|
Frank Kerrigan wrote: If both networks is on the same cabling system or the same routers. You can do a few things
1) Give each server two IP addresses one each subnet
2) Configure a router to route between the two subnets
3) You can also configure a Windows server to route between the two subnets ( this is easy and cheap)
If the are different cabling / routers then you need to a physical router or and another network card to a server and add the routing.
Thanks, Frank. I learned something new today :->
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Frank,
my system admin said that the two subnets are running windows server connected by a linux server, configured as a router. the linux server also route to another linux server (the gateway so they call it) to connect to the internet, each subnet's windows server are also using 2 network cards with different subnet, I have tried to access the server in the school domain (the 192.168.3.*) from my office (192.168.212.*) both by calling the server by name or ip number, but I still can't access the data. I feel awful to bother you by asking this again but I really need it to work. he also said that the port for sql server is not blocked by the firewall. can you please help me.
twindragons
|
|
|
|
|
Not that it entirely matters, but can you ping the SQL Server? Odds are you wont be able to becuase of the subnetting thats in place.
What you may need to ask the network admin to do is create a vlan between your subnet and the subnet that the widows box is on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subnetwork[^]
I have another question, are you located on the same campus? Or are you accessing the school through the internet?
I'd love to help, but unfortunatley I have prior commitments monitoring the length of my grass. :Andrew Bleakley:
|
|
|
|
|
twindragons wrote: I do the programming on the 192.168.212.* network and can access the server just fine if it were also installed with the 192.168.212.*
If your network admins find out that your attempting to statically link to a specific IP address their going to laugh at you during the next network review and change the network schema. You are far better off relying on DNS to do the proper translation; that is what it was invented for after all.
I'd love to help, but unfortunatley I have prior commitments monitoring the length of my grass. :Andrew Bleakley:
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Douglas,
I believe they are laughing at me right now, but I don't mind, as long as I can finish my work it's fine, by the way, I have also used the computer name to access it besides the ip number but it didn't work either, is there any other solution to this. Thanks and sorry to bother you.
twindragons
|
|
|
|
|
Yes ping the server or use telnet on the SQL port number to see if you can atleast access the server in question.
I use telnet sometimes to access SMTP server to see if its open
telnet server port
Look where you want to go not where you don't want to crash.
Bikers Bible
|
|
|
|
|
We use SQL Server as a backend for our .NET application. Mainly the data manipulations(insert, update & delete) are implemented in the stored procs themselves. What if the customer wants to change the rdbms to Oracle. As far as the front end or data layer is concerned simple changes wud be enough like changing the provider, connection type etc. i beleive. As all the data manipulations are done through stored procs, how will we convert the Stored procs written in SQL server to Oracle simply. There wud be many features that r SQL Server specific. Do we need to modify each and every stored proc after convertiing to Oracle. or the database convertion tools will do the job for us.
Think that we r using Stored procs extensilvely for the data manipulation.
|
|
|
|
|
You will have to rewrite just about every stored proc as there is specific TSQL features that are not available or implimented different in Orcale.
As someone once said "This could take some time"
Look where you want to go not where you don't want to crash.
Bikers Bible
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
as you know with OleDB we can open many kind of DataBases.
i want to know is there any difference between SQL statements we send to darabases or all of them support support a single tyoe of SQL statements.
I wanted to Get Information of tables of Databases(something like "Server Explorer" of VS.NET which opens every Type of Databases and shows their "Tables" and "Queries" and "procedures" and "Functions". abd also Field Types)
can i do it with SQL statement? and if yes are they different for different databases?
|
|
|
|
|
hamidreza_buddy wrote: is there any difference between SQL statements we send to darabases or all of them support support a single tyoe of SQL statements
Yes and no. Most Structure Query Language statements are the same, but each database (MS SQL, MySQL, Oracle, Firebird, etc) have their own minor differences.
|
|
|
|
|
Most support a industial standard called Sql-92 which will in theory work with any compliant SQL-92 database. But sadly in pratice it doesn't work like that and small quirks make problems porting sql code.
Look where you want to go not where you don't want to crash.
Bikers Bible
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Kerrigan wrote: Most support a industial standard called Sql-92
And some, like SQL Server 2005, now support SQL-99
|
|
|
|
|
I stand corrected 
Look where you want to go not where you don't want to crash.
Bikers Bible
|
|
|
|
|
You were correct in the fist place. You said "most" use SQL-92. I just thought I'd add that "some" now use SQL-99. If I remember correctly, SQL-92 is a subset of SQL-99, so it could be said that everything that is based on SQL-99 is, by default, also based on SQL-92.
|
|
|
|
|
I think SQL-92 relates to 1992 and SQL-99 relates to 1999. But I'm guessing
Look where you want to go not where you don't want to crash.
Bikers Bible
|
|
|
|
|
can anyone tell me what is the maximum number of rows one can store in a table of MS SQL SERVER 2000.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
Per Microsoft's SQL 2000 Books OnLine (BOL) the number of rows are limited by available storage.
To find this in the reference, select index tab, type in rows, size option. Towards the bottom of the first table is this answer.
Regards,
KK Adams
Rock On!
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to what KK Adams said, you also have to take into account the primary key. Since the primary key must be unique you will always end up giving yourself a limitation based on that. For example, the most common primary key is an int. There are just over 4 billion possible values that can be stored in an int therefore a table with an int for a primary key will be restricted to just over 4 billion rows.
If you were to use something else, such as a tinyint, you would be restricted to the range of that type. In the case of a tinyint it would be 256.
|
|
|
|
|
Colin , Adam thanks a lot for the important information.
BTW the primary key in my table is of integer type.. so I expect it would be over 11 billion or so... more than enough 
|
|
|
|
|
cdotpal wrote: BTW the primary key in my table is of integer type.. so I expect it would be over 11 billion or so
No, it would be ~4 billion
|
|
|
|
|
From SQL Books On Line
integer or int
Has a length of 4 bytes, and stores numbers from -2,147,483,648 through 2,147,483,647.
Correct me if I'm wrong; for an integer indentity column you'd only get 2 Billion rows as it'll only use the positive side of the Integer datatype number as its from -2 Billion to +2 Billion
I was going to get an int table and fill it with more than 2 billion rows, but that seemed rather sad just to prove my point.
Look where you want to go not where you don't want to crash.
Bikers Bible
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Kerrigan wrote: for an integer indentity column you'd only get 2 Billion rows as it'll only use the positive side of the Integer
By default yes, you are quite right. When the identity column reaches 2147483647 it will be unable to insert any new rows. If you attempt any more it will generate an error message: "Arithmetic overflow error converting IDENTITY to data type int"
However, there is nothing to stop you setting the identity seed to -2147483648 when the table is created. This will allow you to use the full ~4 billion range of an int.
Frank Kerrigan wrote: I was going to get an int table and fill it with more than 2 billion rows, but that seemed rather sad just to prove my point
Yes, very sad indeed. 
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: Yes, very sad indeed.
lol......
Look where you want to go not where you don't want to crash.
Bikers Bible
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I am having difficulty with my INNER JOINS. Can someone please help me to sort this out?
I have a shipping table, a shipping in shipping type table, and a shipping type table.
Shipping (1) -- (M) ShippingInShippingType (M) -- (1) ShippingType
(1) -- (M) is one to many.
I am trying to get the shipping name from the Shipping table, together with the shipping type information. My SQL Statement looks like this:
SELECT
ShippingTypeID_PK,
ShippingTypeName,
ShippingTypeDescription
FROM
ShippingType
INNER JOIN ShippingInShippingTypes AS "ShippingInShippingTypes1"
ON ShippingType.ShippingTypeID_PK = ShippingInShippingTypes1.ShippingTypeID_FK
INNER JOIN ShippingInShippingTypes AS "ShippingInShippingTypes2"
ON Shipping.ShippingID_PK = ShippingInShippingTypes2.ShippingID_FK;
It complains:
Msg 4104, Level 16, State 1, Procedure sp_ShippingTypes_GetAllShippingTypes, Line 19
The multi-part identifier "Shipping.ShippingID_PK" could not be bound.
I don't understand what it means and how to fix it.
Please can someone help??
Regards,
ma se
|
|
|
|
|
ma se wrote: Shipping (1) -- (M) ShippingInShippingType (M) -- (1) ShippingType
(1) -- (M) is one to many.
I am trying to get the shipping name from the Shipping table, together with the shipping type information.
Try this From caluse with your query:
FROM
ShippingType
INNER JOIN ShippingInShippingTypes
ON ShippingType.ShippingTypeID_PK = ShippingInShippingTypes.ShippingTypeID_FK
INNER JOIN Shipping
ON ShippingInShippingTypes.ShippingID_FK = Shipping.ShippingID_PK;
What i understand from your query is that ShippingInShippingType is a relationship between Shipping and ShippingType tables, and you want to retrieve information from the Shipping table.
If this is so then in my openinion the FROM clause should like that:
FROM Shipping INNER JOIN
ShippingInShippingType ON Shipping.field = ShippingInShippingType.field INNER JOIN
ShippingType ON ShippingInShippingType.field = ShippingType.field
Regards
_____________________________
Success is not something to wait for, its something to work for.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
