Number times Stored Proc. executed in week?

I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
with one production database.
Is there a way to determine the number of times a stored
procedure or view as executed within a week time interval?
Thanks,
Mike
You would have to log this yourself or with a tool. Three potentially
relevant articles:
http://www.aspfaq.com/search.asp?q=lumigent
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:f81401c43dfd$d38c1610$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> with one production database.
> Is there a way to determine the number of times a stored
> procedure or view as executed within a week time interval?
> Thanks,
> Mike
|||Mike,
No, unless you have the trace files or any logic inside the proc which will
log into some table.
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:f81401c43dfd$d38c1610$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> with one production database.
> Is there a way to determine the number of times a stored
> procedure or view as executed within a week time interval?
> Thanks,
> Mike

Number times Stored Proc. executed in week?

I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
with one production database.
Is there a way to determine the number of times a stored
procedure or view as executed within a week time interval?
Thanks,
MikeYou would have to log this yourself or with a tool. Three potentially
relevant articles:
http://www.aspfaq.com/search.asp?q=lumigent
--
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:f81401c43dfd$d38c1610$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> with one production database.
> Is there a way to determine the number of times a stored
> procedure or view as executed within a week time interval?
> Thanks,
> Mike|||Mike,
No, unless you have the trace files or any logic inside the proc which will
log into some table.
--
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:f81401c43dfd$d38c1610$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> with one production database.
> Is there a way to determine the number of times a stored
> procedure or view as executed within a week time interval?
> Thanks,
> Mike

Number times Stored Proc. executed in week?

I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
with one production database.
Is there a way to determine the number of times a stored
procedure or view as executed within a week time interval?
Thanks,
MikeYou would have to log this yourself or with a tool. Three potentially
relevant articles:
http://www.aspfaq.com/search.asp?q=lumigent
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:f81401c43dfd$d38c1610$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> with one production database.
> Is there a way to determine the number of times a stored
> procedure or view as executed within a week time interval?
> Thanks,
> Mike|||Mike,
No, unless you have the trace files or any logic inside the proc which will
log into some table.
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
"Mike" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:f81401c43dfd$d38c1610$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a server with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition
> with one production database.
> Is there a way to determine the number of times a stored
> procedure or view as executed within a week time interval?
> Thanks,
> Mike

Number of SQL licenses for a cluster

Looking for quick answer. If we implement a 2 node cluster fora single SQL
database...do we need to buy two licenses of SQL enterprise. It will reside
on an active\passive cluster. Can I use SQL standard?
Dan
You can use a single SQL Server 2005 Std license or a single SQL Server 2000
Enterprise license.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinpub.com
"DEAKER00" <deaker00@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dmTcf.18409$1L3.845653@.news20.bellglobal.com. ..
> Looking for quick answer. If we implement a 2 node cluster fora single SQL
> database...do we need to buy two licenses of SQL enterprise. It will
> reside on an active\passive cluster. Can I use SQL standard?
> Dan
>
|||Per CPU, yes?
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:OpkMY4m5FHA.2192@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> You can use a single SQL Server 2005 Std license or a single SQL Server
> 2000 Enterprise license.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinpub.com
> "DEAKER00" <deaker00@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dmTcf.18409$1L3.845653@.news20.bellglobal.com. ..
>
|||It doesn't matter
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobu...vepassive.mspx
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
http://www.sqldbatips.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Kevin3NF" <KHill@.NopeIDontNeedNoSPAM3NF-inc.com> wrote in message
news:%23pYrecs5FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Per CPU, yes?
> --
> Kevin Hill
> President
> 3NF Consulting
> www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
> news:OpkMY4m5FHA.2192@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||I know the passive box doesn't need licenses, but if the active node has
more than one CPU socket exposed to the O/S, and therefore to SQL as
well...don't you need a license for each one on the active node?
It's entirely possible I am mistaken :-)
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
"Jasper Smith" <jasper_smith9@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%232BtL3w5FHA.4076@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> It doesn't matter
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobu...vepassive.mspx
> --
> HTH
> Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
> http://www.sqldbatips.com
> I support PASS - the definitive, global
> community for SQL Server professionals -
> http://www.sqlpass.org
> "Kevin3NF" <KHill@.NopeIDontNeedNoSPAM3NF-inc.com> wrote in message
> news:%23pYrecs5FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
|||"Kevin3NF" <KHill@.NopeIDontNeedNoSPAM3NF-inc.com> wrote in
news:eStEXeS6FHA.2176@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl:

> I know the passive box doesn't need licenses, but if the active node has
> more than one CPU socket exposed to the O/S, and therefore to SQL as
> well...don't you need a license for each one on the active node?
> It's entirely possible I am mistaken :-)
You're not completely mistaken. You are required to have licences for the
number of physical CPUs on which Sql Server 2005 is configured to run, by
deafalt that is all available CPUs (afaik). However, if this number is
different on the two nodes, you'll need licenses for the higher number. If
the SQL Server is configured with multiple instances, and by configuration
can run in Active/Active mode then you'll need licenses for both servers.
If you think this is difficult, look on the licensing rules for Oracle
Ole Kristian Bangs
MCT, MCDBA, MCDST, MCSE:Security, MCSE:Messaging
|||Also keep in mind that there are different ways to classify a CPU: socket,
physical, and logical. Microsoft has amended their physical/logical
licensing to now focus on the socket.
This means that when the Intel Itanium2 Montecito chips are available, they
will be multi-core (dual to start with) and hyper-threaded. So, you could
have a 4-way socket installation but expose what would appear to be 16
logical CPUs to the OS and SQL Server, but Microsoft would only require you
to license the 4 sockets per-processor license. Moreover, those bad boys
are IA64.
Now, that's a bargain. Can you imagine the muscle something like the HP
Superdome will have rolling out a 16-way installation with these chips?
With a single Superdome, you could load it with 32 of these processors,
create 2 LPARs, install a 2-node cluster, multi-instanced, each with 16
sockets, but each looking like it has 64 logical CPUs? Wow!
For those not so lofty at heart, there is also the Paxville x64 Xeon variant
that is also supposed to be released as dual-core and hyperthreaded.
Either way, x86, x64, IA64, a CPU is a CPU and if Microsoft is only going to
charge you per-socket, get the most bang for your buck.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Ole Kristian Bangs" <olekristian.bangas@.masterminds.no> wrote in message
news:Xns970EA5F525F62olekristianbangaas@.207.46.248 .16...
> "Kevin3NF" <KHill@.NopeIDontNeedNoSPAM3NF-inc.com> wrote in
> news:eStEXeS6FHA.2176@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl:
>
> You're not completely mistaken. You are required to have licences for the
> number of physical CPUs on which Sql Server 2005 is configured to run, by
> deafalt that is all available CPUs (afaik). However, if this number is
> different on the two nodes, you'll need licenses for the higher number. If
> the SQL Server is configured with multiple instances, and by configuration
> can run in Active/Active mode then you'll need licenses for both servers.
> If you think this is difficult, look on the licensing rules for Oracle
> --
> Ole Kristian Bangs
> MCT, MCDBA, MCDST, MCSE:Security, MCSE:Messaging

number of schemas limit 2005?

Does anyone know of an upper limit in SQL Server 2005 on the number of
schemas that can be created in the Enterprise version? Or any other version?
Hi
A limit is not listed on
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx but schema_id in
sys.schemas is an int which would provide a limit.
John
"Stolicow" wrote:

> Does anyone know of an upper limit in SQL Server 2005 on the number of
> schemas that can be created in the Enterprise version? Or any other version?
>
>
sql

number of schemas limit 2005?

Does anyone know of an upper limit in SQL Server 2005 on the number of
schemas that can be created in the Enterprise version? Or any other version?Hi
A limit is not listed on
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx but schema_id in
sys.schemas is an int which would provide a limit.
John
"Stolicow" wrote:

> Does anyone know of an upper limit in SQL Server 2005 on the number of
> schemas that can be created in the Enterprise version? Or any other versio
n?
>
>

number of schemas limit 2005?

Does anyone know of an upper limit in SQL Server 2005 on the number of
schemas that can be created in the Enterprise version? Or any other version?Hi
A limit is not listed on
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx but schema_id in
sys.schemas is an int which would provide a limit.
John
"Stolicow" wrote:
> Does anyone know of an upper limit in SQL Server 2005 on the number of
> schemas that can be created in the Enterprise version? Or any other version?
>
>

Number of databases

This may sound like a silly question, but is their a limit
to how many databases you can have on a SQL 2000
Enterprise Edition?
Our orginization has a Clustered SQL server and I have
always just put all of our databases on it. I am having
no problems with performance but was chastised for having
so many on it any way. I have 83 databases.
Anyway I was curious if Microsoft has a reccomendation of
max amount of db.
Thanks
jjThis is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_0190_01C35B57.E055FD40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You're allowed 32,727 database per instance of SQL Server.
-- Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"John Jarrett" <jarrej@.yahoo.com> wrote in message =news:013c01c35b78$7a919430$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
This may sound like a silly question, but is their a limit to how many databases you can have on a SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition?
Our orginization has a Clustered SQL server and I have always just put all of our databases on it. I am having no problems with performance but was chastised for having so many on it any way. I have 83 databases.
Anyway I was curious if Microsoft has a reccomendation of max amount of db.
Thanks
jj
--=_NextPart_000_0190_01C35B57.E055FD40
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&

---

You're allowed 32,727 database per =instance of SQL Server.
-- Tom
---T=homas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBASQL Server MVPColumnist, SQL =Server ProfessionalToronto, ON Canadahttp://www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql">www.pinnaclepublishing.com=/sql
"John Jarrett" wrote in =message news:013c01c35b78$7a=919430$a401280a@.phx.gbl...This may sound like a silly question, but is their a limit to how many =databases you can have on a SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition?Our =orginization has a Clustered SQL server and I have always just put all of our databases =on it. I am having no problems with performance but was chastised =for having so many on it any way. I have 83 databases. Anyway I was curious if Microsoft has a reccomendation of =max amount of db.Thanksjj

---

--=_NextPart_000_0190_01C35B57.E055FD40--|||> This may sound like a silly question, but is their a limit
> to how many databases you can have on a SQL 2000
> Enterprise Edition?
Yes. The limit is 32767 per server instance.
> Anyway I was curious if Microsoft has a reccomendation of
> max amount of db.
The above is the limit stated in BOL. Other factors (such as size, number of
users / transactions) will be far more significant constraints on
performance than the number of DBs. Possibly you might want to limit the
number of DBs per server for administrative reasons or in the interests of
availability and resilience but I'm looking at 4 servers which have a total
of 188 DBs between them, so 83 doesn't seem excessive by that benchmark.
--
David Portas
--
Please reply only to the newsgroup
--|||I have a client who is currently running 700 databases on 1 server. And
while the system seems to be functioning, they are seeing latency in data
showing up. Meaning that a record that is added or updated to the database
doesent seem to show up for hours.
These databases average about 150MB each. Is there any configuration option
that would help this, or is this something that they just need to throw more
hardware at?
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:eVHkQu3WDHA.3248@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > This may sound like a silly question, but is their a limit
> > to how many databases you can have on a SQL 2000
> > Enterprise Edition?
> Yes. The limit is 32767 per server instance.
> > Anyway I was curious if Microsoft has a reccomendation of
> > max amount of db.
> The above is the limit stated in BOL. Other factors (such as size, number
of
> users / transactions) will be far more significant constraints on
> performance than the number of DBs. Possibly you might want to limit the
> number of DBs per server for administrative reasons or in the interests of
> availability and resilience but I'm looking at 4 servers which have a
total
> of 188 DBs between them, so 83 doesn't seem excessive by that benchmark.
> --
> David Portas
> --
> Please reply only to the newsgroup
> --
>
>|||You should run performance monitor, and run various SQL, cpu, memory and
disk counters to try to determine where the bottleneck is. I was almost
about to suggest changing the affinity mask if you had more than two
processors (because I remember that from studying). When you get
performance counter measurements back, you can tell whether to throw more
memory, CPU, upgrade the disk subsystem or if it is something more
configurable software wise (adjusting system properties to favor background
processes, adjusting pagefile size and location, creating filegroups to move
database objects to other disks, etc). Good luck.
--
*************************************
Andy S.
andy_mcdba@.yahoo.com
*************************************
"Robert Barr" <RobertLBarr@.cox.net> wrote in message
news:%23jn7wEXfDHA.1712@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I have a client who is currently running 700 databases on 1 server. And
> while the system seems to be functioning, they are seeing latency in data
> showing up. Meaning that a record that is added or updated to the database
> doesent seem to show up for hours.
> These databases average about 150MB each. Is there any configuration
option
> that would help this, or is this something that they just need to throw
more
> hardware at?
>
> "David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
> news:eVHkQu3WDHA.3248@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > This may sound like a silly question, but is their a limit
> > > to how many databases you can have on a SQL 2000
> > > Enterprise Edition?
> >
> > Yes. The limit is 32767 per server instance.
> >
> > > Anyway I was curious if Microsoft has a reccomendation of
> > > max amount of db.
> >
> > The above is the limit stated in BOL. Other factors (such as size,
number
> of
> > users / transactions) will be far more significant constraints on
> > performance than the number of DBs. Possibly you might want to limit the
> > number of DBs per server for administrative reasons or in the interests
of
> > availability and resilience but I'm looking at 4 servers which have a
> total
> > of 188 DBs between them, so 83 doesn't seem excessive by that benchmark.
> >
> > --
> > David Portas
> > --
> > Please reply only to the newsgroup
> > --
> >
> >
> >
>

number of CPUs that are assigned to each NUMA node

Hello,
SQL Server STD edition with sp2 plus cumlative update package 2
os = 2003 enterprise edition 64 bit.
After looking at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/329204
I was wondering how to detect the number of CPUs that are assigned to each
NUMA node.
I have issued the following :
SELECT DISTINCT memory_node_id
FROM sys.dm_os_memory_clerks
with the return of:
Memory_node_id
0
3
1
2
I believe this indicates that hardware NUMA is enabled.
This box has 4 dual core procs.
TIA,Yes, and I believe that relates back to parent_node_id in
sys.dm_os_schedulers
--
Jason Massie
Web: http://statisticsio.com
RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/statisticsio
"Joe" <Joe@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A7FB4D85-F710-4CC1-843C-8A8D80D167BB@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> SQL Server STD edition with sp2 plus cumlative update package 2
> os = 2003 enterprise edition 64 bit.
> After looking at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/329204
> I was wondering how to detect the number of CPUs that are assigned to each
> NUMA node.
> I have issued the following :
> SELECT DISTINCT memory_node_id
> FROM sys.dm_os_memory_clerks
> with the return of:
> Memory_node_id
> 0
> 3
> 1
> 2
> I believe this indicates that hardware NUMA is enabled.
> This box has 4 dual core procs.
> TIA,sql

Nulls vs Blanks

Until yesterday it was imposible to delete a field that did not allow nulls
in Enterprise manager (SQL2000) the InfoPath Clients connected to such tables
saw red asterisks in all the required fields according to the information
provided by the SQL schema.
This has now changed on all instances and all servers without apparant
reason. now I can delete a field that does not allow nulls and it is
registered as a blank. Infopath clients are not forced to include all
required fields prior to submitting.
What could have changed?
Thanks
IT PHYTOSANThis is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--080302080803080309060001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This might be better off posted to an InfoPath newsgroup (like
microsoft.public.infopath).
--
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
IT PHYTOSAN wrote:
>Until yesterday it was imposible to delete a field that did not allow nulls
>in Enterprise manager (SQL2000) the InfoPath Clients connected to such tables
>saw red asterisks in all the required fields according to the information
>provided by the SQL schema.
>This has now changed on all instances and all servers without apparant
>reason. now I can delete a field that does not allow nulls and it is
>registered as a blank. Infopath clients are not forced to include all
>required fields prior to submitting.
>What could have changed?
>Thanks
>IT PHYTOSAN
>
--080302080803080309060001
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>This might be better off posted to an InfoPath newsgroup (like
microsoft.public.infopath).</tt><br>
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<p><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">--<br>
</font></span> <b><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">mike
hodgson</font></span></b><span lang="en-au"><br>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>
</p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
IT PHYTOSAN wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid6513D024-96EB-4CF5-82B8-7134F4812D09@.microsoft.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Until yesterday it was imposible to delete a field that did not allow nulls
in Enterprise manager (SQL2000) the InfoPath Clients connected to such tables
saw red asterisks in all the required fields according to the information
provided by the SQL schema.
This has now changed on all instances and all servers without apparant
reason. now I can delete a field that does not allow nulls and it is
registered as a blank. Infopath clients are not forced to include all
required fields prior to submitting.
What could have changed?
Thanks
IT PHYTOSAN
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--080302080803080309060001--

Nulls vs Blanks

Until yesterday it was imposible to delete a field that did not allow nulls
in Enterprise manager (SQL2000) the InfoPath Clients connected to such table
s
saw red asterisks in all the required fields according to the information
provided by the SQL schema.
This has now changed on all instances and all servers without apparant
reason. now I can delete a field that does not allow nulls and it is
registered as a blank. Infopath clients are not forced to include all
required fields prior to submitting.
What could have changed?
Thanks
IT PHYTOSANThis might be better off posted to an InfoPath newsgroup (like
microsoft.public.infopath).
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
IT PHYTOSAN wrote:

>Until yesterday it was imposible to delete a field that did not allow nulls
>in Enterprise manager (SQL2000) the InfoPath Clients connected to such tabl
es
>saw red asterisks in all the required fields according to the information
>provided by the SQL schema.
>This has now changed on all instances and all servers without apparant
>reason. now I can delete a field that does not allow nulls and it is
>registered as a blank. Infopath clients are not forced to include all
>required fields prior to submitting.
>What could have changed?
>Thanks
>IT PHYTOSAN
>

nulled out - defaults instead?

OK, I'm nulled out.
I am converting a dbase based enterprise wide system that has almost 100
tables to convert into a vb .net system using ms sql server 2000 (I am
posting this both to ado .net newsgroups and sql server newsgroups). I am
working with a prototype where many of the columns in many of the tables
allow nulls. But often I can't call ... is null (in tsql) or isdbnull(...)
in vb .net on the same line as, say, 'or len(trim((dddd)) < 1' because this
throws an error if the col is null, since you can't measure anything when a
col is null.
Now null might have a place in the universe - like black holes - but not
being Stephen Hawkings I just don't know what that place is. But in vb .net
especially and to some extent in tsql also, it's just a pain in the ...
My question - is there any reason I shouldn't convert into tables where,
when the data is converted if it's empty or 0 (int) or # / / # (date), I
use defaults instead (eg, "", 0, 01/01/1900 respectively)? Do I lose
anything by doing this?
Tx for any help.
Bernie YaegerBernie,
Although I belong to the 'avoid nulls at all costs' camp,
you do lose something with defaults.
For example, 1/1/1900 is a valid date in many systems, so
using that date as the default will cause logical
problem. Likewise, a zero may (or may not) cause
problems when used instead of a NULL.
Think of the difference with summing a zero into an
aggregate vs taking an average. In the sum, you can
ignore the zero defaults since they are harmless, but
with the average you have to decide whether to include
them or not.
The key is how your application is coded. If you code
for defaults from the start, there are few difficulties
in making it all work smoothly since you will choose your
defaults and define how they are to be interpreted.
However, from the examples above, any code that includes
the default code in the domain of legal values can cause
you grief.
Russell Fields
>--Original Message--
>OK, I'm nulled out.
>I am converting a dbase based enterprise wide system
that has almost 100
>tables to convert into a vb .net system using ms sql
server 2000 (I am
>posting this both to ado .net newsgroups and sql server
newsgroups). I am
>working with a prototype where many of the columns in
many of the tables
>allow nulls. But often I can't call ... is null (in
tsql) or isdbnull(...)
>in vb .net on the same line as, say, 'or len(trim
((dddd)) < 1' because this
>throws an error if the col is null, since you can't
measure anything when a
>col is null.
>Now null might have a place in the universe - like black
holes - but not
>being Stephen Hawkings I just don't know what that place
is. But in vb .net
>especially and to some extent in tsql also, it's just a
pain in the ...
>My question - is there any reason I shouldn't convert
into tables where,
>when the data is converted if it's empty or 0 (int) or
# / / # (date), I
>use defaults instead (eg, "", 0, 01/01/1900
respectively)? Do I lose
>anything by doing this?
>Tx for any help.
>Bernie Yaeger
>
>.
>|||Allowing NULLS is a design decision that only you can make. IMHO, tri-state
logic is a pain because you often have to exclude data that make no logical
sense. I strongly prefer NOT NULL and default values in columns since it
simplifies the logical conditions. Just make sure your default values are
meaningful in your system and your application knows what to do with them.
NOT NULL and defaults help later when you maintain your application since
you can add columns without having to change existing code. Whatever choice
you make, apply it consistantly and document the few times when you
absolutely must deviate from the standard.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"Bernie Yaeger" <berniey@.cherwellinc.com> wrote in message
news:JIPZa.40432$_R5.12322590@.news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> OK, I'm nulled out.
> I am converting a dbase based enterprise wide system that has almost 100
> tables to convert into a vb .net system using ms sql server 2000 (I am
> posting this both to ado .net newsgroups and sql server newsgroups). I am
> working with a prototype where many of the columns in many of the tables
> allow nulls. But often I can't call ... is null (in tsql) or
isdbnull(...)
> in vb .net on the same line as, say, 'or len(trim((dddd)) < 1' because
this
> throws an error if the col is null, since you can't measure anything when
a
> col is null.
> Now null might have a place in the universe - like black holes - but not
> being Stephen Hawkings I just don't know what that place is. But in vb
.net
> especially and to some extent in tsql also, it's just a pain in the ...
> My question - is there any reason I shouldn't convert into tables where,
> when the data is converted if it's empty or 0 (int) or # / / # (date),
I
> use defaults instead (eg, "", 0, 01/01/1900 respectively)? Do I lose
> anything by doing this?
> Tx for any help.
> Bernie Yaeger
>|||Hi Russell,
Tx for your advice; I have considered some of the issues you raise and know
the consequences and how to deal with them, I believe.
Bernie
"Russell Fields" <rlfields@.sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:008101c36030$3efd7300$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Bernie,
> Although I belong to the 'avoid nulls at all costs' camp,
> you do lose something with defaults.
> For example, 1/1/1900 is a valid date in many systems, so
> using that date as the default will cause logical
> problem. Likewise, a zero may (or may not) cause
> problems when used instead of a NULL.
> Think of the difference with summing a zero into an
> aggregate vs taking an average. In the sum, you can
> ignore the zero defaults since they are harmless, but
> with the average you have to decide whether to include
> them or not.
> The key is how your application is coded. If you code
> for defaults from the start, there are few difficulties
> in making it all work smoothly since you will choose your
> defaults and define how they are to be interpreted.
> However, from the examples above, any code that includes
> the default code in the domain of legal values can cause
> you grief.
>
> Russell Fields
>
> >--Original Message--
> >OK, I'm nulled out.
> >
> >I am converting a dbase based enterprise wide system
> that has almost 100
> >tables to convert into a vb .net system using ms sql
> server 2000 (I am
> >posting this both to ado .net newsgroups and sql server
> newsgroups). I am
> >working with a prototype where many of the columns in
> many of the tables
> >allow nulls. But often I can't call ... is null (in
> tsql) or isdbnull(...)
> >in vb .net on the same line as, say, 'or len(trim
> ((dddd)) < 1' because this
> >throws an error if the col is null, since you can't
> measure anything when a
> >col is null.
> >
> >Now null might have a place in the universe - like black
> holes - but not
> >being Stephen Hawkings I just don't know what that place
> is. But in vb .net
> >especially and to some extent in tsql also, it's just a
> pain in the ...
> >
> >My question - is there any reason I shouldn't convert
> into tables where,
> >when the data is converted if it's empty or 0 (int) or
> # / / # (date), I
> >use defaults instead (eg, "", 0, 01/01/1900
> respectively)? Do I lose
> >anything by doing this?
> >
> >Tx for any help.
> >
> >Bernie Yaeger
> >
> >
> >.
> >|||With due respect to my colleagues, I fall into the 'Use Nulls when
necessary' camp... if you do not know the value, you do not know... Tri
state logic is a little more difficult, but I prefer the data to represent
reality...
And this is something where 'reasonable people differ' in their opinions...
"Bernie Yaeger" <berniey@.cherwellinc.com> wrote in message
news:JIPZa.40432$_R5.12322590@.news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> OK, I'm nulled out.
> I am converting a dbase based enterprise wide system that has almost 100
> tables to convert into a vb .net system using ms sql server 2000 (I am
> posting this both to ado .net newsgroups and sql server newsgroups). I am
> working with a prototype where many of the columns in many of the tables
> allow nulls. But often I can't call ... is null (in tsql) or
isdbnull(...)
> in vb .net on the same line as, say, 'or len(trim((dddd)) < 1' because
this
> throws an error if the col is null, since you can't measure anything when
a
> col is null.
> Now null might have a place in the universe - like black holes - but not
> being Stephen Hawkings I just don't know what that place is. But in vb
.net
> especially and to some extent in tsql also, it's just a pain in the ...
> My question - is there any reason I shouldn't convert into tables where,
> when the data is converted if it's empty or 0 (int) or # / / # (date),
I
> use defaults instead (eg, "", 0, 01/01/1900 respectively)? Do I lose
> anything by doing this?
> Tx for any help.
> Bernie Yaeger
>|||Just to clarify, I am not religiously opposed to using Nulls. I just think
the places where they apply are very few. If you have properly represented
Entity Relationships in your database, either you know about an entity or
that entity doesn't exist. Thus, you have a complete row in an appropriate
table or no row in that table.
Since most of us work in the real world where we have to live with inherited
databases, Nulls are a fact of life. I prefer to choose where I use nulls
and treat them as the exception rather than the rule. Again, this is just a
personal design preference and should not be taken as holy writ.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"Wayne Snyder" <wsnyder@.computeredservices.com> wrote in message
news:#63VdaLYDHA.384@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> With due respect to my colleagues, I fall into the 'Use Nulls when
> necessary' camp... if you do not know the value, you do not know... Tri
> state logic is a little more difficult, but I prefer the data to represent
> reality...
> And this is something where 'reasonable people differ' in their
opinions...
> "Bernie Yaeger" <berniey@.cherwellinc.com> wrote in message
> news:JIPZa.40432$_R5.12322590@.news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > OK, I'm nulled out.
> >
> > I am converting a dbase based enterprise wide system that has almost 100
> > tables to convert into a vb .net system using ms sql server 2000 (I am
> > posting this both to ado .net newsgroups and sql server newsgroups). I
am
> > working with a prototype where many of the columns in many of the tables
> > allow nulls. But often I can't call ... is null (in tsql) or
> isdbnull(...)
> > in vb .net on the same line as, say, 'or len(trim((dddd)) < 1' because
> this
> > throws an error if the col is null, since you can't measure anything
when
> a
> > col is null.
> >
> > Now null might have a place in the universe - like black holes - but not
> > being Stephen Hawkings I just don't know what that place is. But in vb
> .net
> > especially and to some extent in tsql also, it's just a pain in the ...
> >
> > My question - is there any reason I shouldn't convert into tables where,
> > when the data is converted if it's empty or 0 (int) or # / / #
(date),
> I
> > use defaults instead (eg, "", 0, 01/01/1900 respectively)? Do I lose
> > anything by doing this?
> >
> > Tx for any help.
> >
> > Bernie Yaeger
> >
> >
>

NULL/Blank Collation after DB restore

If a database's collation is blank under enterprise manager and NULL with SELECT DATABASEPROPERTYEX('<Database_Name>', 'Collation') does this mean it has the same collation as the server?

The reason I ask is that I restored a database with a different collation to my server and so I expected the different collation name to show up.
Its showing as blank though...
I thought databases kept their original collation even if restored to another server.
(The database was restored as a new database).The collation showed up after closing enterprise manager and then going back in.