Dear All,
Is it possible for me to have a SQL profiler install in my local while i hav
e running SQL Express in my machine?
Please advise, thank you.If you have a copy of sql server and want to install the management tools yo
u can install them on a machine regardless of the edition of sql server actu
ally running on the machine. However, I haven't tried running Profiler again
st SQL Express, but I don't see why you can't. But you'll have to actually t
ry that yourself.
Mark
"Connie" <yfchan@.kdu.edu.my> wrote in message news:%23LrYcIUtGHA.1888@.TK2MSF
TNGP03.phx.gbl...
Dear All,
Is it possible for me to have a SQL profiler install in my local while i hav
e running SQL Express in my machine?
Please advise, thank you.
Showing posts with label local. Show all posts
Showing posts with label local. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
Having an updated base every day
Hello,
I have two symmetrical databases on two SQL servers - one remote, the
other - local. The data in the remote server changes every minute. The data
in local SQL server is used for creating some reports and general testing.
Sometimes data from the local base can be irreversibly deleted.
I want to have some sort of procedure, that would do one-direction
synchronisation of the two databases. The data in the remote database should
overwrite the data in the local database, so that after the update the local
database is exact copy of the remote database. Of course, this kind of
result could be achieved by detaching the remote base and bringing over the
database files, or doing full DTS. However, detaching and transfering is not
a viable solution since the remote base is actively used and the size of
data files are considerable; And, doing full DTS would take years. There is
some need to do some comparison of record hashes etc., so that the size of
the data that have to be transfered is reduced to minimum.
Thanks,
Pavils
The first thing that comes to mind is BACKUP and RESTORE. After you restore
a database backup you will have an exact copy of the original (as of the
date and time the backup completed).
You mention that the size of the data files are "considerable." I am not
sure what that means, or if that is a limitation for you in your
environment.
You might be able to look into replication.
Another option: if you have datetime columns (such as DateUpdated or
DateInserted) stored on your tables you could create your own shipping
routines...simply find the "recent" data (whatever that means to you) and
insert it.
You could also use linked servers and INSERT INTO...SELECT...WHERE NOT
EXISTS... you will have to fill in the blanks, but they should be fairly
easy.
Keith
"Pavils Jurjans" <pavils@.mailbox.riga.lv> wrote in message
news:OsrHETCkEHA.3664@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have two symmetrical databases on two SQL servers - one remote, the
> other - local. The data in the remote server changes every minute. The
data
> in local SQL server is used for creating some reports and general testing.
> Sometimes data from the local base can be irreversibly deleted.
> I want to have some sort of procedure, that would do one-direction
> synchronisation of the two databases. The data in the remote database
should
> overwrite the data in the local database, so that after the update the
local
> database is exact copy of the remote database. Of course, this kind of
> result could be achieved by detaching the remote base and bringing over
the
> database files, or doing full DTS. However, detaching and transfering is
not
> a viable solution since the remote base is actively used and the size of
> data files are considerable; And, doing full DTS would take years. There
is
> some need to do some comparison of record hashes etc., so that the size of
> the data that have to be transfered is reduced to minimum.
> Thanks,
> Pavils
>
|||Hello Keith,
> You mention that the size of the data files are "considerable." I am not
> sure what that means, or if that is a limitation for you in your
> environment.
The idea is that I don't want to transfer every single bit of the whole
database.
> You might be able to look into replication.
Would replication allow to create a fully matching copy wit using as little
data xfer as possible?
> Another option: if you have datetime columns (such as DateUpdated or
> DateInserted) stored on your tables you could create your own shipping
> routines...simply find the "recent" data (whatever that means to you) and
> insert it.
That could be a good solution, but it requires reworking much of the current
application.
> You could also use linked servers and INSERT INTO...SELECT...WHERE NOT
> EXISTS... you will have to fill in the blanks, but they should be fairly
> easy.
Surely, I can do that, however I was hoping for some more automatic (or
wizard-style) solution.
-- Pavils.
|||"Pavils Jurjans" <pavils@.mailbox.riga.lv> wrote in message
news:uUQ1L7CkEHA.3968@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hello Keith,
not
> The idea is that I don't want to transfer every single bit of the whole
> database.
understood
>
> Would replication allow to create a fully matching copy wit using as
little
> data xfer as possible?
That is the point of replication
[vbcol=seagreen]
and
> That could be a good solution, but it requires reworking much of the
current
> application.
Probably so (if you don't have a way to identify "new" rows.
[vbcol=seagreen]
fairly
> Surely, I can do that, however I was hoping for some more automatic (or
> wizard-style) solution.
This is not much different than my previous idea...it simply requires you to
type up some Transact-SQL. Hey, no one said being a dba/developer/IT
Professional was easy.
> -- Pavils.
>
Keith
I have two symmetrical databases on two SQL servers - one remote, the
other - local. The data in the remote server changes every minute. The data
in local SQL server is used for creating some reports and general testing.
Sometimes data from the local base can be irreversibly deleted.
I want to have some sort of procedure, that would do one-direction
synchronisation of the two databases. The data in the remote database should
overwrite the data in the local database, so that after the update the local
database is exact copy of the remote database. Of course, this kind of
result could be achieved by detaching the remote base and bringing over the
database files, or doing full DTS. However, detaching and transfering is not
a viable solution since the remote base is actively used and the size of
data files are considerable; And, doing full DTS would take years. There is
some need to do some comparison of record hashes etc., so that the size of
the data that have to be transfered is reduced to minimum.
Thanks,
Pavils
The first thing that comes to mind is BACKUP and RESTORE. After you restore
a database backup you will have an exact copy of the original (as of the
date and time the backup completed).
You mention that the size of the data files are "considerable." I am not
sure what that means, or if that is a limitation for you in your
environment.
You might be able to look into replication.
Another option: if you have datetime columns (such as DateUpdated or
DateInserted) stored on your tables you could create your own shipping
routines...simply find the "recent" data (whatever that means to you) and
insert it.
You could also use linked servers and INSERT INTO...SELECT...WHERE NOT
EXISTS... you will have to fill in the blanks, but they should be fairly
easy.
Keith
"Pavils Jurjans" <pavils@.mailbox.riga.lv> wrote in message
news:OsrHETCkEHA.3664@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have two symmetrical databases on two SQL servers - one remote, the
> other - local. The data in the remote server changes every minute. The
data
> in local SQL server is used for creating some reports and general testing.
> Sometimes data from the local base can be irreversibly deleted.
> I want to have some sort of procedure, that would do one-direction
> synchronisation of the two databases. The data in the remote database
should
> overwrite the data in the local database, so that after the update the
local
> database is exact copy of the remote database. Of course, this kind of
> result could be achieved by detaching the remote base and bringing over
the
> database files, or doing full DTS. However, detaching and transfering is
not
> a viable solution since the remote base is actively used and the size of
> data files are considerable; And, doing full DTS would take years. There
is
> some need to do some comparison of record hashes etc., so that the size of
> the data that have to be transfered is reduced to minimum.
> Thanks,
> Pavils
>
|||Hello Keith,
> You mention that the size of the data files are "considerable." I am not
> sure what that means, or if that is a limitation for you in your
> environment.
The idea is that I don't want to transfer every single bit of the whole
database.
> You might be able to look into replication.
Would replication allow to create a fully matching copy wit using as little
data xfer as possible?
> Another option: if you have datetime columns (such as DateUpdated or
> DateInserted) stored on your tables you could create your own shipping
> routines...simply find the "recent" data (whatever that means to you) and
> insert it.
That could be a good solution, but it requires reworking much of the current
application.
> You could also use linked servers and INSERT INTO...SELECT...WHERE NOT
> EXISTS... you will have to fill in the blanks, but they should be fairly
> easy.
Surely, I can do that, however I was hoping for some more automatic (or
wizard-style) solution.
-- Pavils.
|||"Pavils Jurjans" <pavils@.mailbox.riga.lv> wrote in message
news:uUQ1L7CkEHA.3968@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hello Keith,
not
> The idea is that I don't want to transfer every single bit of the whole
> database.
understood
>
> Would replication allow to create a fully matching copy wit using as
little
> data xfer as possible?
That is the point of replication
[vbcol=seagreen]
and
> That could be a good solution, but it requires reworking much of the
current
> application.
Probably so (if you don't have a way to identify "new" rows.
[vbcol=seagreen]
fairly
> Surely, I can do that, however I was hoping for some more automatic (or
> wizard-style) solution.
This is not much different than my previous idea...it simply requires you to
type up some Transact-SQL. Hey, no one said being a dba/developer/IT
Professional was easy.
> -- Pavils.
>
Keith
Having an updated base every day
Hello,
I have two symmetrical databases on two SQL servers - one remote, the
other - local. The data in the remote server changes every minute. The data
in local SQL server is used for creating some reports and general testing.
Sometimes data from the local base can be irreversibly deleted.
I want to have some sort of procedure, that would do one-direction
synchronisation of the two databases. The data in the remote database should
overwrite the data in the local database, so that after the update the local
database is exact copy of the remote database. Of course, this kind of
result could be achieved by detaching the remote base and bringing over the
database files, or doing full DTS. However, detaching and transfering is not
a viable solution since the remote base is actively used and the size of
data files are considerable; And, doing full DTS would take years. There is
some need to do some comparison of record hashes etc., so that the size of
the data that have to be transfered is reduced to minimum.
Thanks,
PavilsThe first thing that comes to mind is BACKUP and RESTORE. After you restore
a database backup you will have an exact copy of the original (as of the
date and time the backup completed).
You mention that the size of the data files are "considerable." I am not
sure what that means, or if that is a limitation for you in your
environment.
You might be able to look into replication.
Another option: if you have datetime columns (such as DateUpdated or
DateInserted) stored on your tables you could create your own shipping
routines...simply find the "recent" data (whatever that means to you) and
insert it.
You could also use linked servers and INSERT INTO...SELECT...WHERE NOT
EXISTS... you will have to fill in the blanks, but they should be fairly
easy.
--
Keith
"Pavils Jurjans" <pavils@.mailbox.riga.lv> wrote in message
news:OsrHETCkEHA.3664@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have two symmetrical databases on two SQL servers - one remote, the
> other - local. The data in the remote server changes every minute. The
data
> in local SQL server is used for creating some reports and general testing.
> Sometimes data from the local base can be irreversibly deleted.
> I want to have some sort of procedure, that would do one-direction
> synchronisation of the two databases. The data in the remote database
should
> overwrite the data in the local database, so that after the update the
local
> database is exact copy of the remote database. Of course, this kind of
> result could be achieved by detaching the remote base and bringing over
the
> database files, or doing full DTS. However, detaching and transfering is
not
> a viable solution since the remote base is actively used and the size of
> data files are considerable; And, doing full DTS would take years. There
is
> some need to do some comparison of record hashes etc., so that the size of
> the data that have to be transfered is reduced to minimum.
> Thanks,
> Pavils
>|||Hello Keith,
> You mention that the size of the data files are "considerable." I am not
> sure what that means, or if that is a limitation for you in your
> environment.
The idea is that I don't want to transfer every single bit of the whole
database.
> You might be able to look into replication.
Would replication allow to create a fully matching copy wit using as little
data xfer as possible?
> Another option: if you have datetime columns (such as DateUpdated or
> DateInserted) stored on your tables you could create your own shipping
> routines...simply find the "recent" data (whatever that means to you) and
> insert it.
That could be a good solution, but it requires reworking much of the current
application.
> You could also use linked servers and INSERT INTO...SELECT...WHERE NOT
> EXISTS... you will have to fill in the blanks, but they should be fairly
> easy.
Surely, I can do that, however I was hoping for some more automatic (or
wizard-style) solution.
-- Pavils.|||"Pavils Jurjans" <pavils@.mailbox.riga.lv> wrote in message
news:uUQ1L7CkEHA.3968@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello Keith,
> > You mention that the size of the data files are "considerable." I am
not
> > sure what that means, or if that is a limitation for you in your
> > environment.
> The idea is that I don't want to transfer every single bit of the whole
> database.
understood
> > You might be able to look into replication.
> Would replication allow to create a fully matching copy wit using as
little
> data xfer as possible?
That is the point of replication
> > Another option: if you have datetime columns (such as DateUpdated or
> > DateInserted) stored on your tables you could create your own shipping
> > routines...simply find the "recent" data (whatever that means to you)
and
> > insert it.
> That could be a good solution, but it requires reworking much of the
current
> application.
Probably so (if you don't have a way to identify "new" rows.
> > You could also use linked servers and INSERT INTO...SELECT...WHERE NOT
> > EXISTS... you will have to fill in the blanks, but they should be
fairly
> > easy.
> Surely, I can do that, however I was hoping for some more automatic (or
> wizard-style) solution.
This is not much different than my previous idea...it simply requires you to
type up some Transact-SQL. Hey, no one said being a dba/developer/IT
Professional was easy.
> -- Pavils.
>
--
Keith
I have two symmetrical databases on two SQL servers - one remote, the
other - local. The data in the remote server changes every minute. The data
in local SQL server is used for creating some reports and general testing.
Sometimes data from the local base can be irreversibly deleted.
I want to have some sort of procedure, that would do one-direction
synchronisation of the two databases. The data in the remote database should
overwrite the data in the local database, so that after the update the local
database is exact copy of the remote database. Of course, this kind of
result could be achieved by detaching the remote base and bringing over the
database files, or doing full DTS. However, detaching and transfering is not
a viable solution since the remote base is actively used and the size of
data files are considerable; And, doing full DTS would take years. There is
some need to do some comparison of record hashes etc., so that the size of
the data that have to be transfered is reduced to minimum.
Thanks,
PavilsThe first thing that comes to mind is BACKUP and RESTORE. After you restore
a database backup you will have an exact copy of the original (as of the
date and time the backup completed).
You mention that the size of the data files are "considerable." I am not
sure what that means, or if that is a limitation for you in your
environment.
You might be able to look into replication.
Another option: if you have datetime columns (such as DateUpdated or
DateInserted) stored on your tables you could create your own shipping
routines...simply find the "recent" data (whatever that means to you) and
insert it.
You could also use linked servers and INSERT INTO...SELECT...WHERE NOT
EXISTS... you will have to fill in the blanks, but they should be fairly
easy.
--
Keith
"Pavils Jurjans" <pavils@.mailbox.riga.lv> wrote in message
news:OsrHETCkEHA.3664@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have two symmetrical databases on two SQL servers - one remote, the
> other - local. The data in the remote server changes every minute. The
data
> in local SQL server is used for creating some reports and general testing.
> Sometimes data from the local base can be irreversibly deleted.
> I want to have some sort of procedure, that would do one-direction
> synchronisation of the two databases. The data in the remote database
should
> overwrite the data in the local database, so that after the update the
local
> database is exact copy of the remote database. Of course, this kind of
> result could be achieved by detaching the remote base and bringing over
the
> database files, or doing full DTS. However, detaching and transfering is
not
> a viable solution since the remote base is actively used and the size of
> data files are considerable; And, doing full DTS would take years. There
is
> some need to do some comparison of record hashes etc., so that the size of
> the data that have to be transfered is reduced to minimum.
> Thanks,
> Pavils
>|||Hello Keith,
> You mention that the size of the data files are "considerable." I am not
> sure what that means, or if that is a limitation for you in your
> environment.
The idea is that I don't want to transfer every single bit of the whole
database.
> You might be able to look into replication.
Would replication allow to create a fully matching copy wit using as little
data xfer as possible?
> Another option: if you have datetime columns (such as DateUpdated or
> DateInserted) stored on your tables you could create your own shipping
> routines...simply find the "recent" data (whatever that means to you) and
> insert it.
That could be a good solution, but it requires reworking much of the current
application.
> You could also use linked servers and INSERT INTO...SELECT...WHERE NOT
> EXISTS... you will have to fill in the blanks, but they should be fairly
> easy.
Surely, I can do that, however I was hoping for some more automatic (or
wizard-style) solution.
-- Pavils.|||"Pavils Jurjans" <pavils@.mailbox.riga.lv> wrote in message
news:uUQ1L7CkEHA.3968@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello Keith,
> > You mention that the size of the data files are "considerable." I am
not
> > sure what that means, or if that is a limitation for you in your
> > environment.
> The idea is that I don't want to transfer every single bit of the whole
> database.
understood
> > You might be able to look into replication.
> Would replication allow to create a fully matching copy wit using as
little
> data xfer as possible?
That is the point of replication
> > Another option: if you have datetime columns (such as DateUpdated or
> > DateInserted) stored on your tables you could create your own shipping
> > routines...simply find the "recent" data (whatever that means to you)
and
> > insert it.
> That could be a good solution, but it requires reworking much of the
current
> application.
Probably so (if you don't have a way to identify "new" rows.
> > You could also use linked servers and INSERT INTO...SELECT...WHERE NOT
> > EXISTS... you will have to fill in the blanks, but they should be
fairly
> > easy.
> Surely, I can do that, however I was hoping for some more automatic (or
> wizard-style) solution.
This is not much different than my previous idea...it simply requires you to
type up some Transact-SQL. Hey, no one said being a dba/developer/IT
Professional was easy.
> -- Pavils.
>
--
Keith
Having an updated base every day
Hello,
I have two symmetrical databases on two SQL servers - one remote, the
other - local. The data in the remote server changes every minute. The data
in local SQL server is used for creating some reports and general testing.
Sometimes data from the local base can be irreversibly deleted.
I want to have some sort of procedure, that would do one-direction
synchronisation of the two databases. The data in the remote database should
overwrite the data in the local database, so that after the update the local
database is exact copy of the remote database. Of course, this kind of
result could be achieved by detaching the remote base and bringing over the
database files, or doing full DTS. However, detaching and transfering is not
a viable solution since the remote base is actively used and the size of
data files are considerable; And, doing full DTS would take years. There is
some need to do some comparison of record hashes etc., so that the size of
the data that have to be transfered is reduced to minimum.
Thanks,
PavilsThe first thing that comes to mind is BACKUP and RESTORE. After you restore
a database backup you will have an exact copy of the original (as of the
date and time the backup completed).
You mention that the size of the data files are "considerable." I am not
sure what that means, or if that is a limitation for you in your
environment.
You might be able to look into replication.
Another option: if you have datetime columns (such as DateUpdated or
DateInserted) stored on your tables you could create your own shipping
routines...simply find the "recent" data (whatever that means to you) and
insert it.
You could also use linked servers and INSERT INTO...SELECT...WHERE NOT
EXISTS... you will have to fill in the blanks, but they should be fairly
easy.
Keith
"Pavils Jurjans" <pavils@.mailbox.riga.lv> wrote in message
news:OsrHETCkEHA.3664@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have two symmetrical databases on two SQL servers - one remote, the
> other - local. The data in the remote server changes every minute. The
data
> in local SQL server is used for creating some reports and general testing.
> Sometimes data from the local base can be irreversibly deleted.
> I want to have some sort of procedure, that would do one-direction
> synchronisation of the two databases. The data in the remote database
should
> overwrite the data in the local database, so that after the update the
local
> database is exact copy of the remote database. Of course, this kind of
> result could be achieved by detaching the remote base and bringing over
the
> database files, or doing full DTS. However, detaching and transfering is
not
> a viable solution since the remote base is actively used and the size of
> data files are considerable; And, doing full DTS would take years. There
is
> some need to do some comparison of record hashes etc., so that the size of
> the data that have to be transfered is reduced to minimum.
> Thanks,
> Pavils
>|||Hello Keith,
> You mention that the size of the data files are "considerable." I am not
> sure what that means, or if that is a limitation for you in your
> environment.
The idea is that I don't want to transfer every single bit of the whole
database.
> You might be able to look into replication.
Would replication allow to create a fully matching copy wit using as little
data xfer as possible?
> Another option: if you have datetime columns (such as DateUpdated or
> DateInserted) stored on your tables you could create your own shipping
> routines...simply find the "recent" data (whatever that means to you) and
> insert it.
That could be a good solution, but it requires reworking much of the current
application.
> You could also use linked servers and INSERT INTO...SELECT...WHERE NOT
> EXISTS... you will have to fill in the blanks, but they should be fairly
> easy.
Surely, I can do that, however I was hoping for some more automatic (or
wizard-style) solution.
-- Pavils.|||"Pavils Jurjans" <pavils@.mailbox.riga.lv> wrote in message
news:uUQ1L7CkEHA.3968@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello Keith,
>
not[vbcol=seagreen]
> The idea is that I don't want to transfer every single bit of the whole
> database.
understood
>
> Would replication allow to create a fully matching copy wit using as
little
> data xfer as possible?
That is the point of replication
>
and[vbcol=seagreen]
> That could be a good solution, but it requires reworking much of the
current
> application.
Probably so (if you don't have a way to identify "new" rows.
>
fairly[vbcol=seagreen]
> Surely, I can do that, however I was hoping for some more automatic (or
> wizard-style) solution.
This is not much different than my previous idea...it simply requires you to
type up some Transact-SQL. Hey, no one said being a dba/developer/IT
Professional was easy.
> -- Pavils.
>
Keithsql
I have two symmetrical databases on two SQL servers - one remote, the
other - local. The data in the remote server changes every minute. The data
in local SQL server is used for creating some reports and general testing.
Sometimes data from the local base can be irreversibly deleted.
I want to have some sort of procedure, that would do one-direction
synchronisation of the two databases. The data in the remote database should
overwrite the data in the local database, so that after the update the local
database is exact copy of the remote database. Of course, this kind of
result could be achieved by detaching the remote base and bringing over the
database files, or doing full DTS. However, detaching and transfering is not
a viable solution since the remote base is actively used and the size of
data files are considerable; And, doing full DTS would take years. There is
some need to do some comparison of record hashes etc., so that the size of
the data that have to be transfered is reduced to minimum.
Thanks,
PavilsThe first thing that comes to mind is BACKUP and RESTORE. After you restore
a database backup you will have an exact copy of the original (as of the
date and time the backup completed).
You mention that the size of the data files are "considerable." I am not
sure what that means, or if that is a limitation for you in your
environment.
You might be able to look into replication.
Another option: if you have datetime columns (such as DateUpdated or
DateInserted) stored on your tables you could create your own shipping
routines...simply find the "recent" data (whatever that means to you) and
insert it.
You could also use linked servers and INSERT INTO...SELECT...WHERE NOT
EXISTS... you will have to fill in the blanks, but they should be fairly
easy.
Keith
"Pavils Jurjans" <pavils@.mailbox.riga.lv> wrote in message
news:OsrHETCkEHA.3664@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have two symmetrical databases on two SQL servers - one remote, the
> other - local. The data in the remote server changes every minute. The
data
> in local SQL server is used for creating some reports and general testing.
> Sometimes data from the local base can be irreversibly deleted.
> I want to have some sort of procedure, that would do one-direction
> synchronisation of the two databases. The data in the remote database
should
> overwrite the data in the local database, so that after the update the
local
> database is exact copy of the remote database. Of course, this kind of
> result could be achieved by detaching the remote base and bringing over
the
> database files, or doing full DTS. However, detaching and transfering is
not
> a viable solution since the remote base is actively used and the size of
> data files are considerable; And, doing full DTS would take years. There
is
> some need to do some comparison of record hashes etc., so that the size of
> the data that have to be transfered is reduced to minimum.
> Thanks,
> Pavils
>|||Hello Keith,
> You mention that the size of the data files are "considerable." I am not
> sure what that means, or if that is a limitation for you in your
> environment.
The idea is that I don't want to transfer every single bit of the whole
database.
> You might be able to look into replication.
Would replication allow to create a fully matching copy wit using as little
data xfer as possible?
> Another option: if you have datetime columns (such as DateUpdated or
> DateInserted) stored on your tables you could create your own shipping
> routines...simply find the "recent" data (whatever that means to you) and
> insert it.
That could be a good solution, but it requires reworking much of the current
application.
> You could also use linked servers and INSERT INTO...SELECT...WHERE NOT
> EXISTS... you will have to fill in the blanks, but they should be fairly
> easy.
Surely, I can do that, however I was hoping for some more automatic (or
wizard-style) solution.
-- Pavils.|||"Pavils Jurjans" <pavils@.mailbox.riga.lv> wrote in message
news:uUQ1L7CkEHA.3968@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello Keith,
>
not[vbcol=seagreen]
> The idea is that I don't want to transfer every single bit of the whole
> database.
understood
>
> Would replication allow to create a fully matching copy wit using as
little
> data xfer as possible?
That is the point of replication
>
and[vbcol=seagreen]
> That could be a good solution, but it requires reworking much of the
current
> application.
Probably so (if you don't have a way to identify "new" rows.
>
fairly[vbcol=seagreen]
> Surely, I can do that, however I was hoping for some more automatic (or
> wizard-style) solution.
This is not much different than my previous idea...it simply requires you to
type up some Transact-SQL. Hey, no one said being a dba/developer/IT
Professional was easy.
> -- Pavils.
>
Keithsql
HAving a problem
I am using Windows 2003 server. When iI try to start the sql service using a user account I get an error and cannot start service. When I us a local system account I have no problems. Any ideas on why this is happenning. Thanks.Can you post the error? Are you trying to use domain account,and if yes, - is DC available?
Friday, March 23, 2012
Have two active SQL servers
Right now I am working on a project that requires two active SQL servers with
different local web servers accross geographic locations. I read an article
on Active-Active SQL servers and am seeing some possiblity in SQL 2005 for
this situation to work but in SQL 2000 is there any way to have two servers
with independent RAID arrays sync over the network to have different users
modifying records?
Thanks,
Joseph Ronzio
You are basically asking if you can use Majority Node Set (MNS) clustering.
SQL 2000 does not support it. Some third parties does have excellent
products that work. NSI is one that comes to mind, LeftHand software, etc.
Check my website for more.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Joseph" <Joseph@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:772EC28E-A275-42B5-A610-3925F0C3542B@.microsoft.com...
> Right now I am working on a project that requires two active SQL servers
> with
> different local web servers accross geographic locations. I read an
> article
> on Active-Active SQL servers and am seeing some possiblity in SQL 2005 for
> this situation to work but in SQL 2000 is there any way to have two
> servers
> with independent RAID arrays sync over the network to have different users
> modifying records?
> Thanks,
> Joseph Ronzio
|||And SQL Server Clustering does not support 2 nodes modifying data in the
same physical DB (neither does Oracle or Sybase clustering).
If you need 2 nodes modifying data, look at replication.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:#0Y8BfF5EHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> You are basically asking if you can use Majority Node Set (MNS)
clustering.[vbcol=seagreen]
> SQL 2000 does not support it. Some third parties does have excellent
> products that work. NSI is one that comes to mind, LeftHand software, etc.
> Check my website for more.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "Joseph" <Joseph@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:772EC28E-A275-42B5-A610-3925F0C3542B@.microsoft.com...
for[vbcol=seagreen]
users
>
|||So MySQL, Lotus Domino and IBM DB2 can do this but MS SQL can't? From my
reading it looks like SQL 2005 might be able to do this will it?
Thanks,
Joseph Ronzio
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> And SQL Server Clustering does not support 2 nodes modifying data in the
> same physical DB (neither does Oracle or Sybase clustering).
> If you need 2 nodes modifying data, look at replication.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:#0Y8BfF5EHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> clustering.
> for
> users
>
>
|||Hi
No, SQL Server 2005 will not. There will still be one primary node that
handles all the work.
Clustering by definition, is for high availability, not load balancing.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Joseph" <Joseph@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E2BF74E7-ADEE-4C9F-B183-44D1D6C87122@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> So MySQL, Lotus Domino and IBM DB2 can do this but MS SQL can't? From my
> reading it looks like SQL 2005 might be able to do this will it?
> Thanks,
> Joseph Ronzio
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
etc.[vbcol=seagreen]
servers[vbcol=seagreen]
2005[vbcol=seagreen]
|||That's only true about SQL Server!
Oracle RAC (and 10g grid) does support modifying the same shared physical DB
from any node. Basically, the same physical database is exposed to multiple
nodes with consistency controlled via distributed lock manager. I believe
Sybase has also just started to offer such a feature.
In theory at least, this approach offers both failover (HA) and scalability
(dynamic load balancing over more nodes since a query can be routed to any
node for processing).
Linchi
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:O6S7HdG5EHA.3416@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> And SQL Server Clustering does not support 2 nodes modifying data in the
> same physical DB (neither does Oracle or Sybase clustering).
> If you need 2 nodes modifying data, look at replication.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:#0Y8BfF5EHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> clustering.
> for
> users
>
|||Ok apparently there was some confusion when I posted this I'm not talking the
same physcial database I am talking about replication where two database
servers have the same database but different copies. Can both database
servers have modification made to the database and replicate changes?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> And SQL Server Clustering does not support 2 nodes modifying data in the
> same physical DB (neither does Oracle or Sybase clustering).
> If you need 2 nodes modifying data, look at replication.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:#0Y8BfF5EHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> clustering.
> for
> users
>
>
|||You can do two-way replication, but what do you gain? Both servers not only
have to handle all the updates but they have to handle synching them with
their partner. The nodes won't split the work unless the database uses
partitioned views, something that only fits a very few scenarios.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Joseph" <Joseph@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41FDC5C9-93E1-4639-BDAC-BE3648F322A2@.microsoft.com...
> Ok apparently there was some confusion when I posted this I'm not talking
the[vbcol=seagreen]
> same physcial database I am talking about replication where two database
> servers have the same database but different copies. Can both database
> servers have modification made to the database and replicate changes?
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
etc.[vbcol=seagreen]
servers[vbcol=seagreen]
2005[vbcol=seagreen]
|||I would get the capability to have two servers in different geographic
regions with two different web farms for referencing and modifying data.
Granted there could be conflicts generated but in Lotus Domino today I don't
have that problem with our typical business records and I'd be migrating the
same application to SQL. I would just need the resources that would instruct
me how to do this for SQL.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> You can do two-way replication, but what do you gain? Both servers not only
> have to handle all the updates but they have to handle synching them with
> their partner. The nodes won't split the work unless the database uses
> partitioned views, something that only fits a very few scenarios.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "Joseph" <Joseph@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:41FDC5C9-93E1-4639-BDAC-BE3648F322A2@.microsoft.com...
> the
> etc.
> servers
> 2005
>
>
|||Have you considered Merge Replication?
Or if you want to use Transactional Replication then you can use Transactional Replication with Updating Subscribers.
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
different local web servers accross geographic locations. I read an article
on Active-Active SQL servers and am seeing some possiblity in SQL 2005 for
this situation to work but in SQL 2000 is there any way to have two servers
with independent RAID arrays sync over the network to have different users
modifying records?
Thanks,
Joseph Ronzio
You are basically asking if you can use Majority Node Set (MNS) clustering.
SQL 2000 does not support it. Some third parties does have excellent
products that work. NSI is one that comes to mind, LeftHand software, etc.
Check my website for more.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Joseph" <Joseph@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:772EC28E-A275-42B5-A610-3925F0C3542B@.microsoft.com...
> Right now I am working on a project that requires two active SQL servers
> with
> different local web servers accross geographic locations. I read an
> article
> on Active-Active SQL servers and am seeing some possiblity in SQL 2005 for
> this situation to work but in SQL 2000 is there any way to have two
> servers
> with independent RAID arrays sync over the network to have different users
> modifying records?
> Thanks,
> Joseph Ronzio
|||And SQL Server Clustering does not support 2 nodes modifying data in the
same physical DB (neither does Oracle or Sybase clustering).
If you need 2 nodes modifying data, look at replication.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
message news:#0Y8BfF5EHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> You are basically asking if you can use Majority Node Set (MNS)
clustering.[vbcol=seagreen]
> SQL 2000 does not support it. Some third parties does have excellent
> products that work. NSI is one that comes to mind, LeftHand software, etc.
> Check my website for more.
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "Joseph" <Joseph@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:772EC28E-A275-42B5-A610-3925F0C3542B@.microsoft.com...
for[vbcol=seagreen]
users
>
|||So MySQL, Lotus Domino and IBM DB2 can do this but MS SQL can't? From my
reading it looks like SQL 2005 might be able to do this will it?
Thanks,
Joseph Ronzio
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> And SQL Server Clustering does not support 2 nodes modifying data in the
> same physical DB (neither does Oracle or Sybase clustering).
> If you need 2 nodes modifying data, look at replication.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:#0Y8BfF5EHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> clustering.
> for
> users
>
>
|||Hi
No, SQL Server 2005 will not. There will still be one primary node that
handles all the work.
Clustering by definition, is for high availability, not load balancing.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Joseph" <Joseph@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E2BF74E7-ADEE-4C9F-B183-44D1D6C87122@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> So MySQL, Lotus Domino and IBM DB2 can do this but MS SQL can't? From my
> reading it looks like SQL 2005 might be able to do this will it?
> Thanks,
> Joseph Ronzio
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
etc.[vbcol=seagreen]
servers[vbcol=seagreen]
2005[vbcol=seagreen]
|||That's only true about SQL Server!
Oracle RAC (and 10g grid) does support modifying the same shared physical DB
from any node. Basically, the same physical database is exposed to multiple
nodes with consistency controlled via distributed lock manager. I believe
Sybase has also just started to offer such a feature.
In theory at least, this approach offers both failover (HA) and scalability
(dynamic load balancing over more nodes since a query can be routed to any
node for processing).
Linchi
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" <mike@.epprecht.net> wrote in message
news:O6S7HdG5EHA.3416@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> And SQL Server Clustering does not support 2 nodes modifying data in the
> same physical DB (neither does Oracle or Sybase clustering).
> If you need 2 nodes modifying data, look at replication.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:#0Y8BfF5EHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> clustering.
> for
> users
>
|||Ok apparently there was some confusion when I posted this I'm not talking the
same physcial database I am talking about replication where two database
servers have the same database but different copies. Can both database
servers have modification made to the database and replicate changes?
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> And SQL Server Clustering does not support 2 nodes modifying data in the
> same physical DB (neither does Oracle or Sybase clustering).
> If you need 2 nodes modifying data, look at replication.
> Regards
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@.die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
> message news:#0Y8BfF5EHA.2624@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> clustering.
> for
> users
>
>
|||You can do two-way replication, but what do you gain? Both servers not only
have to handle all the updates but they have to handle synching them with
their partner. The nodes won't split the work unless the database uses
partitioned views, something that only fits a very few scenarios.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Joseph" <Joseph@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41FDC5C9-93E1-4639-BDAC-BE3648F322A2@.microsoft.com...
> Ok apparently there was some confusion when I posted this I'm not talking
the[vbcol=seagreen]
> same physcial database I am talking about replication where two database
> servers have the same database but different copies. Can both database
> servers have modification made to the database and replicate changes?
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
etc.[vbcol=seagreen]
servers[vbcol=seagreen]
2005[vbcol=seagreen]
|||I would get the capability to have two servers in different geographic
regions with two different web farms for referencing and modifying data.
Granted there could be conflicts generated but in Lotus Domino today I don't
have that problem with our typical business records and I'd be migrating the
same application to SQL. I would just need the resources that would instruct
me how to do this for SQL.
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> You can do two-way replication, but what do you gain? Both servers not only
> have to handle all the updates but they have to handle synching them with
> their partner. The nodes won't split the work unless the database uses
> partitioned views, something that only fits a very few scenarios.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
> Careerbuilder.com
> I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
> www.sqlpass.org
> "Joseph" <Joseph@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:41FDC5C9-93E1-4639-BDAC-BE3648F322A2@.microsoft.com...
> the
> etc.
> servers
> 2005
>
>
|||Have you considered Merge Replication?
Or if you want to use Transactional Replication then you can use Transactional Replication with Updating Subscribers.
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Handle 1:n relations
Hi,
I build a local cube from a relation database. In the database there are 1:n relations.
Is there a way to handle 1:n relations?
For example:
I have a table LOGGEDFLAW and a table LOGGEDREASON with a 1:n relation between them. We create a select statement of these tables and as an result we get duplicate records of LOGGEDFLAW each time more than 1 record of LOGGEDREASON are associated to 1 record of LOGGEDFLAW - this is the standard result I get with an relational JOIN operation. Now I want to count the LOGGEDFLAWs without the duplicates generated by the 1:n relationship.
Best regards,
ThorstenUSE Northwind
GO
CREATE VIEW myView99
AS
SELECT o.OrderId, od.Quantity
FROM Orders o INNER JOIN [Order Details] od
ON o.OrderId = od.OrderId
GO
SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT OrderId), COUNT(*)
FROM myView99
GO
DROP VIEW myView99
GO|||Oh sorry, I create a local cube. I need a way to create distict measures.
I build a local cube from a relation database. In the database there are 1:n relations.
Is there a way to handle 1:n relations?
For example:
I have a table LOGGEDFLAW and a table LOGGEDREASON with a 1:n relation between them. We create a select statement of these tables and as an result we get duplicate records of LOGGEDFLAW each time more than 1 record of LOGGEDREASON are associated to 1 record of LOGGEDFLAW - this is the standard result I get with an relational JOIN operation. Now I want to count the LOGGEDFLAWs without the duplicates generated by the 1:n relationship.
Best regards,
ThorstenUSE Northwind
GO
CREATE VIEW myView99
AS
SELECT o.OrderId, od.Quantity
FROM Orders o INNER JOIN [Order Details] od
ON o.OrderId = od.OrderId
GO
SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT OrderId), COUNT(*)
FROM myView99
GO
DROP VIEW myView99
GO|||Oh sorry, I create a local cube. I need a way to create distict measures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)