Showing posts with label management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label management. Show all posts

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Does SQL SERVER MANAGEMENT come with Visual Studio Prof 2005?

I'm following a video tutorial about SQL wherein I'm told to download SQL SERVER MANAGEMENT STUDIO EXPRESS. However I have just bought and installed the whole MS visual studio pro 2005 along with the SQL that comes with it.

I'm afraid to download and install the SQL SERVER MANAGEMENT STUDIO in case it botches up my prg already installed. Can anyone tell me if this management tool is already installed along with the package I have (if so, where is it - not listed in programs)

Thank you for your time.

SQL Server 2005 Developer is included with the Pro VS, this includes the full version of the SQL Server Management Tools. In regards to the tutorial you are using the functions are exactly the same... you actually have more functions in the Developer Version.

|||

Thanks Glenn

Sorry to be so thick but can you tell me how to open the management console? (I'm totally new to VS and SQL and it's not obviously listed on the programs start menu) All there is under SQL Server on the start menu is: SQL Server configuration tools (and none of these mention a server management area).

here is the list of available options under that menu:
'Notifications Services command prompt'
''SQL Server configuration manager' and
''SQL Server error usage and report' and
'SQL Server surface area configuration'

Thanks again for your help

|||

You might have to use the install disks re run the setup amd make sure that the client tools are installed.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Does SQL Express suport SQL Agant?

hi

As you may know by default instalation SQL Agant node in

object browser in Management Studio is not shown or is disabled.

For me It is not shown.So I enabled OLE Automation in

Surface Area configuration.Even by doing this I can't find the SQL Agant service in

Control Panel\Administrative Tools\Services

so I want to know should I do any thing else or does SQL Express suport SQL Agant service at all?

thanks

SQL Server Agent is not included with SQL Express.

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Does Service Pack 2 affect Client Tools?

Hello,

Does Service Pack 2 affect client tools? In other words, if you have a client machine with just the tools installed (management studio, BIDS, etc) do I need to run the SP2 package on this client as well?

Regards, Jeroen

YES. Always update ALL clients to the same SP as the servers.

|||thnx Tom...sql

Monday, March 19, 2012

Does not allow remote connections

I have installed SQL Server 2005 Std on an XP system for development using VS 2005. When I try to
connect to the DB via Server Management Studio, I get the message that "... does not allow remote
connections".
When I launch Surface Area Configuration and select the Surface Area Configuration for Services and
Connections, I see only 4 services listed: Analysis, Reporting, Integration and SQL Server Browser.
There is no Database Engine Service listed!
Have I installed incorrectly?
TIA LarsHello,
Please check if the following folder exist:
%programfiles%\Microsoft sql server\mssql.1\mssql\data
If it does not exist, it seems the database engine is not installed, you
may want to go to Add/Remove program to install this component.
Best Regards,
Peter Yang
MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
=====================================================
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:47:30 -0600
>From: larzeb <larzeb@.community.nospam>
>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>Subject: Does not allow remote connections
>Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:47:23 -0800
>Message-ID: <oeb212ljn7hj2gqd0b795dkcd0mqv6qf3h@.4ax.com>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Lines: 11
>X-Trace:
sv3-PjJxXeuzs9DydzPoFbzAokDHiY6O/KXDzjV8O7hEwxj/ljIdWbzP3wItPsTOueQ5nFw/SN8L
okMLvDY!lpKWpYf6RQBHuNvVXmwxsNoiCv3bMHVGU73LWN6CN48tFv9p/w4z0jbRyZAA6ZBcpvbv
WXA=>X-Complaints-To: abuse@.giganews.com
>X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
>X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
>Path:
TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-onli
ne.de!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.gigan
ews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:423971
>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>I have installed SQL Server 2005 Std on an XP system for development using
VS 2005. When I try to
>connect to the DB via Server Management Studio, I get the message that
"... does not allow remote
>connections".
>When I launch Surface Area Configuration and select the Surface Area
Configuration for Services and
>Connections, I see only 4 services listed: Analysis, Reporting,
Integration and SQL Server Browser.
>There is no Database Engine Service listed!
>Have I installed incorrectly?
>TIA Lars
>

Does not allow remote connections

I have installed SQL Server 2005 Std on an XP system for development using VS 2005. When I try to
connect to the DB via Server Management Studio, I get the message that "... does not allow remote
connections".
When I launch Surface Area Configuration and select the Surface Area Configuration for Services and
Connections, I see only 4 services listed: Analysis, Reporting, Integration and SQL Server Browser.
There is no Database Engine Service listed!
Have I installed incorrectly?
TIA Lars
Hello,
Please check if the following folder exist:
%programfiles%\Microsoft sql server\mssql.1\mssql\data
If it does not exist, it seems the database engine is not installed, you
may want to go to Add/Remove program to install this component.
Best Regards,
Peter Yang
MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
--
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:47:30 -0600
>From: larzeb <larzeb@.community.nospam>
>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>Subject: Does not allow remote connections
>Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:47:23 -0800
>Message-ID: <oeb212ljn7hj2gqd0b795dkcd0mqv6qf3h@.4ax.com>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Lines: 11
>X-Trace:
sv3-PjJxXeuzs9DydzPoFbzAokDHiY6O/KXDzjV8O7hEwxj/ljIdWbzP3wItPsTOueQ5nFw/SN8L
okMLvDY!lpKWpYf6RQBHuNvVXmwxsNoiCv3bMHVGU73LWN6CN4 8tFv9p/w4z0jbRyZAA6ZBcpvbv
WXA=
>X-Complaints-To: abuse@.giganews.com
>X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
>X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
>Path:
TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!newsfee d00.sul.t-online.de!t-onli
ne.de!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.d ca.giganews.com!nntp.gigan
ews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganew s.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:423971
>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>I have installed SQL Server 2005 Std on an XP system for development using
VS 2005. When I try to
>connect to the DB via Server Management Studio, I get the message that
"... does not allow remote
>connections".
>When I launch Surface Area Configuration and select the Surface Area
Configuration for Services and
>Connections, I see only 4 services listed: Analysis, Reporting,
Integration and SQL Server Browser.
>There is no Database Engine Service listed!
>Have I installed incorrectly?
>TIA Lars
>

Does not allow remote connections

I have installed SQL Server 2005 Std on an XP system for development using V
S 2005. When I try to
connect to the DB via Server Management Studio, I get the message that "...
does not allow remote
connections".
When I launch Surface Area Configuration and select the Surface Area Configu
ration for Services and
Connections, I see only 4 services listed: Analysis, Reporting, Integration
and SQL Server Browser.
There is no Database Engine Service listed!
Have I installed incorrectly?
TIA LarsHello,
Please check if the following folder exist:
%programfiles%\Microsoft sql server\mssql.1\mssql\data
If it does not exist, it seems the database engine is not installed, you
may want to go to Add/Remove program to install this component.
Best Regards,
Peter Yang
MCSE2000/2003, MCSA, MCDBA
Microsoft Online Partner Support
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
--
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:47:30 -0600
>From: larzeb <larzeb@.community.nospam>
>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>Subject: Does not allow remote connections
>Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:47:23 -0800
>Message-ID: <oeb212ljn7hj2gqd0b795dkcd0mqv6qf3h@.4ax.com>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Lines: 11
>X-Trace:
sv3-PjJxXeuzs9DydzPoFbzAokDHiY6O/KXDzjV8O7hEwxj/ljIdWbzP3wItPsTOueQ5nFw/SN8L
okMLvDY!lpKWpYf6RQBHuNvVXmwxsNoiCv3bMHVG
U73LWN6CN48tFv9p/w4z0jbRyZAA6ZBcpvbv
WXA=
>X-Complaints-To: abuse@.giganews.com
>X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
>X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
>Path:
TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-onli
ne.de!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.gigan
ews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:423971
>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>I have installed SQL Server 2005 Std on an XP system for development using
VS 2005. When I try to
>connect to the DB via Server Management Studio, I get the message that
"... does not allow remote
>connections".
>When I launch Surface Area Configuration and select the Surface Area
Configuration for Services and
>Connections, I see only 4 services listed: Analysis, Reporting,
Integration and SQL Server Browser.
>There is no Database Engine Service listed!
>Have I installed incorrectly?
>TIA Lars
>

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

does anyone know how to modify table structure in sql server management console(2005)? tha

does anyone know how to modify table structure in sql server management console(2005)? thanksHi,
If you open Management Studio and drill down until you reach the table you want to modify, you can click the + image to see table structure.
If expand the columns, you will see the list of columns in that table. You can add a new column by right click an selecting New Column. Or modify one by right-clicking over that column and selecting modify option in the context menu.
You can also make modification as such for contraints, key, etc
Eralper
http://www.kodyaz.com

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Documenting SQL Jobs

Does anyone know any tools or scripts to use for
documenting SQL Jobs. I need to take the results and
create an excel or word file for management. I would need
it to list the job name, schedule, frequency...so on.
Trying to script this is not easy in that the sysjobs and
sysjobschedules tables use numbers to represent everything
about the schedule and all.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks,
Van JonesHow about a simple SQL Query, and put the output in Excel? The tables you
need to read from aren't that difficult to work with. Only mess is the
dateformat and frequency stuff, but there is some good stuff at
www.SQLDev.Net that help you with this.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Van Jones" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0dbd01c3a485$acb49fb0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Does anyone know any tools or scripts to use for
> documenting SQL Jobs. I need to take the results and
> create an excel or word file for management. I would need
> it to list the job name, schedule, frequency...so on.
> Trying to script this is not easy in that the sysjobs and
> sysjobschedules tables use numbers to represent everything
> about the schedule and all.
> Any help is appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Van Jones|||Hey thanks for the reply Tibor. I've been down that road
before a couple years ago and didn't have a great deal of
luck. I got it to work, but it wasn't very clean. I was
just hoping for a tool to do it for me. However, I saw a
reply from Sue under dbforums to the same question that
had the following article listed:
http://www.sqlmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=15560
It has a sp called usp_Scheduled_Jobs that will do it all
for you....extremely nice and useful.
Thanks,
Van Jones
MCDBA, MCSE, MCSA, MCAD
>--Original Message--
>How about a simple SQL Query, and put the output in
Excel? The tables you
>need to read from aren't that difficult to work with.
Only mess is the
>dateformat and frequency stuff, but there is some good
stuff at
>www.SQLDev.Net that help you with this.
>--
>Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>Archive at:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?
oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
>
>"Van Jones" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message
>news:0dbd01c3a485$acb49fb0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Does anyone know any tools or scripts to use for
>> documenting SQL Jobs. I need to take the results and
>> create an excel or word file for management. I would
need
>> it to list the job name, schedule, frequency...so on.
>> Trying to script this is not easy in that the sysjobs
and
>> sysjobschedules tables use numbers to represent
everything
>> about the schedule and all.
>> Any help is appreciated.
>> Thanks,
>> Van Jones
>
>.
>|||OK, I just wanted to point the option of using these tables, in case you
haven't used them already. Yes, some things aren't that easy to deal with
(mostly the freq- things, IMO). Hopefully Sue's proc will help you :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Van Jones" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0ded01c3a48e$787439a0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hey thanks for the reply Tibor. I've been down that road
> before a couple years ago and didn't have a great deal of
> luck. I got it to work, but it wasn't very clean. I was
> just hoping for a tool to do it for me. However, I saw a
> reply from Sue under dbforums to the same question that
> had the following article listed:
> http://www.sqlmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=15560
> It has a sp called usp_Scheduled_Jobs that will do it all
> for you....extremely nice and useful.
> Thanks,
> Van Jones
> MCDBA, MCSE, MCSA, MCAD
> >--Original Message--
> >How about a simple SQL Query, and put the output in
> Excel? The tables you
> >need to read from aren't that difficult to work with.
> Only mess is the
> >dateformat and frequency stuff, but there is some good
> stuff at
> >www.SQLDev.Net that help you with this.
> >
> >--
> >Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> >Archive at:
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?
> oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
> >
> >
> >"Van Jones" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
> in message
> >news:0dbd01c3a485$acb49fb0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> Does anyone know any tools or scripts to use for
> >> documenting SQL Jobs. I need to take the results and
> >> create an excel or word file for management. I would
> need
> >> it to list the job name, schedule, frequency...so on.
> >> Trying to script this is not easy in that the sysjobs
> and
> >> sysjobschedules tables use numbers to represent
> everything
> >> about the schedule and all.
> >>
> >> Any help is appreciated.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Van Jones
> >
> >
> >.
> >|||It's a reference to an article in SQL mag a couple of years
or so ago that has a pretty nice script to grab the job,
schedule, avg run time, max run time, some other properties.
It's pretty good - I've used it quite a bit with just a
couple modifications.
-Sue
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 18:58:09 +0100, "Tibor Karaszi"
<tibor.please_reply_to_public_forum.karaszi@.cornerstone.se>
wrote:
>OK, I just wanted to point the option of using these tables, in case you
>haven't used them already. Yes, some things aren't that easy to deal with
>(mostly the freq- things, IMO). Hopefully Sue's proc will help you :-)

Documentation / Metadata tools

Hi,

I heard about some upcomming tools... About logging and metadata management (Donald told in the IT Forum about that) and some documentation tools (I don't remember anymore who mentioned that)...

Are there any specific dates/previews/feature lists?

Thanks,We are planning to release metadata analyzer, viewer and two or three sample metadata reports some time in December. The plan is to have it as shared source sample, so that one can learn how it works and, if needed, build custom solution.|||There is also a tool called the documentor that will document the contents of packages etc. Release date is still TBD.
K|||Kirk,

thanks for the confirmation... Great thing, I'm very curious about the features...|||Michael,

so this will analyse all the XML files in a project (?) and show usage paths of information (where does it come from, where is it going, where is it used)?

This would be very very helpful...

Thanks,

Friday, February 17, 2012

Document Search for CMS

I have a database which stores documents (e.g. policies and guidelines)
in our content management system. The follow relationships exist:

Documents (1-to-Many) LinkTableKeywordLink (Many-to-1) Keywords

Documents (1-to-Many) LinkTableAttachments (Many-to-1) Attachments

Documents (1-to-Many) LookUpSubjects

Documents (1-to-Many) LookUpDocType

When the user conducts a search I want the SQL to check if the string
they enter is present in:

* the Title, Author, Summary fields of Documents OR
* the Title or Path of the Attachments
* the Keywords that are links OR
* the Subject that is linked OR
* the DocType that is linked.

Is this possible in one SQL query. I have tried the following:

SELECT DISTINCT Documents.Document, Documents.Title,Priority

FROM Documents,
Attachments,Keywords,LinkTableAttachments,LinkTabl eKeywordLink

WHERE
((Documents.Document=LinkTableAttachments.Document ID and
LinkTableAttachments.AttachmentID=Attachments.Id) OR
(Documents.Document=LinkTableKeywordLink.DocumentI D and
LinkTableKeywordLink.KeywordID=Keywords.Id))

AND (Documents.Title Like '%SEARCHSTRING%' OR Documents.Author Like
'%SEARCHSTRING%' OR Documents.Summary Like '%SEARCHSTRING%' OR
Keywords.Keyword Like '%SEARCHSTRING%' OR DocType.DocType Like
'%SEARCHSTRING%' OR Attachments.AttachmentTitle Like '%SEARCHSTRING%'
OR Attachments.Path like '%SEARCHSTRING%' or Subjects.Subject Like
'%SEARCHSTRING%')

AND StartDate<=getDate() and ReviewDate>getDate() order by Title

but this causes, perhaps understandably, a timeout error.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!
Steve(StevePBurgess@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Is this possible in one SQL query. I have tried the following:
>
SELECT DISTINCT Documents.Document, Documents.Title,Priority
>
FROM Documents,
Attachments,Keywords,LinkTableAttachments,LinkTabl eKeywordLink
>
WHERE
((Documents.Document=LinkTableAttachments.Document ID and
LinkTableAttachments.AttachmentID=Attachments.Id) OR
(Documents.Document=LinkTableKeywordLink.DocumentI D and
LinkTableKeywordLink.KeywordID=Keywords.Id))
>
AND (Documents.Title Like '%SEARCHSTRING%' OR Documents.Author Like
'%SEARCHSTRING%' OR Documents.Summary Like '%SEARCHSTRING%' OR
Keywords.Keyword Like '%SEARCHSTRING%' OR DocType.DocType Like
'%SEARCHSTRING%' OR Attachments.AttachmentTitle Like '%SEARCHSTRING%'
OR Attachments.Path like '%SEARCHSTRING%' or Subjects.Subject Like
'%SEARCHSTRING%')
>
AND StartDate<=getDate() and ReviewDate>getDate() order by Title
>
>
but this causes, perhaps understandably, a timeout error.


The most crucial is probably the date conditions. This is a difficult
one there are two dates. But a start at least is make sure that the
query is parameterised, so the last line:

AND StartDate <= @.now and ReviewDate @.now order by Title

And with parameter I don't mean that you do "SELECT @.now = getdate()"
just before the query. You need it to pass @.now as a parameter to a
stored procedure or a parameterised query. Then the optimzer will
look at the value to determine how selective an index might be and
use it. If you use an unknown value, the optimizer will assume that 30%
of the rows will match, which is far too many,

If the search columns should are indexed, you should distinguish between
"starts with" and "contains" for the indexes to be useful. That is, only
include % first the search string, if the user actually wants "conatins",
because indexes are only good for starting values.

Adjust the application to have no timeout (= 0) or a very long timeout,
because in some cases the user may need to do searches that take a very long
time.

Finally, drop the DISTINCT, and use the EXISTS predicate to get from
the subtables. That is more efficient,since there no need to sort
the result to weed out the duplicates.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||Hi - and thanks for the feedback.

If I run the query with against just one of the 1-many-many-1 table
relationships it works perfectly. The issue, I think, is having two
OR-ed together. When running against one set (e.g. just keywords and
not attachments) the search is very quick.

Best wishes,
Steve

Erland Sommarskog wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>
The most crucial is probably the date conditions. This is a difficult
one there are two dates. But a start at least is make sure that the
query is parameterised, so the last line:
>
AND StartDate <= @.now and ReviewDate @.now order by Title
>
And with parameter I don't mean that you do "SELECT @.now = getdate()"
just before the query. You need it to pass @.now as a parameter to a
stored procedure or a parameterised query. Then the optimzer will
look at the value to determine how selective an index might be and
use it. If you use an unknown value, the optimizer will assume that 30%
of the rows will match, which is far too many,
>
>
If the search columns should are indexed, you should distinguish between
"starts with" and "contains" for the indexes to be useful. That is, only
include % first the search string, if the user actually wants "conatins",
because indexes are only good for starting values.
>
Adjust the application to have no timeout (= 0) or a very long timeout,
because in some cases the user may need to do searches that take a very long
time.
>
Finally, drop the DISTINCT, and use the EXISTS predicate to get from
the subtables. That is more efficient,since there no need to sort
the result to weed out the duplicates.
>
>
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
>
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx

|||(StevePBurgess@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Hi - and thanks for the feedback.
>
If I run the query with against just one of the 1-many-many-1 table
relationships it works perfectly. The issue, I think, is having two
OR-ed together. When running against one set (e.g. just keywords and
not attachments) the search is very quick.


The more tables you throw into the mix, the more tables there are to search.

If you want me or anyone else to say somehting more useful, we would need to
see:

o CREATE TABLE and INDEX statements for the tables.
o The fast query (and repeat the slow while you are it).
o The output from SET STATISTICS PROFILE ON when you run the two from
a query tool. This output is very wide, so put in an attachment if
possible.
o Which version of SQL Server you are running.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||

Quote:

Originally Posted by

If you want me or anyone else to say somehting more useful, we would need to
see:
>
o CREATE TABLE and INDEX statements for the tables.
o The fast query (and repeat the slow while you are it).
o The output from SET STATISTICS PROFILE ON when you run the two from
a query tool. This output is very wide, so put in an attachment if
possible.
o Which version of SQL Server you are running.
>


Hi. Thanks. The question was really about whether the SQL is valid
(given the relationships that are defined) and/or whether it could be
written more efficiently.

Document Management Systems

I have a client that would like to archive all of the documents .word, .xls, .pdf, .jpg, email coorespondance, etc. into some sort of database so in the near future when the project starts up again all of the information is in a clear consise format. I was hoping that this forum could provide some guidance in selecting a software package and a discussion on how to proceed.

I have 6 gigs of documents in a folder on our server.
I was planning on delivering the organized data on a external hard drive after putting the data into some sort of database.
I would like to include metadata about each particular document.
like
who created the document,
Key words about the document's purpose,
time frame the document is revelant for,
and so on.

I would like to use a database structure and possibly hot link the document to the DB.
I would like to use xml (if possible) for the metadata.

any help is greatly appreciated on this
I can be reached at

khively at maximusa dot com

for any additional questionsResponding via email is considered a consulting arrangement by my company. I don't think that's what you had in mind. ;)

Would you like to discuss the idea here in the forum?

-PatP|||Yes I would like to discuss document management software options inside this forum.
Also I might add that I have mimimial database experience. I can run queries in access. That is about it.

thanks in advance

Khively|||Have you considered Microsoft SharePoint? That is a pre-packaged solution that delivers what you've asked for so far.

-PatP

Document Management - SQL Server 2005

I am researching a server for ProSystem fx Document Management.
System requirements break down the servers 40+ GB drive like this:
c:\ system = 10 GB
d:\ log files = 10 GB
e:\SQL DB = 15 GB
Would c, d and e be one RAID 5 array?
This is my first SQL server, so I'm learning as I go forward.
Thank you for your thoughts!First off 40GB is pretty small these days and doesn't go very far. It's hard
to say what you need without a lot more info. How much and what kind of
activity do you expect? Is it mostly reads or a lot of writes as well? You
generally want to separate your log files from your data files if you have
lots of writes or the transactions are large. But placing them all one
physical Raid drive and separating them into smaller logical drives does
nothing for performance and limits what can fit in any single partition.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1CCE910E-6419-472C-AA98-00B249AF4579@.microsoft.com...
>I am researching a server for ProSystem fx Document Management.
> System requirements break down the servers 40+ GB drive like this:
> c:\ system = 10 GB
> d:\ log files = 10 GB
> e:\SQL DB = 15 GB
> Would c, d and e be one RAID 5 array?
> This is my first SQL server, so I'm learning as I go forward.
> Thank you for your thoughts!
>
>
>|||Thank you, Andrew,
I really suspected that would be the case. The drive sizes I mentioned were
the minimum recommended sizes for the specific document management program
I'm researching.
Just as a hypothetical, would it be appropriate to mirror the system drive
and put the log and SQL drives each on three or more drives using RAID 5?
In other words:
c:\ system - mirrored (pagefile.sys here, as well)
d:\ log - RAID 5 (three drives+)
e:\ SQL DB - RAID 5 (three drives+)
Or is there a better approach? Obviously, I've never configured a SQL server
before but do want good performance... I'm not sure if I can answer your
read/write question at this point. Let's say 50/50.
I appreciate any direction you can offer.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> First off 40GB is pretty small these days and doesn't go very far. It's hard
> to say what you need without a lot more info. How much and what kind of
> activity do you expect? Is it mostly reads or a lot of writes as well? You
> generally want to separate your log files from your data files if you have
> lots of writes or the transactions are large. But placing them all one
> physical Raid drive and separating them into smaller logical drives does
> nothing for performance and limits what can fit in any single partition.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1CCE910E-6419-472C-AA98-00B249AF4579@.microsoft.com...
> >I am researching a server for ProSystem fx Document Management.
> >
> > System requirements break down the servers 40+ GB drive like this:
> >
> > c:\ system = 10 GB
> > d:\ log files = 10 GB
> > e:\SQL DB = 15 GB
> >
> > Would c, d and e be one RAID 5 array?
> >
> > This is my first SQL server, so I'm learning as I go forward.
> >
> > Thank you for your thoughts!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>|||RAID 5 has a sever penalty for writes and as such is the worst to put Log
files on. Raid 1 or 10 is great for log files. What you go with really
depends a lot on what you are going to do. 50 / 50 is a lot of writes in
relation to reads but if you only do 5 transactions a second it doesn't
matter as much as if it were 500 or 5000 a second. I would go with a Raid 1
for the OS / Swap file and a Raid 1 for the Logs. Then either a 4 disk Raid
5 or a 4 disk Raid 10 if your controller supports it. A Raid 10 will usually
outperform a comparable Raid 5 for heavy write operations.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8ED269A3-AAF6-4712-85D6-15A5B62C5DCB@.microsoft.com...
> Thank you, Andrew,
> I really suspected that would be the case. The drive sizes I mentioned
> were
> the minimum recommended sizes for the specific document management program
> I'm researching.
> Just as a hypothetical, would it be appropriate to mirror the system drive
> and put the log and SQL drives each on three or more drives using RAID 5?
> In other words:
> c:\ system - mirrored (pagefile.sys here, as well)
> d:\ log - RAID 5 (three drives+)
> e:\ SQL DB - RAID 5 (three drives+)
> Or is there a better approach? Obviously, I've never configured a SQL
> server
> before but do want good performance... I'm not sure if I can answer your
> read/write question at this point. Let's say 50/50.
> I appreciate any direction you can offer.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> First off 40GB is pretty small these days and doesn't go very far. It's
>> hard
>> to say what you need without a lot more info. How much and what kind of
>> activity do you expect? Is it mostly reads or a lot of writes as well?
>> You
>> generally want to separate your log files from your data files if you
>> have
>> lots of writes or the transactions are large. But placing them all one
>> physical Raid drive and separating them into smaller logical drives does
>> nothing for performance and limits what can fit in any single partition.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>> "Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:1CCE910E-6419-472C-AA98-00B249AF4579@.microsoft.com...
>> >I am researching a server for ProSystem fx Document Management.
>> >
>> > System requirements break down the servers 40+ GB drive like this:
>> >
>> > c:\ system = 10 GB
>> > d:\ log files = 10 GB
>> > e:\SQL DB = 15 GB
>> >
>> > Would c, d and e be one RAID 5 array?
>> >
>> > This is my first SQL server, so I'm learning as I go forward.
>> >
>> > Thank you for your thoughts!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>|||Thanks a bunch Andrew. That's very helpful and exactly what I need to know.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> RAID 5 has a sever penalty for writes and as such is the worst to put Log
> files on. Raid 1 or 10 is great for log files. What you go with really
> depends a lot on what you are going to do. 50 / 50 is a lot of writes in
> relation to reads but if you only do 5 transactions a second it doesn't
> matter as much as if it were 500 or 5000 a second. I would go with a Raid 1
> for the OS / Swap file and a Raid 1 for the Logs. Then either a 4 disk Raid
> 5 or a 4 disk Raid 10 if your controller supports it. A Raid 10 will usually
> outperform a comparable Raid 5 for heavy write operations.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8ED269A3-AAF6-4712-85D6-15A5B62C5DCB@.microsoft.com...
> > Thank you, Andrew,
> >
> > I really suspected that would be the case. The drive sizes I mentioned
> > were
> > the minimum recommended sizes for the specific document management program
> > I'm researching.
> >
> > Just as a hypothetical, would it be appropriate to mirror the system drive
> > and put the log and SQL drives each on three or more drives using RAID 5?
> >
> > In other words:
> >
> > c:\ system - mirrored (pagefile.sys here, as well)
> > d:\ log - RAID 5 (three drives+)
> > e:\ SQL DB - RAID 5 (three drives+)
> >
> > Or is there a better approach? Obviously, I've never configured a SQL
> > server
> > before but do want good performance... I'm not sure if I can answer your
> > read/write question at this point. Let's say 50/50.
> >
> > I appreciate any direction you can offer.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> >
> >> First off 40GB is pretty small these days and doesn't go very far. It's
> >> hard
> >> to say what you need without a lot more info. How much and what kind of
> >> activity do you expect? Is it mostly reads or a lot of writes as well?
> >> You
> >> generally want to separate your log files from your data files if you
> >> have
> >> lots of writes or the transactions are large. But placing them all one
> >> physical Raid drive and separating them into smaller logical drives does
> >> nothing for performance and limits what can fit in any single partition.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >>
> >> "Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1CCE910E-6419-472C-AA98-00B249AF4579@.microsoft.com...
> >> >I am researching a server for ProSystem fx Document Management.
> >> >
> >> > System requirements break down the servers 40+ GB drive like this:
> >> >
> >> > c:\ system = 10 GB
> >> > d:\ log files = 10 GB
> >> > e:\SQL DB = 15 GB
> >> >
> >> > Would c, d and e be one RAID 5 array?
> >> >
> >> > This is my first SQL server, so I'm learning as I go forward.
> >> >
> >> > Thank you for your thoughts!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Document Management - SQL Server 2005

I am researching a server for ProSystem fx Document Management.
System requirements break down the servers 40+ GB drive like this:
c:\ system = 10 GB
d:\ log files = 10 GB
e:\SQL DB = 15 GB
Would c, d and e be one RAID 5 array?
This is my first SQL server, so I'm learning as I go forward.
Thank you for your thoughts!First off 40GB is pretty small these days and doesn't go very far. It's hard
to say what you need without a lot more info. How much and what kind of
activity do you expect? Is it mostly reads or a lot of writes as well? You
generally want to separate your log files from your data files if you have
lots of writes or the transactions are large. But placing them all one
physical Raid drive and separating them into smaller logical drives does
nothing for performance and limits what can fit in any single partition.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1CCE910E-6419-472C-AA98-00B249AF4579@.microsoft.com...
>I am researching a server for ProSystem fx Document Management.
> System requirements break down the servers 40+ GB drive like this:
> c:\ system = 10 GB
> d:\ log files = 10 GB
> e:\SQL DB = 15 GB
> Would c, d and e be one RAID 5 array?
> This is my first SQL server, so I'm learning as I go forward.
> Thank you for your thoughts!
>
>
>|||Thank you, Andrew,
I really suspected that would be the case. The drive sizes I mentioned were
the minimum recommended sizes for the specific document management program
I'm researching.
Just as a hypothetical, would it be appropriate to mirror the system drive
and put the log and SQL drives each on three or more drives using RAID 5?
In other words:
c:\ system - mirrored (pagefile.sys here, as well)
d:\ log - RAID 5 (three drives+)
e:\ SQL DB - RAID 5 (three drives+)
Or is there a better approach? Obviously, I've never configured a SQL server
before but do want good performance... I'm not sure if I can answer your
read/write question at this point. Let's say 50/50.
I appreciate any direction you can offer.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> First off 40GB is pretty small these days and doesn't go very far. It's ha
rd
> to say what you need without a lot more info. How much and what kind of
> activity do you expect? Is it mostly reads or a lot of writes as well? Yo
u
> generally want to separate your log files from your data files if you have
> lots of writes or the transactions are large. But placing them all one
> physical Raid drive and separating them into smaller logical drives does
> nothing for performance and limits what can fit in any single partition.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1CCE910E-6419-472C-AA98-00B249AF4579@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||RAID 5 has a sever penalty for writes and as such is the worst to put Log
files on. Raid 1 or 10 is great for log files. What you go with really
depends a lot on what you are going to do. 50 / 50 is a lot of writes in
relation to reads but if you only do 5 transactions a second it doesn't
matter as much as if it were 500 or 5000 a second. I would go with a Raid 1
for the OS / Swap file and a Raid 1 for the Logs. Then either a 4 disk Raid
5 or a 4 disk Raid 10 if your controller supports it. A Raid 10 will usually
outperform a comparable Raid 5 for heavy write operations.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8ED269A3-AAF6-4712-85D6-15A5B62C5DCB@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thank you, Andrew,
> I really suspected that would be the case. The drive sizes I mentioned
> were
> the minimum recommended sizes for the specific document management program
> I'm researching.
> Just as a hypothetical, would it be appropriate to mirror the system drive
> and put the log and SQL drives each on three or more drives using RAID 5?
> In other words:
> c:\ system - mirrored (pagefile.sys here, as well)
> d:\ log - RAID 5 (three drives+)
> e:\ SQL DB - RAID 5 (three drives+)
> Or is there a better approach? Obviously, I've never configured a SQL
> server
> before but do want good performance... I'm not sure if I can answer your
> read/write question at this point. Let's say 50/50.
> I appreciate any direction you can offer.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>|||Thanks a bunch Andrew. That's very helpful and exactly what I need to know.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> RAID 5 has a sever penalty for writes and as such is the worst to put Log
> files on. Raid 1 or 10 is great for log files. What you go with really
> depends a lot on what you are going to do. 50 / 50 is a lot of writes in
> relation to reads but if you only do 5 transactions a second it doesn't
> matter as much as if it were 500 or 5000 a second. I would go with a Raid
1
> for the OS / Swap file and a Raid 1 for the Logs. Then either a 4 disk Rai
d
> 5 or a 4 disk Raid 10 if your controller supports it. A Raid 10 will usual
ly
> outperform a comparable Raid 5 for heavy write operations.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> "Gene" <Gene@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8ED269A3-AAF6-4712-85D6-15A5B62C5DCB@.microsoft.com...
>
>