|
A couple of things, do not prefix your procedures with sp_ SQL Server uses this prefix for system procedures and your procs are now being included in that set. If you must prefix I suggest usp
I'm not going to be able to help with the wizard, I very rarely use them as they tend to be limited (have you ever tried writing a wizard). However you can get at the contents of the procedures using the system views. This is what 3rd party software does.
Your expectations are a little unrealistic. The reason 3rd party software exists is because the built in tools are limited. I use SQL Compare to do this.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Good Day Holmes
Thank you for your kind reply. I don't prefix my procedures with sp, this was only an example. i know red-gate SQL Compare can do that.I was just trying to make sure if the SQL Wizard can generate a Alter when the objects have different code.
Thank you once more
Vuyiswa Maseko,
Spoted in Daniweb-- Sorry to rant. I hate websites. They are just wierd. They don't behave like normal code.
C#/VB.NET/ASP.NET/SQL7/2000/2005/2008
http://www.vuyiswamaseko.com
vuyiswa@its.co.za
http://www.itsabacus.co.za/itsabacus/
|
|
|
|
|
We are about to change our configuration.
From:
32 bit Server application running on Win 2000 32 bit server
32 bit MS SQL Server 2000 running on Win 2000 32 bit server
To:
32 bit Server application running on virtual (VMWare) Win 2003 64 bit server
64 bit MS SQL Server 2008 running on Win 2008 64 bit server
Furthermore, network resources are upgraded and are, according to tests, showing improved throughput.
The new servers are equipped with 32 GB of RAM, as opposed to the old setup with 3 GB.
But, allthough queries are performed aproximately 4 times faster, fetches are considerably slower. The overall performance of our system is now roughly the same as on the old servers. In fact, they seem to perform a bit slower.
I have narrowed the problem down to fetch time. As mentioned earlier, the network seems to perform much better, so logically I should be able to take that out of the equation. Number crunching is also way faster on the new servers. Disk access on the application server is at least as fast as on the old configuration.
Now I am totally out of reasonable ideas, does any of you guys know any issues about this configuration?
"God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps there is a buffer size issue with the fetch operations. If the buffers are too small, then many fetches will occur and this could slow things down. I'd first look at how the client side software is buffering any fetch operations. 
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
|
|
|
|
|
Too bad then that our client application is Microsoft Axapta 3.0, which means that the client side is sealed from tampering 
"God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't allow for any type of configuration at all? That's odd and not exactly customer friendly.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the idea is to encapsulate database handling to ease change of DBMS (Axapta is not originally created at Microsoft, so it actually supports Oracle too ).
There are some options that the Damgaard/Naviosion/Microsoft guys are exposing though. But the only promising field that I can find, is one labeled "ODBC options" which I presume is meant for additional options to a connection string. I haven't been able to find any documentation on valid ODBC options to SQL Server 2008 though...
"God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
|
hi all,
can any one tell me what is an identity column and what is the use of this column in sql table...
Regards,
S.Inayat basha.
|
|
|
|
|
Try using Google: Identity column[^]. This was the first result.
me, me, me
"The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!"
Larry Niven
nils illegitimus carborundum
|
|
|
|
|
|
identity automatically increment your column values from seed property specified in identify clause.
exam
create table tbl
( i int
identity(1000,1), name varchar(100))
output
1000 
1001
1002
Ganu Sharma
|
|
|
|
|
identity automatically increment your column values from seed property specified in identify clause.
exam
create table tbl
( i int
identity(1000,1), name varchar(100))
output as
1000 table1
1001 table2
1002 table3
Ganu Sharma
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all, I am trying to load data from a array to dataset or any other ways to display the data in a datagridview. if you can please help me in this regard.
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
You didn't say anything about what type of data or whether you need a DataSet for other reasons, but assuming you just want to display the data and nothing else, just run through a loop and add DataGridView rows and put your data in a cell. Simple, but the details of how you do it depend on what language you are using.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Walt Fair,What I want to do is that I have an array of string, how do I put the array data in a grid view by column and row.
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
You need to loop through your array of strings and add a new row to your dataset and populate the fields of your new row with your data from the array
Example (VB.NET)
For idx As Integer = 0 To myArray.Length -1
Dim row as DataRow = myDataSet.Table(0).NewRow
row(0) = myArray(idx)
myDataSet.Rows.Add(row)
Next
Steve Jowett
-------------------------
Real programmers don't use PL/1. PL/1 is for insecure momma's boys who can't choose between COBOL and Fortran.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi guys,
I am doing a FULLTEXT search as shown below
Select t.*,k.[Rank]
From table1 t
Join Containstable(table1, column3, 'abcd|efgh|ijkl|mnop') As k On t.Id = k.[Key]
Order By k.[Rank] DESC
But I want the results to be ranked distinctly. Currently my results are listed something like the below
column1 column2 column3 Rank
1 asdc abcd|efgh|ijkl|mnop 99
2 asdad abcd|efgh|ijkl 99
3 cdsdfc abcd 80
4 efsef abcd|efgh 30
5 asasda abcd|efgh|ijkl 30
6 dsas abcd|efgh|ijkl|mnop 30
Also please note that row1 and row6 are having same values for column3 but the ranks are 99 and 30 respectively.
Thanks in Advance
Jophin
jophin
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not quite sure what you want.
If you want row 6 just below row 1 and so on,
just add another order filter:
Order By t.column3 [DESC/ASC], k.[Rank] DESC
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Scubapro,
Select t.*,k.[Rank]
From table1 t
Join Containstable(table1, column3, 'abcd|efgh|ijkl|mnop') As k On t.Id = k.[Key]
Order By k.[Rank] DESC
column1 column2 column3 Rank
1 asdc abcd|efgh|ijkl|mnop 99
2 asdad abcd|efgh|ijkl 99
3 cdsdfc abcd 80
4 efsef abcd|efgh 30
5 asasda abcd|efgh|ijkl 30
6 dsas abcd|efgh|ijkl|mnop 30
I am not able to do an order by for the column3 because its data type is ntext.
My actual requirement is that row1 and row2 should not have equal ranks because,Row1 is an exact match and Row2 is not.
It is fine for me if, Rank of Row2=Rank of Row5 and Rank of Row1=Rank of Row6 because they are having equal values for column3.
Kind Regards
jophin
|
|
|
|
|
Try:
Join Containstable(table1, column3, '("abcd|efgh|ijkl|mnop")') As k On t.Id = k.[Key]
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Scubapro,
Thanks for the reply.
But this is not making any difference in the rankings. But we found that the current ranking is somehow ok for us.
Thanks for you efforts
Regards
jophin
|
|
|
|
|
Being a SQL Server developer, I am not familiar with Oracle.
We have a third party product using Oracle 10g that uses a dropdown to show the unique values from a field in a table of 2.5 million rows, but with only 50 unique values. There is no index on the field and it takes a minute to run the query 'select distinct field from table order by 1' used to populate the dropdown.
Adding an index on that field should allow the optimiser to scan the index rather than the table, and as the indexed field is 1/50th of the table’s row length I would expect to see a similar decrease in the time taken to run the query. However, it made no difference to the performance.
I have been told that Oracle will ALWAYS do a table scan if there is no where clause in the query. If this is the case without access to the source to change the query, I seem to have no way to optimise this.
Is what I heve been told true?
If not how can I get the optimiser to use the index without being able to chnage the SQL in the query?
|
|
|
|
|
From my experience, I would say, yes, Oracle will do a table scan if there is no where clause.
However, adding and index to the table may not solve the problem either, the entire table may be 2.5 million rows yet there are only 50 unique values, this means that each unique values a has about 50,000 index entries. Oracle would have to read 50,000 index records to satisfy the query. The optimizer may choose to perform a table scan rather then read the index.
Let me contact a friend of mine who is a true Oracle expert and see if there is anything that can be done. (He worked for Oracle for 18 years, now is a consultant specializing in Performance Tuning)
I'm afraid you may have to live with a poorly designed application.
|
|
|
|
|
The only way you will know if there is a table scan or not is to look into the plan generated for the SQL. If a where clause is an absolute necessity, which I doubt, then you can always add something like where 1 = 1. But without access to modify the source for the SQL you are in trouble.
Also are the indexes in separate tablespaces and files from the data? If not that may be why you don't see any difference.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
|
|
|
|
|
Explain Query in PLSQL Developer shows:
SELECT STATEMENT.GOAL=ALL_ROWS
SORT UNIQUE
TABLE ACCESS FULL
The TABLE ACCESS FULL has cardinality of 2.5 milion, the other two 50, so I guess that is a full table scan
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
