A Bug With Running Total Query?

Using SQL Server 2005
Query Result From 1 Table with 3 Cols:
Date Amount RunningTotal
6/1/2005 730.0000 730.0000
7/1/2005 415.0000 830.0000
8/1/2005 415.0000 1245.0000
9/1/2005 415.0000 1660.0000
10/1/2005 415.0000 2075.0000
11/1/2005 415.0000 2490.0000
12/1/2005 415.0000 2905.0000
1/1/2006 415.0000 3320.0000
2/1/2006 415.0000 3735.0000
3/1/2006 415.0000 4150.0000
4/1/2006 415.0000 4565.0000
5/1/2006 415.0000 4980.0000
Query:
SELECT Table1.AmountDate, Table1.Amount, SUM(Table1.Amount) AS
RunningTotal
FROM AmountTable AS Table1 INNER JOIN
AmountTable AS Table2 ON Table1.AmountDate >=
Table2.AmountDate
GROUP BY Table1.AmountDate, Table1.Amount
ORDER BY Table1.AmountDate
The problem is with the 7/1 date sum. It only added 100 and not 415
Does anybody see a problem I did or is this something I should post to MSDN
Product FeedBack?
The query was a bit more complex when I unioned 2 tables and the amount was
not coming out right and I broke it down very simply and found this to be a
n
issue.
On a side note relating to the union relation and doing a running total, I
only had 1 Amount in the other table for now and for some reason, that wasn'
t
summing with the rest of the set.
SELECT AmountTable1.AmountDate, SUM(AmountTable1.AmountAmount)
FROM (SELECT Table1Amount.AmountDate, Table1Amount.AmountAmount
FROM Table1Amount
INNER JOIN
Table1 ON Table1Amount.Table1ID = Table1.Table1ID
UNION
SELECT Table2Amount.AmountDate, Table2Amount.AmountAmount
FROM Table2Amount INNER JOIN
Table1 AS Table1_1 ON Table2Amount.Table2ID =
Table1_1.Table2ID
WHERE (Table2Amount.Table2ID = '1')) AS AmountTable1
CROSS JOIN
(SELECT Table1Amount.AmountDate, Table1Amount.AmountAmount
FROM Table1Amount INNER JOIN
Table1 ON Table1Amount.Table1ID = Table1.Table1ID
UNION
SELECT Table2Amount.AmountDate, Table2Amount.AmountAmount
FROM Table2Amount INNER JOIN
Table1 AS Table1_1 ON Table2Amount.Table2ID =
Table1_1.Table2ID
WHERE (Table2Amount.Table2ID = '1')) AS AmountTable2
WHERE (AmountTable1.AmountDate >= AmountTable2.AmountDate)
GROUP BY AmountTable1.AmountDate, AmountTable1.AmountAmount
ORDER BY AmountTable1.AmountDate
Produces:
Date Amount RunningTotal
6/1/2005 730.0000 730.0000
6/3/2005 10.0000 20.0000*****From Table1
7/1/2005 415.0000 1245.0000
8/1/2005 415.0000 1660.0000
9/1/2005 415.0000 2075.0000
10/1/2005 415.0000 2490.0000
11/1/2005 415.0000 2905.0000
12/1/2005 415.0000 3320.0000
1/1/2006 415.0000 3735.0000
2/1/2006 415.0000 4150.0000
3/1/2006 415.0000 4565.0000
4/1/2006 415.0000 4980.0000
5/1/2006 415.0000 5395.0000
6/1/2006 415.0000 5810.0000
So that 6/3 Amount from Table1 is excluded from summing with the rest of the
set.
I thought it would have been included with the Union.
Any input is welcome,
NathanHi
This should be posted to the beta newsgroups along with version number, DDL
and sample data so that the problem can be recreated.
http://communities.microsoft.com/ne...onalserver.tsql
John
"Nathan" <Nathan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C771A09A-69DA-49D0-B71C-5C541E15EC51@.microsoft.com...
> Using SQL Server 2005
> Query Result From 1 Table with 3 Cols:
> Date Amount RunningTotal
> 6/1/2005 730.0000 730.0000
> 7/1/2005 415.0000 830.0000
> 8/1/2005 415.0000 1245.0000
> 9/1/2005 415.0000 1660.0000
> 10/1/2005 415.0000 2075.0000
> 11/1/2005 415.0000 2490.0000
> 12/1/2005 415.0000 2905.0000
> 1/1/2006 415.0000 3320.0000
> 2/1/2006 415.0000 3735.0000
> 3/1/2006 415.0000 4150.0000
> 4/1/2006 415.0000 4565.0000
> 5/1/2006 415.0000 4980.0000
> Query:
> SELECT Table1.AmountDate, Table1.Amount, SUM(Table1.Amount) AS
> RunningTotal
> FROM AmountTable AS Table1 INNER JOIN
> AmountTable AS Table2 ON Table1.AmountDate >=
> Table2.AmountDate
> GROUP BY Table1.AmountDate, Table1.Amount
> ORDER BY Table1.AmountDate
> The problem is with the 7/1 date sum. It only added 100 and not 415
> Does anybody see a problem I did or is this something I should post to
> MSDN
> Product FeedBack?
> The query was a bit more complex when I unioned 2 tables and the amount
> was
> not coming out right and I broke it down very simply and found this to be
> an
> issue.
> On a side note relating to the union relation and doing a running total, I
> only had 1 Amount in the other table for now and for some reason, that
> wasn't
> summing with the rest of the set.
> SELECT AmountTable1.AmountDate, SUM(AmountTable1.AmountAmount)
> FROM (SELECT Table1Amount.AmountDate, Table1Amount.AmountAmount
> FROM Table1Amount
> INNER JOIN
> Table1 ON Table1Amount.Table1ID = Table1.Table1ID
> UNION
> SELECT Table2Amount.AmountDate, Table2Amount.AmountAmount
> FROM Table2Amount INNER JOIN
> Table1 AS Table1_1 ON Table2Amount.Table2ID =
> Table1_1.Table2ID
> WHERE (Table2Amount.Table2ID = '1')) AS AmountTable1
> CROSS JOIN
> (SELECT Table1Amount.AmountDate, Table1Amount.AmountAmount
> FROM Table1Amount INNER JOIN
> Table1 ON Table1Amount.Table1ID = Table1.Table1ID
> UNION
> SELECT Table2Amount.AmountDate,
> Table2Amount.AmountAmount
> FROM Table2Amount INNER JOIN
> Table1 AS Table1_1 ON Table2Amount.Table2ID =
> Table1_1.Table2ID
> WHERE (Table2Amount.Table2ID = '1')) AS AmountTable2
> WHERE (AmountTable1.AmountDate >= AmountTable2.AmountDate)
> GROUP BY AmountTable1.AmountDate, AmountTable1.AmountAmount
> ORDER BY AmountTable1.AmountDate
> Produces:
> Date Amount RunningTotal
> 6/1/2005 730.0000 730.0000
> 6/3/2005 10.0000 20.0000*****From Table1
> 7/1/2005 415.0000 1245.0000
> 8/1/2005 415.0000 1660.0000
> 9/1/2005 415.0000 2075.0000
> 10/1/2005 415.0000 2490.0000
> 11/1/2005 415.0000 2905.0000
> 12/1/2005 415.0000 3320.0000
> 1/1/2006 415.0000 3735.0000
> 2/1/2006 415.0000 4150.0000
> 3/1/2006 415.0000 4565.0000
> 4/1/2006 415.0000 4980.0000
> 5/1/2006 415.0000 5395.0000
> 6/1/2006 415.0000 5810.0000
> So that 6/3 Amount from Table1 is excluded from summing with the rest of
> the
> set.
> I thought it would have been included with the Union.
> Any input is welcome,
> Nathan|||
Nathan wrote:

>Using SQL Server 2005
>Query Result From 1 Table with 3 Cols:
>Date Amount RunningTotal
>6/1/2005 730.0000 730.0000
>7/1/2005 415.0000 830.0000
>8/1/2005 415.0000 1245.0000
>9/1/2005 415.0000 1660.0000
>10/1/2005 415.0000 2075.0000
>11/1/2005 415.0000 2490.0000
>12/1/2005 415.0000 2905.0000
>1/1/2006 415.0000 3320.0000
>2/1/2006 415.0000 3735.0000
>3/1/2006 415.0000 4150.0000
>4/1/2006 415.0000 4565.0000
>5/1/2006 415.0000 4980.0000
>Query:
>SELECT Table1.AmountDate, Table1.Amount, SUM(Table1.Amount) AS
>RunningTotal
>FROM AmountTable AS Table1 INNER JOIN
> AmountTable AS Table2 ON Table1.AmountDate >=
>Table2.AmountDate
>GROUP BY Table1.AmountDate, Table1.Amount
>ORDER BY Table1.AmountDate
>
Nathan,
The results are correct for this query. You are grouping by and summing
the same column: Table1.Amount. Table2 only determines how many times
each Table1 row is repeated, so SUM(Table1.Amount) is just a multiple of
Table1.Amount:
Table1.Amount*(number of rows in the table with earlier or the same date).
Note that your "running sums" are not that at all. They are multiples:
730*1 = 730
415*2 = 830
415*3 = 1245
415*4 = 1660
...
415*12 = 4980
If you want running sums, you will need SUM(Table2.Amount).
Steve Kass
Drew University

>The problem is with the 7/1 date sum. It only added 100 and not 415
>Does anybody see a problem I did or is this something I should post to MSDN
>Product FeedBack?
>The query was a bit more complex when I unioned 2 tables and the amount was
>not coming out right and I broke it down very simply and found this to be
an
>issue.
>On a side note relating to the union relation and doing a running total, I
>only had 1 Amount in the other table for now and for some reason, that wasn
't
>summing with the rest of the set.
>SELECT AmountTable1.AmountDate, SUM(AmountTable1.AmountAmount)
>FROM (SELECT Table1Amount.AmountDate, Table1Amount.AmountAmount
> FROM Table1Amount
> INNER JOIN
> Table1 ON Table1Amount.Table1ID = Table1.Table1ID
> UNION
> SELECT Table2Amount.AmountDate, Table2Amount.AmountAmount
> FROM Table2Amount INNER JOIN
> Table1 AS Table1_1 ON Table2Amount.Table2ID =
>Table1_1.Table2ID
> WHERE (Table2Amount.Table2ID = '1')) AS AmountTable1
> CROSS JOIN
> (SELECT Table1Amount.AmountDate, Table1Amount.AmountAmount
> FROM Table1Amount INNER JOIN
> Table1 ON Table1Amount.Table1ID = Table1.Table1ID
> UNION
> SELECT Table2Amount.AmountDate, Table2Amount.AmountAmou
nt
> FROM Table2Amount INNER JOIN
> Table1 AS Table1_1 ON Table2Amount.Table2ID =
>Table1_1.Table2ID
> WHERE (Table2Amount.Table2ID = '1')) AS AmountTable2
>WHERE (AmountTable1.AmountDate >= AmountTable2.AmountDate)
>GROUP BY AmountTable1.AmountDate, AmountTable1.AmountAmount
>ORDER BY AmountTable1.AmountDate
>Produces:
>Date Amount RunningTotal
>6/1/2005 730.0000 730.0000
>6/3/2005 10.0000 20.0000*****From Table1
>7/1/2005 415.0000 1245.0000
>8/1/2005 415.0000 1660.0000
>9/1/2005 415.0000 2075.0000
>10/1/2005 415.0000 2490.0000
>11/1/2005 415.0000 2905.0000
>12/1/2005 415.0000 3320.0000
>1/1/2006 415.0000 3735.0000
>2/1/2006 415.0000 4150.0000
>3/1/2006 415.0000 4565.0000
>4/1/2006 415.0000 4980.0000
>5/1/2006 415.0000 5395.0000
>6/1/2006 415.0000 5810.0000
>So that 6/3 Amount from Table1 is excluded from summing with the rest of th
e
>set.
>I thought it would have been included with the Union.
>Any input is welcome,
>Nathan
>|||AAAAHHHHHH!!!!
I can't believe I didn't catch that one. I was working on the original issue
for so long that ended up going blind.
Kudos for the good catch Steve
Nathan
"Steve Kass" wrote:

>
> Nathan wrote:
>
> Nathan,
> The results are correct for this query. You are grouping by and summing
> the same column: Table1.Amount. Table2 only determines how many times
> each Table1 row is repeated, so SUM(Table1.Amount) is just a multiple of
> Table1.Amount:
> Table1.Amount*(number of rows in the table with earlier or the same date).
> Note that your "running sums" are not that at all. They are multiples:
> 730*1 = 730
> 415*2 = 830
> 415*3 = 1245
> 415*4 = 1660
> ...
> 415*12 = 4980
>
> If you want running sums, you will need SUM(Table2.Amount).
> Steve Kass
> Drew University
>
>

8GB memory installation

Situation:
OS: 2000 advanced server
SQL enterprise
We have just added an extra 6GB of memory to our database server which
brings the total to 8. The problem we are having is that the OS is only using
3Gb of memory.
We have run the SP that is recommended for AWE and entered the /3GB /PAE in
the boot.ini file and restarted the machine.
The server still refuses to use more than 3GB. Any ideas?
Did you re-configure SQL, the AWE and fixed memory?
e.g.
sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'min server memory', 6656 (make same as maximum)
RECONFIGURE
go
sp_configure 'max server memory', 6656 (leave at least 512 for the OS)
RECONFIGURE
Regards
Mike
"lramsdale" wrote:

> Situation:
> OS: 2000 advanced server
> SQL enterprise
> We have just added an extra 6GB of memory to our database server which
> brings the total to 8. The problem we are having is that the OS is only using
> 3Gb of memory.
> We have run the SP that is recommended for AWE and entered the /3GB /PAE in
> the boot.ini file and restarted the machine.
> The server still refuses to use more than 3GB. Any ideas?
|||This is what we ran:
sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
RECONFIGURE
GO
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Did you re-configure SQL, the AWE and fixed memory?
> e.g.
> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'min server memory', 6656 (make same as maximum)
> RECONFIGURE
> go
> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6656 (leave at least 512 for the OS)
> RECONFIGURE
> Regards
> Mike
> "lramsdale" wrote:
|||Ok we finally got to the bottom of this problem - it seems that we needed to
give the SQL server service account permissions to the lock pages in memory
privelege, even though it was in the domain admin account. This was hard to
find, why is there so much conflicting documentation on this AWE setting?
"lramsdale" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> This is what we ran:
> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

8GB memory installation

Situation:
OS: 2000 advanced server
SQL enterprise
We have just added an extra 6GB of memory to our database server which
brings the total to 8. The problem we are having is that the OS is only usin
g
3Gb of memory.
We have run the SP that is recommended for AWE and entered the /3GB /PAE in
the boot.ini file and restarted the machine.
The server still refuses to use more than 3GB. Any ideas?Did you re-configure SQL, the AWE and fixed memory?
e.g.
sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'min server memory', 6656 (make same as maximum)
RECONFIGURE
go
sp_configure 'max server memory', 6656 (leave at least 512 for the OS)
RECONFIGURE
Regards
Mike
"lramsdale" wrote:

> Situation:
> OS: 2000 advanced server
> SQL enterprise
> We have just added an extra 6GB of memory to our database server which
> brings the total to 8. The problem we are having is that the OS is only us
ing
> 3Gb of memory.
> We have run the SP that is recommended for AWE and entered the /3GB /PAE i
n
> the boot.ini file and restarted the machine.
> The server still refuses to use more than 3GB. Any ideas?|||This is what we ran:
sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
RECONFIGURE
GO
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Did you re-configure SQL, the AWE and fixed memory?
> e.g.
> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'min server memory', 6656 (make same as maximum)
> RECONFIGURE
> go
> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6656 (leave at least 512 for the OS)
> RECONFIGURE
> Regards
> Mike
> "lramsdale" wrote:
>|||Ok we finally got to the bottom of this problem - it seems that we needed to
give the SQL server service account permissions to the lock pages in memory
privelege, even though it was in the domain admin account. This was hard to
find, why is there so much conflicting documentation on this AWE setting?
"lramsdale" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> This is what we ran:
> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>

8GB memory installation

Situation:
OS: 2000 advanced server
SQL enterprise
We have just added an extra 6GB of memory to our database server which
brings the total to 8. The problem we are having is that the OS is only using
3Gb of memory.
We have run the SP that is recommended for AWE and entered the /3GB /PAE in
the boot.ini file and restarted the machine.
The server still refuses to use more than 3GB. Any ideas?Did you re-configure SQL, the AWE and fixed memory?
e.g.
sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'min server memory', 6656 (make same as maximum)
RECONFIGURE
go
sp_configure 'max server memory', 6656 (leave at least 512 for the OS)
RECONFIGURE
Regards
Mike
"lramsdale" wrote:
> Situation:
> OS: 2000 advanced server
> SQL enterprise
> We have just added an extra 6GB of memory to our database server which
> brings the total to 8. The problem we are having is that the OS is only using
> 3Gb of memory.
> We have run the SP that is recommended for AWE and entered the /3GB /PAE in
> the boot.ini file and restarted the machine.
> The server still refuses to use more than 3GB. Any ideas?|||This is what we ran:
sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
RECONFIGURE
GO
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Did you re-configure SQL, the AWE and fixed memory?
> e.g.
> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'min server memory', 6656 (make same as maximum)
> RECONFIGURE
> go
> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6656 (leave at least 512 for the OS)
> RECONFIGURE
> Regards
> Mike
> "lramsdale" wrote:
> > Situation:
> >
> > OS: 2000 advanced server
> > SQL enterprise
> >
> > We have just added an extra 6GB of memory to our database server which
> > brings the total to 8. The problem we are having is that the OS is only using
> > 3Gb of memory.
> >
> > We have run the SP that is recommended for AWE and entered the /3GB /PAE in
> > the boot.ini file and restarted the machine.
> >
> > The server still refuses to use more than 3GB. Any ideas?|||Ok we finally got to the bottom of this problem - it seems that we needed to
give the SQL server service account permissions to the lock pages in memory
privelege, even though it was in the domain admin account. This was hard to
find, why is there so much conflicting documentation on this AWE setting?
"lramsdale" wrote:
> This is what we ran:
> sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
> RECONFIGURE
> GO
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> > Did you re-configure SQL, the AWE and fixed memory?
> >
> > e.g.
> >
> > sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
> > RECONFIGURE
> > GO
> > sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
> > RECONFIGURE
> > GO
> > sp_configure 'min server memory', 6656 (make same as maximum)
> > RECONFIGURE
> > go
> > sp_configure 'max server memory', 6656 (leave at least 512 for the OS)
> > RECONFIGURE
> >
> > Regards
> > Mike
> >
> > "lramsdale" wrote:
> >
> > > Situation:
> > >
> > > OS: 2000 advanced server
> > > SQL enterprise
> > >
> > > We have just added an extra 6GB of memory to our database server which
> > > brings the total to 8. The problem we are having is that the OS is only using
> > > 3Gb of memory.
> > >
> > > We have run the SP that is recommended for AWE and entered the /3GB /PAE in
> > > the boot.ini file and restarted the machine.
> > >
> > > The server still refuses to use more than 3GB. Any ideas?

5 User License

Hi,
What exactly does the 5 user(s) license of MSDE means?
"sa" is a user and i can have only 4 more users, does that means total 5
users license?
Or its the number of users connected to MSDE at any given point of time?
Reetesh.
hi Reetesh,
"Reetesh B. Chhatpar" <reetesh@.widesystems.com> ha scritto nel
messaggio news:OZsTAvI1EHA.1408@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
> Hi,
> What exactly does the 5 user(s) license of MSDE means?
> "sa" is a user and i can have only 4 more users, does that means
> total 5 users license?
> Or its the number of users connected to MSDE at any given point of
> time?
> Reetesh.
MSDE does not have a "5 users license" limitation... MSDE includes a
Governor Workloads that kicks in when 8 of more concurrent workloads
activities (batches that include the operations as described in
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/?u...asp?frame=true)
are executed and slows all of them down, but more workloads are supported
and only slowed down...
AFAIK, no such a limitation exists, nor technical or legal..
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.9.1 - DbaMgr ver 0.55.1
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
|||Hi Andrea,
The article was really worth reading. Thanks for clearing up my doubt for
MSDE. Could you also please share with me the licensing logic for SQL
Server. How do i cut-cost my product installation when I choose backend as
SQL?
Reetesh B. Chhatpar
ShawMan Software Enterprises
www.shawmansoftware.com
Diamond is just another piece of coal that did well under pressure.
"Andrea Montanari" <andrea.sqlDMO@.virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:30rjstF346j3iU1@.uni-berlin.de...
> hi Reetesh,
> "Reetesh B. Chhatpar" <reetesh@.widesystems.com> ha scritto nel
> messaggio news:OZsTAvI1EHA.1408@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl
> MSDE does not have a "5 users license" limitation... MSDE includes a
> Governor Workloads that kicks in when 8 of more concurrent workloads
> activities (batches that include the operations as described in
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/?u...asp?frame=true)
> are executed and slows all of them down, but more workloads are supported
> and only slowed down...
> AFAIK, no such a limitation exists, nor technical or legal..
> --
> Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
> http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
> DbaMgr2k ver 0.9.1 - DbaMgr ver 0.55.1
> (my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
> interface)
> -- remove DMO to reply
>
|||hi Reetesh,
"Reetesh B. Chhatpar" <reetesh@.widesystems.com> ha scritto nel
messaggio news:%230kNRzQ1EHA.2540@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
> Hi Andrea,
> The article was really worth reading. Thanks for clearing up my doubt
> for MSDE. Could you also please share with me the licensing logic for
> SQL Server. How do i cut-cost my product installation when I choose
> backend as SQL?
in order to optimze your license fees, perhaps you've better have a call
with a Microsoft representative, as this really is a big deal and i'm not a
lawyer :D
if you choose MSDE (as per MSDE Release A package), your only need is to
register for distribution
(http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/ho...stregister.asp) , no other
requirement is necessary, for you nor for your customers... theoretical max
number of simultaneos connections stays at 32767 but, at 8 concurrent
workloads the Governor will kick in...
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.9.1 - DbaMgr ver 0.55.1
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply