it's about the Maintance plan clean up task...in sql2k, you can just
specify all system databases in maintenance plan and purge files older
than a specified time (i.e. 2 days old), but in 2k5, there is a
seperate maintenance clean up task, you can't specify the database
(i.e. all system dbs) or directory (and include sub folders). does that
mean I have to create 3 tasks just to delete old files for master,
msdb, and model? that would be really dumb, or am I missing something?
Thank you.I have the exact same question.
Anybody can help ?
=== Steve L === wrote:
> it's about the Maintance plan clean up task...in sql2k, you can just
> specify all system databases in maintenance plan and purge files older
> than a specified time (i.e. 2 days old), but in 2k5, there is a
> seperate maintenance clean up task, you can't specify the database
> (i.e. all system dbs) or directory (and include sub folders). does that
> mean I have to create 3 tasks just to delete old files for master,
> msdb, and model? that would be really dumb, or am I missing something?
> Thank you.|||That is the way it is designed. Consider proposing a change at
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
<xiaoyuh.huang@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143835327.889394.267740@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I have the exact same question.
> Anybody can help ?
> === Steve L === wrote:
>
Showing posts with label system. Show all posts
Showing posts with label system. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
question about retrieving identity value
hi,
according to the SQL Server Books Online, there're 3 system functions return
last-generated identity values: IDENT_CURRENT, @.@.IDENTITY, and
SCOPE_IDENTITY. My colleague wrote a stored procedure like the following:
...
BEGIN TRAN
...
INSERT INTO [TABLE_WITH_IDENTITY_COLUMN] ...
SET @.ID = IDENT_CURRENT('TABLE_WITH_IDENTITY_COLUM
N')
...
COMMIT TRAN
...
I think using IDENT_CURRENT may be a problem in multiuser environment,
because it returns the last identity value generated in any session. But he
said it's ok, since these statements are put in a transaction and SQL Server
will lock the table. Is it true?Hi
He is wrong. SQL Server may not lock the whole table, so it is possible that
2 processes can insert into the same table, at the same time.
SCOPE_IDENTITY is the correct one to use.
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/
"nonno" <nonno@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:72F8BDEC-FA0F-4880-B1E7-FFBDB8102955@.microsoft.com...
> hi,
> according to the SQL Server Books Online, there're 3 system functions
> return
> last-generated identity values: IDENT_CURRENT, @.@.IDENTITY, and
> SCOPE_IDENTITY. My colleague wrote a stored procedure like the following:
> ...
> BEGIN TRAN
> ...
> INSERT INTO [TABLE_WITH_IDENTITY_COLUMN] ...
> SET @.ID = IDENT_CURRENT('TABLE_WITH_IDENTITY_COLUM
N')
> ...
> COMMIT TRAN
> ...
> I think using IDENT_CURRENT may be a problem in multiuser environment,
> because it returns the last identity value generated in any session. But
> he
> said it's ok, since these statements are put in a transaction and SQL
> Server
> will lock the table. Is it true?
according to the SQL Server Books Online, there're 3 system functions return
last-generated identity values: IDENT_CURRENT, @.@.IDENTITY, and
SCOPE_IDENTITY. My colleague wrote a stored procedure like the following:
...
BEGIN TRAN
...
INSERT INTO [TABLE_WITH_IDENTITY_COLUMN] ...
SET @.ID = IDENT_CURRENT('TABLE_WITH_IDENTITY_COLUM
N')
...
COMMIT TRAN
...
I think using IDENT_CURRENT may be a problem in multiuser environment,
because it returns the last identity value generated in any session. But he
said it's ok, since these statements are put in a transaction and SQL Server
will lock the table. Is it true?Hi
He is wrong. SQL Server may not lock the whole table, so it is possible that
2 processes can insert into the same table, at the same time.
SCOPE_IDENTITY is the correct one to use.
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/
"nonno" <nonno@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:72F8BDEC-FA0F-4880-B1E7-FFBDB8102955@.microsoft.com...
> hi,
> according to the SQL Server Books Online, there're 3 system functions
> return
> last-generated identity values: IDENT_CURRENT, @.@.IDENTITY, and
> SCOPE_IDENTITY. My colleague wrote a stored procedure like the following:
> ...
> BEGIN TRAN
> ...
> INSERT INTO [TABLE_WITH_IDENTITY_COLUMN] ...
> SET @.ID = IDENT_CURRENT('TABLE_WITH_IDENTITY_COLUM
N')
> ...
> COMMIT TRAN
> ...
> I think using IDENT_CURRENT may be a problem in multiuser environment,
> because it returns the last identity value generated in any session. But
> he
> said it's ok, since these statements are put in a transaction and SQL
> Server
> will lock the table. Is it true?
Monday, March 26, 2012
Question about parallel operations of SQLServer
Our system will support about 200 concurrent users during work time. But
some heavy queries are executed in parallel sometimes. When this is
happening, the server is really stressed and even logon to the server will
take long time. We have tried our best to optimize these heavy queries and
we can not totally eliminate the parallel process. What should we do? should
we turn off the parallel option? How does your server configured?
Thanks for any response.
Lijunreduce the setting "max degree of parallelism" to something less than the
total number of processors on the machine.
Kevin Connell, MCDBA
----
The views expressed here are my own
and not of my employer.
----
"Lijun Zhang" <nospam@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:#KXBHLKqDHA.3320@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Our system will support about 200 concurrent users during work time. But
> some heavy queries are executed in parallel sometimes. When this is
> happening, the server is really stressed and even logon to the server will
> take long time. We have tried our best to optimize these heavy queries and
> we can not totally eliminate the parallel process. What should we do?
should
> we turn off the parallel option? How does your server configured?
> Thanks for any response.
> Lijun
>|||Hi Lijun,
Thanks for your post. Generally, the bottleneck of the query performance
might be on many factors (mainly divided into four parts) such as the
Number and Type of Processor, Memory Size and Usage, Physical Disk I/O,
Multiple threads (Hardware and Operating System Limitations); Provider to
connect server, Network Communication Speed, Numbers of connection
(Connection Limitation); Execution Plan, Statistics, Index, Data Volume,
Returned result sets, locks/deadlocks, long-run transactions/store
procedure (SQL Server Specific Issues); Cursor Location, Coding consistent,
application designing issue (VB Specific Issues). Therefore, the
configuration on the server side is not the only thing we need to concern
for the performance of SQL Server.
In this case, how did the 200 concurrent users connect to SQL Server during
work time, using Query Analyzer or in Application?
You wrote "the server is really stressed and even logon to the server will
take long time. What do you mean by the "long time"? How many seconds do
you spend on query and logon at the worst situation?
What does the hardware configuration on our side? How many processors do
you have?
Did some jobs worked on the background inducing the server busy?
The above things that affect the query performance are all need to be
considered on your side. For detailed reference on how to perform the
configuration on the server side, please read the following article
seriously and perform some configurations which meet your needs. 319942 HOW
TO: Determine Proper SQL Server Configuration Settings
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=319942
For additional information regarding this issue please refer to the
following article on SQL Server Books Online.
Topic: "max degree of parallelism Option"
Topic: "Degree of Parallelism"
For how to troubleshoot SQL Server performance issues step-by-step, please
reference the following Microsoft technical article which accurately
determine the source of a performance issue.
224587.KB.EN-US INF: Troubleshooting Application Performance with SQL Server
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;224587
For detailed information on how to perform QUERY TUNING, please follow the
directions of the following article which specifies accurate
troubleshooting unexpectedly long-lasting queries and updates and provides
very effective method to deal with the poorly performing queries:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/optimsql/od
p_tun_1_536v.asp
Also, due to the complexity of this issue, it would be best to contact
Microsoft Product Support Services via telephone so that a dedicated
Support Professional can assist with your request. To obtain the phone
numbers for specific technology request please take a look at the web site
listed below.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;EN-US;PHONENUMBERS
Thanks for using MSDN newsgroup.
Regards,
Michael Shao
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.|||Sorry if I sound silly
Can you make sure there are not too many "Select * INTO..." statements in your SQL these can also HOLD locks on system tables, that can make logging into sql server slow.
some heavy queries are executed in parallel sometimes. When this is
happening, the server is really stressed and even logon to the server will
take long time. We have tried our best to optimize these heavy queries and
we can not totally eliminate the parallel process. What should we do? should
we turn off the parallel option? How does your server configured?
Thanks for any response.
Lijunreduce the setting "max degree of parallelism" to something less than the
total number of processors on the machine.
Kevin Connell, MCDBA
----
The views expressed here are my own
and not of my employer.
----
"Lijun Zhang" <nospam@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:#KXBHLKqDHA.3320@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Our system will support about 200 concurrent users during work time. But
> some heavy queries are executed in parallel sometimes. When this is
> happening, the server is really stressed and even logon to the server will
> take long time. We have tried our best to optimize these heavy queries and
> we can not totally eliminate the parallel process. What should we do?
should
> we turn off the parallel option? How does your server configured?
> Thanks for any response.
> Lijun
>|||Hi Lijun,
Thanks for your post. Generally, the bottleneck of the query performance
might be on many factors (mainly divided into four parts) such as the
Number and Type of Processor, Memory Size and Usage, Physical Disk I/O,
Multiple threads (Hardware and Operating System Limitations); Provider to
connect server, Network Communication Speed, Numbers of connection
(Connection Limitation); Execution Plan, Statistics, Index, Data Volume,
Returned result sets, locks/deadlocks, long-run transactions/store
procedure (SQL Server Specific Issues); Cursor Location, Coding consistent,
application designing issue (VB Specific Issues). Therefore, the
configuration on the server side is not the only thing we need to concern
for the performance of SQL Server.
In this case, how did the 200 concurrent users connect to SQL Server during
work time, using Query Analyzer or in Application?
You wrote "the server is really stressed and even logon to the server will
take long time. What do you mean by the "long time"? How many seconds do
you spend on query and logon at the worst situation?
What does the hardware configuration on our side? How many processors do
you have?
Did some jobs worked on the background inducing the server busy?
The above things that affect the query performance are all need to be
considered on your side. For detailed reference on how to perform the
configuration on the server side, please read the following article
seriously and perform some configurations which meet your needs. 319942 HOW
TO: Determine Proper SQL Server Configuration Settings
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=319942
For additional information regarding this issue please refer to the
following article on SQL Server Books Online.
Topic: "max degree of parallelism Option"
Topic: "Degree of Parallelism"
For how to troubleshoot SQL Server performance issues step-by-step, please
reference the following Microsoft technical article which accurately
determine the source of a performance issue.
224587.KB.EN-US INF: Troubleshooting Application Performance with SQL Server
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;224587
For detailed information on how to perform QUERY TUNING, please follow the
directions of the following article which specifies accurate
troubleshooting unexpectedly long-lasting queries and updates and provides
very effective method to deal with the poorly performing queries:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/optimsql/od
p_tun_1_536v.asp
Also, due to the complexity of this issue, it would be best to contact
Microsoft Product Support Services via telephone so that a dedicated
Support Professional can assist with your request. To obtain the phone
numbers for specific technology request please take a look at the web site
listed below.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;EN-US;PHONENUMBERS
Thanks for using MSDN newsgroup.
Regards,
Michael Shao
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.|||Sorry if I sound silly
Can you make sure there are not too many "Select * INTO..." statements in your SQL these can also HOLD locks on system tables, that can make logging into sql server slow.
Friday, March 23, 2012
question about master system database
Hi, i use sql server 2005 express where i created several databases. When opening Management Studio, i can see, besides my databases, also Master, Model etc .. which manage the databases. Now i also use MDF files which are disseminated on the same server. I see that for one given user, there is also a Master, Model etc ... in c:\document and settings\that user\ ....
My question is: are those local Master, Model etc ... related with the central Master, Model ... of the central database system or are they independant? What if i delete the MDF files and its related system files in c:\.doc and settings\.. ?
Thanks
When you check under properties for the database in the Management Studio you should see the database is pointing to a particular file on the drives. So other than this MDF file you could delete any other MDF files with same name if you are sure no one else is using the files. You could try moving the files to a different location and if it lets you do it then no one is using it. If the files are being used you would get an '..Access violation..' or ' file in use..' error.
|||thanksWednesday, March 21, 2012
question about installing sql server express
Unless you are a security freak, use the Local System account. For more
info, see:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143170.aspx
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)
"Bart" <b@.sdq.dc> wrote in message
news:%23BcrcumbHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> During installation process of sql server2005 express, i had to choose
> between three options:
> install sql server as:
> local system
> Network Service
> local service
> Can somebody explain me the pro/contra? What should i take?
> Thanks in advance
> Bart
>
Thanks
"Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)>
schreef in bericht news:eexS5hpbHHA.2300@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Unless you are a security freak, use the Local System account. For more
> info, see:
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143170.aspx
> --
> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
> E-mail: sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)
>
> "Bart" <b@.sdq.dc> wrote in message
> news:%23BcrcumbHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
info, see:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143170.aspx
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)
"Bart" <b@.sdq.dc> wrote in message
news:%23BcrcumbHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> During installation process of sql server2005 express, i had to choose
> between three options:
> install sql server as:
> local system
> Network Service
> local service
> Can somebody explain me the pro/contra? What should i take?
> Thanks in advance
> Bart
>
Thanks
"Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)>
schreef in bericht news:eexS5hpbHHA.2300@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Unless you are a security freak, use the Local System account. For more
> info, see:
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143170.aspx
> --
> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
> E-mail: sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)
>
> "Bart" <b@.sdq.dc> wrote in message
> news:%23BcrcumbHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
question about installing sql server express
Hi,
During installation process of sql server2005 express, i had to choose
between three options:
install sql server as:
local system
Network Service
local service
Can somebody explain me the pro/contra? What should i take?
Thanks in advance
BartUnless you are a security freak, use the Local System account. For more
info, see:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143170.aspx
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)
"Bart" <b@.sdq.dc> wrote in message
news:%23BcrcumbHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> During installation process of sql server2005 express, i had to choose
> between three options:
> install sql server as:
> local system
> Network Service
> local service
> Can somebody explain me the pro/contra? What should i take?
> Thanks in advance
> Bart
>|||Thanks
"Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)>
schreef in bericht news:eexS5hpbHHA.2300@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Unless you are a security freak, use the Local System account. For more
> info, see:
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143170.aspx
> --
> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
> E-mail: sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)
>
> "Bart" <b@.sdq.dc> wrote in message
> news:%23BcrcumbHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>> During installation process of sql server2005 express, i had to choose
>> between three options:
>> install sql server as:
>> local system
>> Network Service
>> local service
>> Can somebody explain me the pro/contra? What should i take?
>> Thanks in advance
>> Bart
>sql
During installation process of sql server2005 express, i had to choose
between three options:
install sql server as:
local system
Network Service
local service
Can somebody explain me the pro/contra? What should i take?
Thanks in advance
BartUnless you are a security freak, use the Local System account. For more
info, see:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143170.aspx
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)
"Bart" <b@.sdq.dc> wrote in message
news:%23BcrcumbHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> During installation process of sql server2005 express, i had to choose
> between three options:
> install sql server as:
> local system
> Network Service
> local service
> Can somebody explain me the pro/contra? What should i take?
> Thanks in advance
> Bart
>|||Thanks
"Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)>
schreef in bericht news:eexS5hpbHHA.2300@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Unless you are a security freak, use the Local System account. For more
> info, see:
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143170.aspx
> --
> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
> E-mail: sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)
>
> "Bart" <b@.sdq.dc> wrote in message
> news:%23BcrcumbHHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>> During installation process of sql server2005 express, i had to choose
>> between three options:
>> install sql server as:
>> local system
>> Network Service
>> local service
>> Can somebody explain me the pro/contra? What should i take?
>> Thanks in advance
>> Bart
>sql
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
question about IIS Virtual Directory Management for MS SQL server 2000
Hi,
I installed the MS SQL Server 2000 trial version in my computer. The Operating System is WinXP. It seems everything is OK, the MSSQLserver is running after I restart the computer.
Then I tried to create a few virtual directories following these steps:
Choose start => programs => Microsoft SQL server => Configure SQL XML Support in IIS
What I can see is the icon " IIS virtual Directory Management for SQL Server" in the left pane, and nothing in the right pane. Is this normal?
I right clicked the icon, selected the "connect", typed in the computer name as it required. But it showed that an error occurred connecting to the computer. The reason is "this server does not exist or is unavailable". It is quite strange that actually the SQL server is running at this time.
Is there anybody who can tell me what 's wrong with it? Do I have to do some special configuration?
Thanks a lot
Johnwhen u see this icon: IIS virtual Directory Management for SQL Server
click it, at least you should see the computer where the sql server is intalled in right pane. then u can drill down to see the default web site.
if nothing ... try to connect to the computer ur got sql server installed. make sure u have installed IIS.
if still cant, dont know whether it has anything to do with the trial version. i am using personal edition, and everything is fine.|||Thanks.
I made a stupid mistake. I didn't install IIS. :-(
I installed the MS SQL Server 2000 trial version in my computer. The Operating System is WinXP. It seems everything is OK, the MSSQLserver is running after I restart the computer.
Then I tried to create a few virtual directories following these steps:
Choose start => programs => Microsoft SQL server => Configure SQL XML Support in IIS
What I can see is the icon " IIS virtual Directory Management for SQL Server" in the left pane, and nothing in the right pane. Is this normal?
I right clicked the icon, selected the "connect", typed in the computer name as it required. But it showed that an error occurred connecting to the computer. The reason is "this server does not exist or is unavailable". It is quite strange that actually the SQL server is running at this time.
Is there anybody who can tell me what 's wrong with it? Do I have to do some special configuration?
Thanks a lot
Johnwhen u see this icon: IIS virtual Directory Management for SQL Server
click it, at least you should see the computer where the sql server is intalled in right pane. then u can drill down to see the default web site.
if nothing ... try to connect to the computer ur got sql server installed. make sure u have installed IIS.
if still cant, dont know whether it has anything to do with the trial version. i am using personal edition, and everything is fine.|||Thanks.
I made a stupid mistake. I didn't install IIS. :-(
Monday, March 12, 2012
Question about detaching databases.
I need to have someone clarify a couple things for me.
1. If a system running MSDE is rebooted in the middle of a transaction, I
am assuming at some point when the system is restarted, the transaction log
file is rolled back into the main database file. However, if a database is
detached before anyone connects to it, will the uncommitted transaction log
data be rolled into the main database file before the detach is performed?
2. When exactly does the uncommitted transaction log data get rolled back
into the database after a reboot in the middle of a transaction?
--
Ken Varn
Senior Software Engineer
Diebold Inc.
EmailID = varnk
Domain = Diebold.com
hi Ken,
Ken Varn wrote:
> I need to have someone clarify a couple things for me.
> 1. If a system running MSDE is rebooted in the middle of a
> transaction, I am assuming at some point when the system is
> restarted, the transaction log file is rolled back into the main
> database file. However, if a database is detached before anyone
> connects to it, will the uncommitted transaction log data be rolled
> into the main database file before the detach is performed?
when a system stops (crashes or is unproperly shut down), all the pending
transactions are aborted ..
when the SQL Service restarts, it will stars and recover all databases...
that's to say committed transaction will be rolled forward and uncommitted
rolled back.. the algorithm is quiet complex as SQL Server searches the best
method to perform this task to put the db on line and available as soon as
possible..
so you are not entitled to detach the db before the db has been recovered..
you can perhaps move the physical files before starting SQL Server, but then
the db will be marked as corrupted as SQL Server can no longer find the db
files as registered in it's system tables, so this is not a good idea...
> 2. When exactly does the uncommitted transaction log data get rolled
> back into the database after a reboot in the middle of a transaction?
as soon as the db is recovered... if you open the log file of SQL Server, in
the \Log folder, and inspect one of the ERRORLOG files you'll see something
like
2005-08-11 16:33:22.45 spid8 Starting up database 'msdb'.
2005-08-11 16:33:22.48 spid9 Starting up database 'pubs'.
2005-08-11 16:33:22.49 spid10 Starting up database 'Northwind'.
2005-08-11 16:33:22.51 spid11 Starting up database 'a'.
2005-08-11 16:33:23.17 spid5 Clearing tempdb database.
2005-08-11 16:33:23.21 spid11 Starting up database 'atest'.
2005-08-11 16:33:24.35 spid5 Starting up database 'tempdb'.
2005-08-11 16:33:24.45 spid3 Recovery complete.
....
if something is pending fo a specific database you'll see rollforwad and
rollback operations...
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
|||> so you are not entitled to detach the db before the db has been
recovered..
> you can perhaps move the physical files before starting SQL Server, but
then
> the db will be marked as corrupted as SQL Server can no longer find the db
> files as registered in it's system tables, so this is not a good idea...
So that I can clarify what you are saying here. SQL Server will not allow
you to detach a database until it has completed the recovery process?
I basically want to know if it is safe to get rid of the LDF file after a
database has been detached without any adverse ramifications, like database
corruption.
--
Ken Varn
Senior Software Engineer
Diebold Inc.
EmailID = varnk
Domain = Diebold.com
"Andrea Montanari" <andrea.sqlDMO@.virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:3m3sgtF159l9rU1@.individual.net...
> hi Ken,
> Ken Varn wrote:
> when a system stops (crashes or is unproperly shut down), all the pending
> transactions are aborted ..
> when the SQL Service restarts, it will stars and recover all databases...
> that's to say committed transaction will be rolled forward and uncommitted
> rolled back.. the algorithm is quiet complex as SQL Server searches the
best
> method to perform this task to put the db on line and available as soon as
> possible..
> so you are not entitled to detach the db before the db has been
recovered..
> you can perhaps move the physical files before starting SQL Server, but
then
> the db will be marked as corrupted as SQL Server can no longer find the db
> files as registered in it's system tables, so this is not a good idea...
> as soon as the db is recovered... if you open the log file of SQL Server,
in
> the \Log folder, and inspect one of the ERRORLOG files you'll see
something
> like
> 2005-08-11 16:33:22.45 spid8 Starting up database 'msdb'.
> 2005-08-11 16:33:22.48 spid9 Starting up database 'pubs'.
> 2005-08-11 16:33:22.49 spid10 Starting up database 'Northwind'.
> 2005-08-11 16:33:22.51 spid11 Starting up database 'a'.
> 2005-08-11 16:33:23.17 spid5 Clearing tempdb database.
> 2005-08-11 16:33:23.21 spid11 Starting up database 'atest'.
> 2005-08-11 16:33:24.35 spid5 Starting up database 'tempdb'.
> 2005-08-11 16:33:24.45 spid3 Recovery complete.
> ...
> if something is pending fo a specific database you'll see rollforwad and
> rollback operations...
> --
> Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
> http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
> DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
> (my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
> interface)
> -- remove DMO to reply
>
|||hi Ken,
Ken Varn wrote:
> So that I can clarify what you are saying here. SQL Server will not
> allow you to detach a database until it has completed the recovery
> process?
until the recovery has been completed, SQL Server does not allow to touch
all dbs at all... it is still "starting"...
> I basically want to know if it is safe to get rid of the LDF file
> after a database has been detached without any adverse ramifications,
> like database corruption.
actually you should not get rid of the LDF file at all, as it is a needed
part of a database... even when the simple recovery model is used you should
always provide all transaction log files... you can use
sp_attach_single_file_db when they are not present but best practice implies
forwarding them too...
say you have a db file named [myDb] with 1 physical data file as
C:\..\myDb.Mdf and a t-log file C:\..\myDb.Ldf...
you only provide me the C:\..\myDb.Mdf instructing me to attach it via
sp_attach_single_file_db ...
on my system I already have another company sw which uses a db with the very
same physical data files (and names)...
the corresponding datafile will be C:\..\myDb.Mdf as the log file in
C:\..\myDb.Ldf
as I can not put your db in the same folder I move it to
C:\anotherDir\myDb.Mdf and use sp_attach_single_file_db ... the problem,
now... SQL Server try to create a new t-log file using the available info
(sysfiles and sysfiles1 system table) and will point to the other company
database C:\..\myDb.Ldf physical file...
that log file will be pointed by 2 db and will immediately raises exception
marking 1 of the 2 db as suspect...
to solve this problem I need the t-log of your db and the use of
sp_attach_db indicating all the required physical files..
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
|||> actually you should not get rid of the LDF file at all, as it is a needed
> part of a database... even when the simple recovery model is used you
should
> always provide all transaction log files... you can use
> sp_attach_single_file_db when they are not present but best practice
implies
> forwarding them too...
> say you have a db file named [myDb] with 1 physical data file as
> C:\..\myDb.Mdf and a t-log file C:\..\myDb.Ldf...
> you only provide me the C:\..\myDb.Mdf instructing me to attach it via
> sp_attach_single_file_db ...
> on my system I already have another company sw which uses a db with the
very
> same physical data files (and names)...
> the corresponding datafile will be C:\..\myDb.Mdf as the log file in
> C:\..\myDb.Ldf
It sounds as if as long as I do not try to attach a database onto a system
that has the same database name I can use sp_attach_single_file_db with no
adverse affects. Or, are there other issues that I should be concerned
with?
Basically, without trying to go into too much detail here, our system has an
automated process that periodically detaches databases, removes the ldf file
and archives the mdf file. The system may re-attach any of these databases
again at a later time depending on certain circumstances. We have been
seeing some database corruption issues and have tried to determine if this
process is the cause. We do know that occasionally the system is restarted
due to power failures (although the UPS is doing an orderly shutdown) and we
want to figure out if our detach and removal of LDF file process could be
the cause of databases getting corrupt after we re-attach them during a
restart from a power fail.
--
Ken Varn
Senior Software Engineer
Diebold Inc.
EmailID = varnk
Domain = Diebold.com
"Andrea Montanari" <andrea.sqlDMO@.virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:3m444tF155s4gU1@.individual.net...
> hi Ken,
> Ken Varn wrote:
> until the recovery has been completed, SQL Server does not allow to touch
> all dbs at all... it is still "starting"...
>
> actually you should not get rid of the LDF file at all, as it is a needed
> part of a database... even when the simple recovery model is used you
should
> always provide all transaction log files... you can use
> sp_attach_single_file_db when they are not present but best practice
implies
> forwarding them too...
> say you have a db file named [myDb] with 1 physical data file as
> C:\..\myDb.Mdf and a t-log file C:\..\myDb.Ldf...
> you only provide me the C:\..\myDb.Mdf instructing me to attach it via
> sp_attach_single_file_db ...
> on my system I already have another company sw which uses a db with the
very
> same physical data files (and names)...
> the corresponding datafile will be C:\..\myDb.Mdf as the log file in
> C:\..\myDb.Ldf
> as I can not put your db in the same folder I move it to
> C:\anotherDir\myDb.Mdf and use sp_attach_single_file_db ... the problem,
> now... SQL Server try to create a new t-log file using the available info
> (sysfiles and sysfiles1 system table) and will point to the other company
> database C:\..\myDb.Ldf physical file...
> that log file will be pointed by 2 db and will immediately raises
exception
> marking 1 of the 2 db as suspect...
> to solve this problem I need the t-log of your db and the use of
> sp_attach_db indicating all the required physical files..
> --
> Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
> http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
> DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
> (my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
> interface)
> -- remove DMO to reply
>
|||hi Ken,
> It sounds as if as long as I do not try to attach a database onto a
> system that has the same database name I can use
> sp_attach_single_file_db with no adverse affects. Or, are there
> other issues that I should be concerned with?
should not... SQL Server will try to recreate the log file(s) based on the
original info... and if no "problem" is found it should be able to correctly
attach the db..
> Basically, without trying to go into too much detail here, our system
> has an automated process that periodically detaches databases,
> removes the ldf file and archives the mdf file. The system may
> re-attach any of these databases again at a later time depending on
> certain circumstances. We have been seeing some database corruption
> issues and have tried to determine if this process is the cause. We
> do know that occasionally the system is restarted due to power
> failures (although the UPS is doing an orderly shutdown) and we want
> to figure out if our detach and removal of LDF file process could be
> the cause of databases getting corrupt after we re-attach them during
> a restart from a power fail.
missing log files in recovery moment can be a problem... I'd archive the log
files as well, even in simple recovery model..
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
1. If a system running MSDE is rebooted in the middle of a transaction, I
am assuming at some point when the system is restarted, the transaction log
file is rolled back into the main database file. However, if a database is
detached before anyone connects to it, will the uncommitted transaction log
data be rolled into the main database file before the detach is performed?
2. When exactly does the uncommitted transaction log data get rolled back
into the database after a reboot in the middle of a transaction?
--
Ken Varn
Senior Software Engineer
Diebold Inc.
EmailID = varnk
Domain = Diebold.com
hi Ken,
Ken Varn wrote:
> I need to have someone clarify a couple things for me.
> 1. If a system running MSDE is rebooted in the middle of a
> transaction, I am assuming at some point when the system is
> restarted, the transaction log file is rolled back into the main
> database file. However, if a database is detached before anyone
> connects to it, will the uncommitted transaction log data be rolled
> into the main database file before the detach is performed?
when a system stops (crashes or is unproperly shut down), all the pending
transactions are aborted ..
when the SQL Service restarts, it will stars and recover all databases...
that's to say committed transaction will be rolled forward and uncommitted
rolled back.. the algorithm is quiet complex as SQL Server searches the best
method to perform this task to put the db on line and available as soon as
possible..
so you are not entitled to detach the db before the db has been recovered..
you can perhaps move the physical files before starting SQL Server, but then
the db will be marked as corrupted as SQL Server can no longer find the db
files as registered in it's system tables, so this is not a good idea...
> 2. When exactly does the uncommitted transaction log data get rolled
> back into the database after a reboot in the middle of a transaction?
as soon as the db is recovered... if you open the log file of SQL Server, in
the \Log folder, and inspect one of the ERRORLOG files you'll see something
like
2005-08-11 16:33:22.45 spid8 Starting up database 'msdb'.
2005-08-11 16:33:22.48 spid9 Starting up database 'pubs'.
2005-08-11 16:33:22.49 spid10 Starting up database 'Northwind'.
2005-08-11 16:33:22.51 spid11 Starting up database 'a'.
2005-08-11 16:33:23.17 spid5 Clearing tempdb database.
2005-08-11 16:33:23.21 spid11 Starting up database 'atest'.
2005-08-11 16:33:24.35 spid5 Starting up database 'tempdb'.
2005-08-11 16:33:24.45 spid3 Recovery complete.
....
if something is pending fo a specific database you'll see rollforwad and
rollback operations...
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
|||> so you are not entitled to detach the db before the db has been
recovered..
> you can perhaps move the physical files before starting SQL Server, but
then
> the db will be marked as corrupted as SQL Server can no longer find the db
> files as registered in it's system tables, so this is not a good idea...
So that I can clarify what you are saying here. SQL Server will not allow
you to detach a database until it has completed the recovery process?
I basically want to know if it is safe to get rid of the LDF file after a
database has been detached without any adverse ramifications, like database
corruption.
--
Ken Varn
Senior Software Engineer
Diebold Inc.
EmailID = varnk
Domain = Diebold.com
"Andrea Montanari" <andrea.sqlDMO@.virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:3m3sgtF159l9rU1@.individual.net...
> hi Ken,
> Ken Varn wrote:
> when a system stops (crashes or is unproperly shut down), all the pending
> transactions are aborted ..
> when the SQL Service restarts, it will stars and recover all databases...
> that's to say committed transaction will be rolled forward and uncommitted
> rolled back.. the algorithm is quiet complex as SQL Server searches the
best
> method to perform this task to put the db on line and available as soon as
> possible..
> so you are not entitled to detach the db before the db has been
recovered..
> you can perhaps move the physical files before starting SQL Server, but
then
> the db will be marked as corrupted as SQL Server can no longer find the db
> files as registered in it's system tables, so this is not a good idea...
> as soon as the db is recovered... if you open the log file of SQL Server,
in
> the \Log folder, and inspect one of the ERRORLOG files you'll see
something
> like
> 2005-08-11 16:33:22.45 spid8 Starting up database 'msdb'.
> 2005-08-11 16:33:22.48 spid9 Starting up database 'pubs'.
> 2005-08-11 16:33:22.49 spid10 Starting up database 'Northwind'.
> 2005-08-11 16:33:22.51 spid11 Starting up database 'a'.
> 2005-08-11 16:33:23.17 spid5 Clearing tempdb database.
> 2005-08-11 16:33:23.21 spid11 Starting up database 'atest'.
> 2005-08-11 16:33:24.35 spid5 Starting up database 'tempdb'.
> 2005-08-11 16:33:24.45 spid3 Recovery complete.
> ...
> if something is pending fo a specific database you'll see rollforwad and
> rollback operations...
> --
> Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
> http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
> DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
> (my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
> interface)
> -- remove DMO to reply
>
|||hi Ken,
Ken Varn wrote:
> So that I can clarify what you are saying here. SQL Server will not
> allow you to detach a database until it has completed the recovery
> process?
until the recovery has been completed, SQL Server does not allow to touch
all dbs at all... it is still "starting"...
> I basically want to know if it is safe to get rid of the LDF file
> after a database has been detached without any adverse ramifications,
> like database corruption.
actually you should not get rid of the LDF file at all, as it is a needed
part of a database... even when the simple recovery model is used you should
always provide all transaction log files... you can use
sp_attach_single_file_db when they are not present but best practice implies
forwarding them too...
say you have a db file named [myDb] with 1 physical data file as
C:\..\myDb.Mdf and a t-log file C:\..\myDb.Ldf...
you only provide me the C:\..\myDb.Mdf instructing me to attach it via
sp_attach_single_file_db ...
on my system I already have another company sw which uses a db with the very
same physical data files (and names)...
the corresponding datafile will be C:\..\myDb.Mdf as the log file in
C:\..\myDb.Ldf
as I can not put your db in the same folder I move it to
C:\anotherDir\myDb.Mdf and use sp_attach_single_file_db ... the problem,
now... SQL Server try to create a new t-log file using the available info
(sysfiles and sysfiles1 system table) and will point to the other company
database C:\..\myDb.Ldf physical file...
that log file will be pointed by 2 db and will immediately raises exception
marking 1 of the 2 db as suspect...
to solve this problem I need the t-log of your db and the use of
sp_attach_db indicating all the required physical files..
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
|||> actually you should not get rid of the LDF file at all, as it is a needed
> part of a database... even when the simple recovery model is used you
should
> always provide all transaction log files... you can use
> sp_attach_single_file_db when they are not present but best practice
implies
> forwarding them too...
> say you have a db file named [myDb] with 1 physical data file as
> C:\..\myDb.Mdf and a t-log file C:\..\myDb.Ldf...
> you only provide me the C:\..\myDb.Mdf instructing me to attach it via
> sp_attach_single_file_db ...
> on my system I already have another company sw which uses a db with the
very
> same physical data files (and names)...
> the corresponding datafile will be C:\..\myDb.Mdf as the log file in
> C:\..\myDb.Ldf
It sounds as if as long as I do not try to attach a database onto a system
that has the same database name I can use sp_attach_single_file_db with no
adverse affects. Or, are there other issues that I should be concerned
with?
Basically, without trying to go into too much detail here, our system has an
automated process that periodically detaches databases, removes the ldf file
and archives the mdf file. The system may re-attach any of these databases
again at a later time depending on certain circumstances. We have been
seeing some database corruption issues and have tried to determine if this
process is the cause. We do know that occasionally the system is restarted
due to power failures (although the UPS is doing an orderly shutdown) and we
want to figure out if our detach and removal of LDF file process could be
the cause of databases getting corrupt after we re-attach them during a
restart from a power fail.
--
Ken Varn
Senior Software Engineer
Diebold Inc.
EmailID = varnk
Domain = Diebold.com
"Andrea Montanari" <andrea.sqlDMO@.virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:3m444tF155s4gU1@.individual.net...
> hi Ken,
> Ken Varn wrote:
> until the recovery has been completed, SQL Server does not allow to touch
> all dbs at all... it is still "starting"...
>
> actually you should not get rid of the LDF file at all, as it is a needed
> part of a database... even when the simple recovery model is used you
should
> always provide all transaction log files... you can use
> sp_attach_single_file_db when they are not present but best practice
implies
> forwarding them too...
> say you have a db file named [myDb] with 1 physical data file as
> C:\..\myDb.Mdf and a t-log file C:\..\myDb.Ldf...
> you only provide me the C:\..\myDb.Mdf instructing me to attach it via
> sp_attach_single_file_db ...
> on my system I already have another company sw which uses a db with the
very
> same physical data files (and names)...
> the corresponding datafile will be C:\..\myDb.Mdf as the log file in
> C:\..\myDb.Ldf
> as I can not put your db in the same folder I move it to
> C:\anotherDir\myDb.Mdf and use sp_attach_single_file_db ... the problem,
> now... SQL Server try to create a new t-log file using the available info
> (sysfiles and sysfiles1 system table) and will point to the other company
> database C:\..\myDb.Ldf physical file...
> that log file will be pointed by 2 db and will immediately raises
exception
> marking 1 of the 2 db as suspect...
> to solve this problem I need the t-log of your db and the use of
> sp_attach_db indicating all the required physical files..
> --
> Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
> http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
> DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
> (my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
> interface)
> -- remove DMO to reply
>
|||hi Ken,
> It sounds as if as long as I do not try to attach a database onto a
> system that has the same database name I can use
> sp_attach_single_file_db with no adverse affects. Or, are there
> other issues that I should be concerned with?
should not... SQL Server will try to recreate the log file(s) based on the
original info... and if no "problem" is found it should be able to correctly
attach the db..
> Basically, without trying to go into too much detail here, our system
> has an automated process that periodically detaches databases,
> removes the ldf file and archives the mdf file. The system may
> re-attach any of these databases again at a later time depending on
> certain circumstances. We have been seeing some database corruption
> issues and have tried to determine if this process is the cause. We
> do know that occasionally the system is restarted due to power
> failures (although the UPS is doing an orderly shutdown) and we want
> to figure out if our detach and removal of LDF file process could be
> the cause of databases getting corrupt after we re-attach them during
> a restart from a power fail.
missing log files in recovery moment can be a problem... I'd archive the log
files as well, even in simple recovery model..
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz/DbaMgr.shtmhttp://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.15.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.60.0
(my vb6+sql-dmo little try to provide MS MSDE 1.0 and MSDE 2000 a visual
interface)
-- remove DMO to reply
Friday, March 9, 2012
question about conflicts
hi all,
I am using merge replication with push subscription.i am getting conflicts
in some tables.i am not resolving any conflicts.so the system can resolve or
those conflicts can be cleaned.please suggest how to resolve conflicts.
with the help of rowguid can i retrive the entire record which came in
conflict
in which table it is available
please suggest information to review the conflicts
thanks
reddy
right click on your publication and select view conflicts. When the conflict
viewer comes up you can resolve the conflicts using the Keep Wining Change,
Show or Edit the conflicts, or Resolve with this data choices.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"reddy" <reddy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EC863DF6-3E55-4F62-8990-0825D579E710@.microsoft.com...
> hi all,
> I am using merge replication with push subscription.i am getting conflicts
> in some tables.i am not resolving any conflicts.so the system can resolve
or
> those conflicts can be cleaned.please suggest how to resolve conflicts.
> with the help of rowguid can i retrive the entire record which came in
> conflict
> in which table it is available
> please suggest information to review the conflicts
> thanks
> reddy
>
|||Hillary,
I am able to see the conflicts through the conflict viewer but Unable to
track all columns part of the conflict.my table structure
contains userid and createdate columns.if any user from publisher side or
subscriber side is trying to update the row then we will capture that userid
and date for reference.
Whenever a conflict occurs we are not able to view the userid
information part of the conflicts. This is required for us to identify the
source of the conflict
We want to rule out the following assumptions
a) conflict can occur within subscriber or publisher when an update happens .
In our merge replication process , conflict only occurs at update. NO
conflicts during inserts.
please help.now the database is in production i am unable to rectify this
problem.
awaiting for your response
your help is appreciated
regards
reddy
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> right click on your publication and select view conflicts. When the conflict
> viewer comes up you can resolve the conflicts using the Keep Wining Change,
> Show or Edit the conflicts, or Resolve with this data choices.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> "reddy" <reddy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:EC863DF6-3E55-4F62-8990-0825D579E710@.microsoft.com...
> or
>
>
I am using merge replication with push subscription.i am getting conflicts
in some tables.i am not resolving any conflicts.so the system can resolve or
those conflicts can be cleaned.please suggest how to resolve conflicts.
with the help of rowguid can i retrive the entire record which came in
conflict
in which table it is available
please suggest information to review the conflicts
thanks
reddy
right click on your publication and select view conflicts. When the conflict
viewer comes up you can resolve the conflicts using the Keep Wining Change,
Show or Edit the conflicts, or Resolve with this data choices.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"reddy" <reddy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EC863DF6-3E55-4F62-8990-0825D579E710@.microsoft.com...
> hi all,
> I am using merge replication with push subscription.i am getting conflicts
> in some tables.i am not resolving any conflicts.so the system can resolve
or
> those conflicts can be cleaned.please suggest how to resolve conflicts.
> with the help of rowguid can i retrive the entire record which came in
> conflict
> in which table it is available
> please suggest information to review the conflicts
> thanks
> reddy
>
|||Hillary,
I am able to see the conflicts through the conflict viewer but Unable to
track all columns part of the conflict.my table structure
contains userid and createdate columns.if any user from publisher side or
subscriber side is trying to update the row then we will capture that userid
and date for reference.
Whenever a conflict occurs we are not able to view the userid
information part of the conflicts. This is required for us to identify the
source of the conflict
We want to rule out the following assumptions
a) conflict can occur within subscriber or publisher when an update happens .
In our merge replication process , conflict only occurs at update. NO
conflicts during inserts.
please help.now the database is in production i am unable to rectify this
problem.
awaiting for your response
your help is appreciated
regards
reddy
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> right click on your publication and select view conflicts. When the conflict
> viewer comes up you can resolve the conflicts using the Keep Wining Change,
> Show or Edit the conflicts, or Resolve with this data choices.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> "reddy" <reddy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:EC863DF6-3E55-4F62-8990-0825D579E710@.microsoft.com...
> or
>
>
Saturday, February 25, 2012
question
Which system tables contain information on privileges granted and privileges obtained?
its simple
USER_TAB_PRIVS_MADE, USER_TAB_PRIVS_RECD
still search abt it..
Monday, February 20, 2012
Question
Does anyone know if it is possible (and if it is how) to
hide system databases in EM?
Thanxs!Yes, Right click your server in SEM , and select Edit Registration
properties.
"?" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:aa9501c3ebe2$55f80640$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Does anyone know if it is possible (and if it is how) to
> hide system databases in EM?
> Thanxs!
hide system databases in EM?
Thanxs!Yes, Right click your server in SEM , and select Edit Registration
properties.
"?" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:aa9501c3ebe2$55f80640$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Does anyone know if it is possible (and if it is how) to
> hide system databases in EM?
> Thanxs!
Question
Does anyone know if it is possible (and if it is how) to
hide system databases in EM?
Thanxs!Yes, Right click your server in SEM , and select Edit Registration
properties.
"?" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:aa9501c3ebe2$55f80640$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
hide system databases in EM?
Thanxs!Yes, Right click your server in SEM , and select Edit Registration
properties.
"?" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:aa9501c3ebe2$55f80640$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
quote:
> Does anyone know if it is possible (and if it is how) to
> hide system databases in EM?
> Thanxs!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)