management tools can run on the itaniums and
> I've put them on a 32-bit server on the same LAN.
> My problem concerns creating the full-text indexes that I used to have
> on a database. In a nutshell the MMC keeps telling me that the
> Full-Text Search service must be running in order to do it (and the
> MMC icon does show itself as being RED) but when I click on the
> properties for it I get the correct response back that it is really
> active. Everything to do with Full-Text is greyed out.
> I know that I could script it but ideally I'll like to know if there's
> some sort of hack available to make this work properly instead.
> Thanks in advance for your help,
> Mike
|||Hi John,
it turns out that it was just a blip in the installation and wasnt that
much of a one at that.
It's all working properly now and I for one am really impressed with the
performance increase we're getting across the board.
Thanks for helping,
Mike
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||You're welcome, Mike,
Sometimes, all it takes to solve a problem, is to either wait long enough
(for it to solve itself) or reboot! :-)
John
"Mike Metcalf" <mike.metcalf@.4projects.com> wrote in message
news:OBPjpoizEHA.1292@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi John,
> it turns out that it was just a blip in the installation and wasnt that
> much of a one at that.
> It's all working properly now and I for one am really impressed with the
> performance increase we're getting across the board.
> Thanks for helping,
> Mike
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
I have an issue with a 64-bit clustered installation that I've just
completed, obviously the management tools can run on the itaniums and
I've put them on a 32-bit server on the same LAN.
My problem concerns creating the full-text indexes that I used to have
on a database. In a nutshell the MMC keeps telling me that the
Full-Text Search service must be running in order to do it (and the
MMC icon does show itself as being RED) but when I click on the
properties for it I get the correct response back that it is really
active. Everything to do with Full-Text is greyed out.
I know that I could script it but ideally I'll like to know if there's
some sort of hack available to make this work properly instead.
Thanks in advance for your help,
Mike
Mike,
Can you post the full output from -- SELECT @.@.version -- from your 64-bit
server? I'm assuming you're using the SQL Server 2000 (64-bit) EE version,
but need to confirm this. Additionally, what account ("System
account"/LocalSystem or DOMAIN\account) are you using for the MSSQLServer
account?
I've some experience with 64-bit SQL Server as I did some benchmarking tests
with Unisys at their lab in L.A. and the MSSearch service was functional,
however I didn't have the time to do FTS testing as we were busy testing
64-bit vs. 32-bit performance comparisons.
Since this is a clustered environment, this issue most likely is related to
either what account you have MSSQLServer running under or perhaps an
installation of the FTS components problem.
Thanks,
John
"Mike" <mike.metcalf@.4projects.com> wrote in message
news:678e073d.0411170818.5ae2e5f3@.posting.google.c om...
> Hi,
> I have an issue with a 64-bit clustered installation that I've just
> completed, obviously the management tools can run on the itaniums and
> I've put them on a 32-bit server on the same LAN.
> My problem concerns creating the full-text indexes that I used to have
> on a database. In a nutshell the MMC keeps telling me that the
> Full-Text Search service must be running in order to do it (and the
> MMC icon does show itself as being RED) but when I click on the
> properties for it I get the correct response back that it is really
> active. Everything to do with Full-Text is greyed out.
> I know that I could script it but ideally I'll like to know if there's
> some sort of hack available to make this work properly instead.
> Thanks in advance for your help,
> Mike
|||Hi John,
it turns out that it was just a blip in the installation and wasnt that
much of a one at that.
It's all working properly now and I for one am really impressed with the
performance increase we're getting across the board.
Thanks for helping,
Mike
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||You're welcome, Mike,
Sometimes, all it takes to solve a problem, is to either wait long enough
(for it to solve itself) or reboot! :-)
John
"Mike Metcalf" <mike.metcalf@.4projects.com> wrote in message
news:OBPjpoizEHA.1292@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi John,
> it turns out that it was just a blip in the installation and wasnt that
> much of a one at that.
> It's all working properly now and I for one am really impressed with the
> performance increase we're getting across the board.
> Thanks for helping,
> Mike
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
Thursday, February 16, 2012
50(The request is not supported.)
I'm attempting to create an assembly in SQL Server Management Studio
express and I'm getting the following error message.
Msg 6502, Level 16, State 7, Line 1
CREATE ASSEMBLY failed because it could not read from the physical file
'Iit457wks1.Telspan.Intra\c$\TriggerUpdate.dll': 50(The request is not
supported.).
I've tried a ton of different things and I can't get this to work. Does
anyone have any ideas?<DIV>"IndyChris" <chrisshearier@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157049490.180110.320140@.74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...</DIV>> I'm
attempting to create an assembly in SQL Server Management Studio
> express and I'm getting the following error message.
> Msg 6502, Level 16, State 7, Line 1
> CREATE ASSEMBLY failed because it could not read from the physical file
> 'Iit457wks1.Telspan.Intra\c$\TriggerUpdate.dll': 50(The request is not
> supported.).
> I've tried a ton of different things and I can't get this to work. Does
> anyone have any ideas?
>
Put the DLL in a folder that SQL Server can access, and reference it there.
David
express and I'm getting the following error message.
Msg 6502, Level 16, State 7, Line 1
CREATE ASSEMBLY failed because it could not read from the physical file
'Iit457wks1.Telspan.Intra\c$\TriggerUpdate.dll': 50(The request is not
supported.).
I've tried a ton of different things and I can't get this to work. Does
anyone have any ideas?<DIV>"IndyChris" <chrisshearier@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157049490.180110.320140@.74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...</DIV>> I'm
attempting to create an assembly in SQL Server Management Studio
> express and I'm getting the following error message.
> Msg 6502, Level 16, State 7, Line 1
> CREATE ASSEMBLY failed because it could not read from the physical file
> 'Iit457wks1.Telspan.Intra\c$\TriggerUpdate.dll': 50(The request is not
> supported.).
> I've tried a ton of different things and I can't get this to work. Does
> anyone have any ideas?
>
Put the DLL in a folder that SQL Server can access, and reference it there.
David
50(The request is not supported.)
I'm attempting to create an assembly in SQL Server Management Studio
express and I'm getting the following error message.
Msg 6502, Level 16, State 7, Line 1
CREATE ASSEMBLY failed because it could not read from the physical file
'Iit457wks1.Telspan.Intra\c$\TriggerUpdate.dll': 50(The request is not
supported.).
I've tried a ton of different things and I can't get this to work. Does
anyone have any ideas?<DIV>"IndyChris" <chrisshearier@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157049490.180110.320140@.74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...</DIV>> I'm
attempting to create an assembly in SQL Server Management Studio
> express and I'm getting the following error message.
> Msg 6502, Level 16, State 7, Line 1
> CREATE ASSEMBLY failed because it could not read from the physical file
> 'Iit457wks1.Telspan.Intra\c$\TriggerUpdate.dll': 50(The request is not
> supported.).
> I've tried a ton of different things and I can't get this to work. Does
> anyone have any ideas?
>
Put the DLL in a folder that SQL Server can access, and reference it there.
David
express and I'm getting the following error message.
Msg 6502, Level 16, State 7, Line 1
CREATE ASSEMBLY failed because it could not read from the physical file
'Iit457wks1.Telspan.Intra\c$\TriggerUpdate.dll': 50(The request is not
supported.).
I've tried a ton of different things and I can't get this to work. Does
anyone have any ideas?<DIV>"IndyChris" <chrisshearier@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157049490.180110.320140@.74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...</DIV>> I'm
attempting to create an assembly in SQL Server Management Studio
> express and I'm getting the following error message.
> Msg 6502, Level 16, State 7, Line 1
> CREATE ASSEMBLY failed because it could not read from the physical file
> 'Iit457wks1.Telspan.Intra\c$\TriggerUpdate.dll': 50(The request is not
> supported.).
> I've tried a ton of different things and I can't get this to work. Does
> anyone have any ideas?
>
Put the DLL in a folder that SQL Server can access, and reference it there.
David
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)