|
Hi,
Please go though the following articles for better explaination:
Article1[^]
Article2[^]
Hope this helps  .
Regards,
John Adams
ComponentOne LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Putting it simply, a View is a boon to security and simplifies your access to information. It's quicker in many respects than a full blooded table scan.
With a View we can grant access to the View without granting access to the underlying table thus limiting someone to only the data we wish them so access. Case in point, we could give a User access to a View from an employee table that omits SS# or salary information.
Does that answer your question?
“If we are all in agreement on the decision - then I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.”-Alfred P. Sloan
|
|
|
|
|
View was designed for two purposes, security and query simplification as many people has already pointed out. Articles provided clarify these aspects well. However, a common misbelief is that a view is faster than a query without a view. This is not always true. There are several situations where views are slower than plain select statements.
When a view is created, it's stored as an object which gives the optimizer a possibility to create a better plan for the query. When executing view, some (but not all) of the parsing and optimization can be skipped and this can result in (small) performance benefit.
However creating a view does not significantly modify execution plan. For example if SELECT * FROM Customers results in a full table scan, the situation isn't typically any different if the statement is wrapped inside a view. Execution of the view can be boosted in several ways but they always require structural changes in the database (materializing, different kinds of indexing, partitioning, federations etc) so they require administration.
Since optimizer must be very careful when calculating permutations that it doesn't risk correct results, many default SQL optimizations are easily skipped if a query is executed against a view. Typical example is so called predicate pushing when optimizer tries to apply a condition as soon as possible. However if a view is defined, predicate pushing may not be used since it would modify view results hence modifying the overall results. This is just one of the many examples when query against a view can be (significantly) slower that plain query.
Mika
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Can any body suggest me how to take backup file from 2005 to 2000 in sql server.
Ex: I have taken backup from Sql2005...
I want to restore in 2000.
Is it possible? If yes please suggest me.
other wise
is there any other way to do this task.
|
|
|
|
|
Ashish Kumar Vyas wrote: Can any body suggest me how to take backup file from 2005 to 2000 in sql server.
You cannot.
Ashish Kumar Vyas wrote: is there any other way to do this task.
You could look for a scripting tool. Modify the script to remove any SQL Server 2005 enhancements then run the script on SQL Server 2000 - It is still risky though.
|
|
|
|
|
i think you can not directly restore bak from SQL 2005 to 2000
but if you dont want data n want only structure n procedures of database
den u can use Generate script
|
|
|
|
|
thanx for replying...
but I need data too..
|
|
|
|
|
here is no "Restore" functionality, but there is a workaround to copy 2005 databases to 2000:
Right-click on DB -> tasks -> generate scripts
select DB and click "script all objects...", hit next
select any options you want, specifically changing "script for server version" to SQL Server 2000
next through and run the script
Now just export data from the 2005 database to the newly-created 2000 database.
Right-click on DB -> tasks -> export...
set source and hit next
set destination and hit next
select "copy data from one or more tables", hit next
select all, check "optimize for many tables" and "run in a transaction"
you may have to edit each table mapping and check "enable identity insert"
next through to finish
plz check it out
i hope dis will work 4 u
Reasons are not Important but Results are Important
modified on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:12 AM
|
|
|
|
|
No offence but
Tripathi Swati wrote: hope dis will work 4 u
must be
Hope this will work for you.
I Love T-SQL
"Don't torture yourself,let the life to do it for you."
|
|
|
|
|
|
I mean it would be better if you try to write more regular writing english.
Example instead of
Tripathi Swati wrote: wht
you have to write what and not wht
I Love T-SQL
"Don't torture yourself,let the life to do it for you."
|
|
|
|
|
Thanx a lot for your valuable suggestion...
is it working for sql server 2005 express edition.
I have express edition..
can u assist me for express edition.
|
|
|
|
|
In express edition you can not restore.
Reasons are not Important but Results are Important.
Swati
|
|
|
|
|
Tripathi Swati wrote: In express edition you can not restore.
Why not
Mika
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I use lower() and upper() for my varchars in sql.
I want to lower the 1st string, exception for the 1st char (that i want to upper)
For the 2nd string i want to upper all chars.
Like this:
Helen HUNT
Peter DOUGLAS
How i do this? 
nelsonpaixao@yahoo.com.br
|
|
|
|
|
here it is:
<br />
<br />
DECLARE @val AS VARCHAR(255)<br />
SET @val='name surname'<br />
<br />
SELECT UPPER(SUBSTRING(@val,1,1))+LOWER( SUBSTRING(@val,2,CHARINDEX(' ',@val)-1))+<br />
UPPER (SUBSTRING(@val, CHARINDEX(' ',@val)+1,LEN(@val)))
Result is:
Name SURNAME
I Love T-SQL
"Don't torture yourself,let the life to do it for you."
|
|
|
|
|
Can a partition function reference a database Schema?
It doesn't seem logical to me, but...
“If we are all in agreement on the decision - then I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.”-Alfred P. Sloan
|
|
|
|
|
Could you specify a little bit more what you mean by referencing a schema?
Mika
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for the delay in getting back. Thank you for asking, but I found the answer. For SQL 2005 the answer is no.
“If we are all in agreement on the decision - then I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.”-Alfred P. Sloan
|
|
|
|
|
I am not totally sure what the proper terminology for this structure is but the situation is:
I have three tables
Table One: Category
-------------------
CatID (int, index)
Category (varchar) Example Values(fruit, vegetable, mineral, language. etc)
Table Two: Objects
----------------------
ObjectID (int, index)
Parent_Category (int, Foreign Key to CatID)
ObjectName (varchar) example Values (Apples, Brocolli, Copper, etc)
table Three: Content
------------------------
ContentID (primary key)
CatID (FK to table Category)
ObjectID (Fk to table Objects)
...OtherContent...
I need to construct a select statement that produces something similar to the following format
Fruit Vegetable Mineral Language
-------------------------------------------------
Apple X
Bananna X
French X
Brocolli X
Cherry X
Cabbage X
Iron X
Idealy, I would like to have the ContentID of the correspondig record from the third table (Content) displayed in place of each "X".
The goal is to generate an HTML page with an HREF at each "X" that links to a page that retrieves the specific record from the Content table.
Any suggestions?
modified on Monday, August 18, 2008 2:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Why no have a category id in the object table with foreign key to category table? Seems like you have a cross ref table which is only needed in a one to many or many to many relationship. Can an object have 2 categories?
|
|
|
|
|
There is a foreign key in the Objects table to the Category Table.
The example here is a simplified version of a customer requirement. The real data is actually some obscure industrial materials, but the structure I need is what is illustrated.
The output will actually be a web page with intersecting points (represented by the 'X's) Each intersection of material and category would be unique. A "Content" Record will have only one "Category" and One "Object."
|
|
|
|
|
first take Category table in @table or in #table
bcoz no of colmns depends upon ur no of rows in category table.
then join it with content table - > object table
& use switch case for ur specified format.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't know if this is an option for you but one possibility (which could be easy) is to create a stored procedure in order to return correct result set. Stored procedure could return a table type or a cursor (depending on the needs). This way you would have the full power of T-SQL to use and it would be easier to break the logic in to pieces.
Another way (haven't tested it though) could be using pivoting and correlated subqueries.
Mika
|
|
|
|
|
look into Pivot queries (presuming SQL 2005)
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
