Standard apologies for the extreme "newbie" nature of this question...
I've just seen a batch of sample code with the following declaration:
DECLARE @.MyVar Name
"@.MyVar", in this case, is there to receive some string data from an OPENXML
operation. The contents of the variable are subsequently used to feed other
functions that take varchar's as arguments. This works successfully.
The problem is, I've never heard of a "Name" before -- I can't CAST it to
anything useful, nor can I successfully concatenate it with a "+" operator t
o
other string data. I don't believe it is actually a data type, but I'm afrai
d
I don't know what it is, and because of what it's called it's darned hard to
look up in BOL!
Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!Dan,
A user-defined data type?
Try:
EXEC sp_datatype_info
GO
--and
EXEC sp_help
GO
HTH
Jerry
"Dan Costello" <DanCostello@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C4A7366D-A8D9-4AE7-90D5-AF1E9CEDC847@.microsoft.com...
> Standard apologies for the extreme "newbie" nature of this question...
> I've just seen a batch of sample code with the following declaration:
> DECLARE @.MyVar Name
> "@.MyVar", in this case, is there to receive some string data from an
> OPENXML
> operation. The contents of the variable are subsequently used to feed
> other
> functions that take varchar's as arguments. This works successfully.
> The problem is, I've never heard of a "Name" before -- I can't CAST it to
> anything useful, nor can I successfully concatenate it with a "+" operator
> to
> other string data. I don't believe it is actually a data type, but I'm
> afraid
> I don't know what it is, and because of what it's called it's darned hard
> to
> look up in BOL!
> Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!|||Jerry,
Well, now I feel really stupid! Thanks, that's got it. For the sake of
completeness, the sample code uses the "AdventureWorks" sample database,
which does in fact have a user-defined type called "Name" already in it.
--Dan
"Jerry Spivey" wrote:
> Dan,
> A user-defined data type?
> Try:
> EXEC sp_datatype_info
> GO
> --and
> EXEC sp_help
> GO
> HTH
> Jerry
> "Dan Costello" <DanCostello@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C4A7366D-A8D9-4AE7-90D5-AF1E9CEDC847@.microsoft.com...
>
>
Showing posts with label standard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label standard. Show all posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012
"Name" Data Type?
Standard apologies for the extreme "newbie" nature of this question...
I've just seen a batch of sample code with the following declaration:
DECLARE @.MyVar Name
"@.MyVar", in this case, is there to receive some string data from an OPENXML
operation. The contents of the variable are subsequently used to feed other
functions that take varchar's as arguments. This works successfully.
The problem is, I've never heard of a "Name" before -- I can't CAST it to
anything useful, nor can I successfully concatenate it with a "+" operator to
other string data. I don't believe it is actually a data type, but I'm afraid
I don't know what it is, and because of what it's called it's darned hard to
look up in BOL!
Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!Dan,
A user-defined data type?
Try:
EXEC sp_datatype_info
GO
--and
EXEC sp_help
GO
HTH
Jerry
"Dan Costello" <DanCostello@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C4A7366D-A8D9-4AE7-90D5-AF1E9CEDC847@.microsoft.com...
> Standard apologies for the extreme "newbie" nature of this question...
> I've just seen a batch of sample code with the following declaration:
> DECLARE @.MyVar Name
> "@.MyVar", in this case, is there to receive some string data from an
> OPENXML
> operation. The contents of the variable are subsequently used to feed
> other
> functions that take varchar's as arguments. This works successfully.
> The problem is, I've never heard of a "Name" before -- I can't CAST it to
> anything useful, nor can I successfully concatenate it with a "+" operator
> to
> other string data. I don't believe it is actually a data type, but I'm
> afraid
> I don't know what it is, and because of what it's called it's darned hard
> to
> look up in BOL!
> Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!|||Jerry,
Well, now I feel really stupid! Thanks, that's got it. For the sake of
completeness, the sample code uses the "AdventureWorks" sample database,
which does in fact have a user-defined type called "Name" already in it.
--Dan
"Jerry Spivey" wrote:
> Dan,
> A user-defined data type?
> Try:
> EXEC sp_datatype_info
> GO
> --and
> EXEC sp_help
> GO
> HTH
> Jerry
> "Dan Costello" <DanCostello@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C4A7366D-A8D9-4AE7-90D5-AF1E9CEDC847@.microsoft.com...
> > Standard apologies for the extreme "newbie" nature of this question...
> >
> > I've just seen a batch of sample code with the following declaration:
> >
> > DECLARE @.MyVar Name
> >
> > "@.MyVar", in this case, is there to receive some string data from an
> > OPENXML
> > operation. The contents of the variable are subsequently used to feed
> > other
> > functions that take varchar's as arguments. This works successfully.
> >
> > The problem is, I've never heard of a "Name" before -- I can't CAST it to
> > anything useful, nor can I successfully concatenate it with a "+" operator
> > to
> > other string data. I don't believe it is actually a data type, but I'm
> > afraid
> > I don't know what it is, and because of what it's called it's darned hard
> > to
> > look up in BOL!
> >
> > Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
>
>
I've just seen a batch of sample code with the following declaration:
DECLARE @.MyVar Name
"@.MyVar", in this case, is there to receive some string data from an OPENXML
operation. The contents of the variable are subsequently used to feed other
functions that take varchar's as arguments. This works successfully.
The problem is, I've never heard of a "Name" before -- I can't CAST it to
anything useful, nor can I successfully concatenate it with a "+" operator to
other string data. I don't believe it is actually a data type, but I'm afraid
I don't know what it is, and because of what it's called it's darned hard to
look up in BOL!
Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!Dan,
A user-defined data type?
Try:
EXEC sp_datatype_info
GO
--and
EXEC sp_help
GO
HTH
Jerry
"Dan Costello" <DanCostello@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C4A7366D-A8D9-4AE7-90D5-AF1E9CEDC847@.microsoft.com...
> Standard apologies for the extreme "newbie" nature of this question...
> I've just seen a batch of sample code with the following declaration:
> DECLARE @.MyVar Name
> "@.MyVar", in this case, is there to receive some string data from an
> OPENXML
> operation. The contents of the variable are subsequently used to feed
> other
> functions that take varchar's as arguments. This works successfully.
> The problem is, I've never heard of a "Name" before -- I can't CAST it to
> anything useful, nor can I successfully concatenate it with a "+" operator
> to
> other string data. I don't believe it is actually a data type, but I'm
> afraid
> I don't know what it is, and because of what it's called it's darned hard
> to
> look up in BOL!
> Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!|||Jerry,
Well, now I feel really stupid! Thanks, that's got it. For the sake of
completeness, the sample code uses the "AdventureWorks" sample database,
which does in fact have a user-defined type called "Name" already in it.
--Dan
"Jerry Spivey" wrote:
> Dan,
> A user-defined data type?
> Try:
> EXEC sp_datatype_info
> GO
> --and
> EXEC sp_help
> GO
> HTH
> Jerry
> "Dan Costello" <DanCostello@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C4A7366D-A8D9-4AE7-90D5-AF1E9CEDC847@.microsoft.com...
> > Standard apologies for the extreme "newbie" nature of this question...
> >
> > I've just seen a batch of sample code with the following declaration:
> >
> > DECLARE @.MyVar Name
> >
> > "@.MyVar", in this case, is there to receive some string data from an
> > OPENXML
> > operation. The contents of the variable are subsequently used to feed
> > other
> > functions that take varchar's as arguments. This works successfully.
> >
> > The problem is, I've never heard of a "Name" before -- I can't CAST it to
> > anything useful, nor can I successfully concatenate it with a "+" operator
> > to
> > other string data. I don't believe it is actually a data type, but I'm
> > afraid
> > I don't know what it is, and because of what it's called it's darned hard
> > to
> > look up in BOL!
> >
> > Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
>
>
"Maximum Memory" setting in SQL Server properties
I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with 3.5
gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and has
4 CPUs.
The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around 1.75
GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any inputs
on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it be
reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I know
that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB of
RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
considered very high.
Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
drives...Hi
SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
area.
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/
"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
3.5
> gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
has
> 4 CPUs.
> The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
1.75
> GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
inputs
> on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
be
> reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
know
> that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
of
> RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> considered very high.
> Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> drives...
>|||Thanks for your reply.
I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
Thanks again
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
> will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
> more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
> leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
> area.
> 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/
> "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> > I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
> 3.5
> > gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
> has
> > 4 CPUs.
> >
> > The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
> 1.75
> > GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
> inputs
> > on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
> be
> > reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> > transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
> know
> > that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
> of
> > RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> > considered very high.
> >
> > Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> > Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> > drives...
> >
> >
>
>|||"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1D46A3CC-2D84-4FAA-AA97-24DDA8A27443@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your reply.
> I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
> request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
From the application's point of view physical and virtual memory are just
the same. You must not sum them up. Physical mem in TaskMGR shows the
portion of the application that's actually in main memory while virtual
mem shows the total allocated size. Your case is optimal with regard to
swapping: the process is completely in physical mem.
As Mike said, your SQL Server will never use more than what it uses at the
moment unless you install enterprise edition.
You should use perfmon to determine what causes the high disk activity.
Regards
robert
> Thanks again
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have
more, it
> > will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to
use
> > more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it
must
> > leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB
memory
> > area.
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> > > I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed
with
> > 3.5
> > > gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL
only and
> > has
> > > 4 CPUs.
> > >
> > > The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using
around
> > 1.75
> > > GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB).
Any
> > inputs
> > > on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or
should it
> > be
> > > reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware
that the
> > > transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons
and I
> > know
> > > that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than
2 GB
> > of
> > > RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56%
which is
> > > considered very high.
> > >
> > > Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the
SQL2K
> > > Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15
RPM
> > > drives...
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and has
4 CPUs.
The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around 1.75
GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any inputs
on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it be
reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I know
that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB of
RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
considered very high.
Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
drives...Hi
SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
area.
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/
"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
3.5
> gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
has
> 4 CPUs.
> The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
1.75
> GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
inputs
> on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
be
> reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
know
> that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
of
> RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> considered very high.
> Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> drives...
>|||Thanks for your reply.
I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
Thanks again
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
> will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
> more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
> leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
> area.
> 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/
> "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> > I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
> 3.5
> > gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
> has
> > 4 CPUs.
> >
> > The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
> 1.75
> > GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
> inputs
> > on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
> be
> > reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> > transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
> know
> > that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
> of
> > RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> > considered very high.
> >
> > Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> > Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> > drives...
> >
> >
>
>|||"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1D46A3CC-2D84-4FAA-AA97-24DDA8A27443@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your reply.
> I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
> request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
From the application's point of view physical and virtual memory are just
the same. You must not sum them up. Physical mem in TaskMGR shows the
portion of the application that's actually in main memory while virtual
mem shows the total allocated size. Your case is optimal with regard to
swapping: the process is completely in physical mem.
As Mike said, your SQL Server will never use more than what it uses at the
moment unless you install enterprise edition.
You should use perfmon to determine what causes the high disk activity.
Regards
robert
> Thanks again
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have
more, it
> > will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to
use
> > more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it
must
> > leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB
memory
> > area.
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> > > I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed
with
> > 3.5
> > > gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL
only and
> > has
> > > 4 CPUs.
> > >
> > > The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using
around
> > 1.75
> > > GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB).
Any
> > inputs
> > > on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or
should it
> > be
> > > reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware
that the
> > > transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons
and I
> > know
> > > that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than
2 GB
> > of
> > > RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56%
which is
> > > considered very high.
> > >
> > > Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the
SQL2K
> > > Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15
RPM
> > > drives...
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
"Maximum Memory" setting in SQL Server properties
I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with 3.5
gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and has
4 CPUs.
The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around 1.75
GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any inputs
on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it be
reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I know
that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB of
RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
considered very high.
Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
drives...
Hi
SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
area.
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/
"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
3.5
> gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
has
> 4 CPUs.
> The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
1.75
> GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
inputs
> on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
be
> reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
know
> that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
of
> RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> considered very high.
> Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> drives...
>
|||Thanks for your reply.
I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
Thanks again
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
> will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
> more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
> leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
> area.
> 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/
> "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> 3.5
> has
> 1.75
> inputs
> be
> know
> of
>
>
|||"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1D46A3CC-2D84-4FAA-AA97-24DDA8A27443@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your reply.
> I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
> request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
From the application's point of view physical and virtual memory are just
the same. You must not sum them up. Physical mem in TaskMGR shows the
portion of the application that's actually in main memory while virtual
mem shows the total allocated size. Your case is optimal with regard to
swapping: the process is completely in physical mem.
As Mike said, your SQL Server will never use more than what it uses at the
moment unless you install enterprise edition.
You should use perfmon to determine what causes the high disk activity.
Regards
robert
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks again
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
more, it[vbcol=seagreen]
use[vbcol=seagreen]
must[vbcol=seagreen]
memory[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
only and[vbcol=seagreen]
around[vbcol=seagreen]
Any[vbcol=seagreen]
should it[vbcol=seagreen]
that the[vbcol=seagreen]
and I[vbcol=seagreen]
2 GB[vbcol=seagreen]
which is[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL2K[vbcol=seagreen]
RPM[vbcol=seagreen]
gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and has
4 CPUs.
The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around 1.75
GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any inputs
on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it be
reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I know
that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB of
RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
considered very high.
Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
drives...
Hi
SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
area.
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/
"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
3.5
> gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
has
> 4 CPUs.
> The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
1.75
> GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
inputs
> on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
be
> reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
know
> that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
of
> RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> considered very high.
> Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> drives...
>
|||Thanks for your reply.
I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
Thanks again
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
> will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
> more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
> leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
> area.
> 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/
> "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> 3.5
> has
> 1.75
> inputs
> be
> know
> of
>
>
|||"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1D46A3CC-2D84-4FAA-AA97-24DDA8A27443@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your reply.
> I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
> request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
From the application's point of view physical and virtual memory are just
the same. You must not sum them up. Physical mem in TaskMGR shows the
portion of the application that's actually in main memory while virtual
mem shows the total allocated size. Your case is optimal with regard to
swapping: the process is completely in physical mem.
As Mike said, your SQL Server will never use more than what it uses at the
moment unless you install enterprise edition.
You should use perfmon to determine what causes the high disk activity.
Regards
robert
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks again
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
more, it[vbcol=seagreen]
use[vbcol=seagreen]
must[vbcol=seagreen]
memory[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
only and[vbcol=seagreen]
around[vbcol=seagreen]
Any[vbcol=seagreen]
should it[vbcol=seagreen]
that the[vbcol=seagreen]
and I[vbcol=seagreen]
2 GB[vbcol=seagreen]
which is[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL2K[vbcol=seagreen]
RPM[vbcol=seagreen]
"Maximum Memory" setting in SQL Server properties
I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with 3.
5
gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and ha
s
4 CPUs.
The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around 1.75
GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any inputs
on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it be
reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I know
that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB of
RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
considered very high.
Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
drives...Hi
SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
area.
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/
"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
3.5
> gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
has
> 4 CPUs.
> The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
1.75
> GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
inputs
> on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
be
> reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
know
> that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
of
> RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> considered very high.
> Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> drives...
>|||Thanks for your reply.
I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
Thanks again
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
> will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
> more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
> leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memor
y
> area.
> 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/
> "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> 3.5
> has
> 1.75
> inputs
> be
> know
> of
>
>|||"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1D46A3CC-2D84-4FAA-AA97-24DDA8A27443@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your reply.
> I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
> request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
From the application's point of view physical and virtual memory are just
the same. You must not sum them up. Physical mem in TaskMGR shows the
portion of the application that's actually in main memory while virtual
mem shows the total allocated size. Your case is optimal with regard to
swapping: the process is completely in physical mem.
As Mike said, your SQL Server will never use more than what it uses at the
moment unless you install enterprise edition.
You should use perfmon to determine what causes the high disk activity.
Regards
robert
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks again
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>
more, it[vbcol=seagreen]
use[vbcol=seagreen]
must[vbcol=seagreen]
memory[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
only and[vbcol=seagreen]
around[vbcol=seagreen]
Any[vbcol=seagreen]
should it[vbcol=seagreen]
that the[vbcol=seagreen]
and I[vbcol=seagreen]
2 GB[vbcol=seagreen]
which is[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL2K[vbcol=seagreen]
RPM[vbcol=seagreen]
5
gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and ha
s
4 CPUs.
The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around 1.75
GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any inputs
on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it be
reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I know
that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB of
RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
considered very high.
Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
drives...Hi
SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memory
area.
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/
"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> I have inherrited a sql 2k standard server running Win2K standard Ed with
3.5
> gb RAM (!?!) on a raid 5 (!?!). The server is dedicated for SQL only and
has
> 4 CPUs.
> The "maximum memory" setting is set to 3500 MB and SQL is using around
1.75
> GB of physical ram and 1.75 GB of Virtual Memory (total:3500 MB). Any
inputs
> on if the "maximum memory" setting should be left to 3500mb or should it
be
> reduced to 2000 MB so SQL uses only the physical ram? I am aware that the
> transaction log should not be on a raid 5 for performance reasons and I
know
> that SQL 2k Standard + Win2k standard will not let me use more than 2 GB
of
> RAM for SQL. The average Physical Disk (_total) activity is 56% which is
> considered very high.
> Any inputs would be appreciated on this setting while we order the SQL2K
> Enterprise on Win2K Advanced Ed. and add an extra controller and 15 RPM
> drives...
>|||Thanks for your reply.
I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
Thanks again
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
> Hi
> SQL Server Standard Edition is limited to 2GB of RAM. If you have more, it
> will not use it. You need to install SQL Server Expertise Edition to use
> more RAM (and set /3GB switch in your boot.ini). SQL Server knows it must
> leave space for the OS, so the .25 is left for the OS in the sub 2GB memor
y
> area.
> 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/
> "Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5260014-1A9E-47AF-9247-0F8F5B25F8DF@.microsoft.com...
> 3.5
> has
> 1.75
> inputs
> be
> know
> of
>
>|||"Anonymous" <Anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1D46A3CC-2D84-4FAA-AA97-24DDA8A27443@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for your reply.
> I fully understand what you are saying (as it was also statement in my
> request). I am interested to know about he virtual memory portion of it.
From the application's point of view physical and virtual memory are just
the same. You must not sum them up. Physical mem in TaskMGR shows the
portion of the application that's actually in main memory while virtual
mem shows the total allocated size. Your case is optimal with regard to
swapping: the process is completely in physical mem.
As Mike said, your SQL Server will never use more than what it uses at the
moment unless you install enterprise edition.
You should use perfmon to determine what causes the high disk activity.
Regards
robert
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks again
> "Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:
>
more, it[vbcol=seagreen]
use[vbcol=seagreen]
must[vbcol=seagreen]
memory[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
only and[vbcol=seagreen]
around[vbcol=seagreen]
Any[vbcol=seagreen]
should it[vbcol=seagreen]
that the[vbcol=seagreen]
and I[vbcol=seagreen]
2 GB[vbcol=seagreen]
which is[vbcol=seagreen]
SQL2K[vbcol=seagreen]
RPM[vbcol=seagreen]
Monday, February 13, 2012
"downgrade" edition ?
Hi
I save SQLServer 7.0 enterprise edition installed on NT
4.0 PDC.
And now i want to install SQLServer 2000 standard edition
and upgrade default instance. When i run SQLServer 2000
setup, the option "Upgrade..." is not available.
I think it happens because different version: enterprise
and standart (or not ?)
How i can "downgrade" SQLServer edition ?
Or i should backup all 7 databases, install SQLServer 2000
and restore all databases from backup,include master (to
preserve logins)?I can point you in the direction of a good article on this subject :-
http://www.sqlteam.com/item.asp?ItemID=9066
--
HTH
Ryan Waight, MCDBA, MCSE
"Slava Melnikov" <melnikov@.pochta.ru> wrote in message
news:0a0201c38eed$a99fee90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I save SQLServer 7.0 enterprise edition installed on NT
> 4.0 PDC.
> And now i want to install SQLServer 2000 standard edition
> and upgrade default instance. When i run SQLServer 2000
> setup, the option "Upgrade..." is not available.
> I think it happens because different version: enterprise
> and standart (or not ?)
> How i can "downgrade" SQLServer edition ?
> Or i should backup all 7 databases, install SQLServer 2000
> and restore all databases from backup,include master (to
> preserve logins)?
I save SQLServer 7.0 enterprise edition installed on NT
4.0 PDC.
And now i want to install SQLServer 2000 standard edition
and upgrade default instance. When i run SQLServer 2000
setup, the option "Upgrade..." is not available.
I think it happens because different version: enterprise
and standart (or not ?)
How i can "downgrade" SQLServer edition ?
Or i should backup all 7 databases, install SQLServer 2000
and restore all databases from backup,include master (to
preserve logins)?I can point you in the direction of a good article on this subject :-
http://www.sqlteam.com/item.asp?ItemID=9066
--
HTH
Ryan Waight, MCDBA, MCSE
"Slava Melnikov" <melnikov@.pochta.ru> wrote in message
news:0a0201c38eed$a99fee90$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> I save SQLServer 7.0 enterprise edition installed on NT
> 4.0 PDC.
> And now i want to install SQLServer 2000 standard edition
> and upgrade default instance. When i run SQLServer 2000
> setup, the option "Upgrade..." is not available.
> I think it happens because different version: enterprise
> and standart (or not ?)
> How i can "downgrade" SQLServer edition ?
> Or i should backup all 7 databases, install SQLServer 2000
> and restore all databases from backup,include master (to
> preserve logins)?
"Default bound to column
I am running a script against a couple of databases on my SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition Instance and I am getting the following in the results pane:
"Default bound to column" I have searched the MS Knowledge base and found a couple of vague references to this. Does anyone know why I might be getting this? the script 'seems' to run fine.. except for the funky error in the results pane. Script is attached. Thank you!!maybe no one has answered because zip files make people nervous (viruses). Just post the code using the tags. I know I am not opening your zip file.|||IIRC the sp_bindefault will give that message; just run one of them to confirm that.
ALSO never zip up a SQL script as a DOC file and think you are going to get an answer.
Change it to a text file and then only if it is very large zip it up.
doc files are the most common file used to tranmit virii to other people followed by zip files so very few people word open your file.
I have both zip & doc files set to open with non-MS software so I should be safe but I almost did not open the doc.
Tim S
"Default bound to column" I have searched the MS Knowledge base and found a couple of vague references to this. Does anyone know why I might be getting this? the script 'seems' to run fine.. except for the funky error in the results pane. Script is attached. Thank you!!maybe no one has answered because zip files make people nervous (viruses). Just post the code using the tags. I know I am not opening your zip file.|||IIRC the sp_bindefault will give that message; just run one of them to confirm that.
ALSO never zip up a SQL script as a DOC file and think you are going to get an answer.
Change it to a text file and then only if it is very large zip it up.
doc files are the most common file used to tranmit virii to other people followed by zip files so very few people word open your file.
I have both zip & doc files set to open with non-MS software so I should be safe but I almost did not open the doc.
Tim S
Saturday, February 11, 2012
"Custom Reports..." grayed out, SP2 (latest) installed
What am I missing, here? The "Custom Reports..." context menu appears, but
is grayed out, and no "Standard Reports" context menu item is there. I've
found no reference to additional steps to get these reports enabled/visible.
Help?
thanks,Where exactly you see all these things ?
Amarnath
"Stan Spotts [Computer Aid, Inc]" wrote:
> What am I missing, here? The "Custom Reports..." context menu appears, but
> is grayed out, and no "Standard Reports" context menu item is there. I've
> found no reference to additional steps to get these reports enabled/visible.
> Help?
> thanks,|||In SQL Server Management Studio.
"Amarnath" wrote:
> Where exactly you see all these things ?
> Amarnath
> "Stan Spotts [Computer Aid, Inc]" wrote:
> > What am I missing, here? The "Custom Reports..." context menu appears, but
> > is grayed out, and no "Standard Reports" context menu item is there. I've
> > found no reference to additional steps to get these reports enabled/visible.
> >
> > Help?
> >
> > thanks,
is grayed out, and no "Standard Reports" context menu item is there. I've
found no reference to additional steps to get these reports enabled/visible.
Help?
thanks,Where exactly you see all these things ?
Amarnath
"Stan Spotts [Computer Aid, Inc]" wrote:
> What am I missing, here? The "Custom Reports..." context menu appears, but
> is grayed out, and no "Standard Reports" context menu item is there. I've
> found no reference to additional steps to get these reports enabled/visible.
> Help?
> thanks,|||In SQL Server Management Studio.
"Amarnath" wrote:
> Where exactly you see all these things ?
> Amarnath
> "Stan Spotts [Computer Aid, Inc]" wrote:
> > What am I missing, here? The "Custom Reports..." context menu appears, but
> > is grayed out, and no "Standard Reports" context menu item is there. I've
> > found no reference to additional steps to get these reports enabled/visible.
> >
> > Help?
> >
> > thanks,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
