Hi folks -
I have an application that runs a SQL database. I am using the MSDE to
access it. Client machine has the proprietary software and MDAC v 2.8
installed on a Win2KPro workstation that is fully patched. The support team
for my proprietary application is telling me that using MSDE instead of SQL
Server will give me a concurrent user limit of around 10 or 11.
I've been running this application for almost a year and have not run into
this until I recently instituted Group Policy settings (although I don't see
where the changes to Group Policy would have a bearing).
Sometimes the workstations can access the application, other times within
the same day, they receive an error stating that "the server does not exist
or access is denied", yet they can restart and get right in.
Does anyone know if there IS a concurrent user limitation using MSDE to
access a SQL application?
Thanks.
Deb Landrum, AAM, AIT
Insurance Alliance, Houston TX
HP Workstations P4, W2K-Pro, 512 RAM, Gigabit NICs, dual monitors
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:29:13 -0500, Deb Landrum wrote:
(snip)
>Does anyone know if there IS a concurrent user limitation using MSDE to
>access a SQL application?
Hi Deb,
Well - sort of.
There is no real limit to the concurrent user connections, but there is
a limit to the number of concurrent workloads. If a connected user
spends most time entering data on the form, and only a fraction of the
total time actually executing queries, you can serve quite a few users
without ever running into problems. On the other hand, one single user
can spawn multiple concurrent workloads at once (though it's not
trivial).
The limit on concurrent workloads is set to 8 workloads, but since SQL
Server needs 3 workloads for it's internal processes, there are 5 left
for the users. Once you exceed the workload limit, you won;t get any
errors, but the overall performance of all workloads will be reduced.
Best, Hugo
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)
|||hi,
Deb Landrum wrote:
> Hi folks -
> I have an application that runs a SQL database. I am using the MSDE
> to access it. Client machine has the proprietary software and MDAC v
> 2.8 installed on a Win2KPro workstation that is fully patched. The
> support team for my proprietary application is telling me that using
> MSDE instead of SQL Server will give me a concurrent user limit of
> around 10 or 11.
> I've been running this application for almost a year and have not run
> into this until I recently instituted Group Policy settings (although
> I don't see where the changes to Group Policy would have a bearing).
> Sometimes the workstations can access the application, other times
> within the same day, they receive an error stating that "the server
> does not exist or access is denied", yet they can restart and get
> right in.
> Does anyone know if there IS a concurrent user limitation using MSDE
> to access a SQL application?
there's no upper limit but 32767 connections to an MSDE instance but, a
built-in Workload Governor will kick in when 8 concurrent workloads of a
certain type are running... this will result in a linear delay applied to
all concurrent batches in the I/O activities.. when the number decreases
under the 8 limit, the governor will go sleeping again, waiting for next
"overflow" to kick in again... that does not mean 8 concurrent users is the
maximum allowed without the governor to kick in, as usually lot of
connections will be "sleeping", just waiting for user intervention to do
something... Microsoft released a paper "estimating" a magic number of 25
concurrent users before the overhead will be noticeable to end users, but
this just is a "magic number"... it really depend on the application type,
access mode, activities against the data, data load and so on... as you may
understand, there's no actual documentation about this governor but the
papers as
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/?u...asp?frame=true
...
but I think this is another story, as the exception you get is not related
to all this matter...
this error is a generic MDAC related exception, as you can see reading
http://support.microsoft.com/default...06&Product=sql ,
and probably depending on problem in your LAN...
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
To add what Hugo and Andrea have commented on, there is a limitation at OS
level. You are running w2k Professional which is a workstation product.
Currently the workstation products have a limitation of 10 simultaneous
connections from other machines. In effect, on your platform, you are
limited to 10 connections to MSDE. This limitation is in place to ensure
that workstation products, which are not optimized to be application or
file share servers, are not used as servers.
If you install MSDE on a server product, this limitation goes away.
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/
"Deb Landrum" <dlandrum@.ins-alliance.com> wrote in message
news:edolElxsFHA.912@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi folks -
> I have an application that runs a SQL database. I am using the MSDE to
> access it. Client machine has the proprietary software and MDAC v 2.8
> installed on a Win2KPro workstation that is fully patched. The support
> team
> for my proprietary application is telling me that using MSDE instead of
> SQL
> Server will give me a concurrent user limit of around 10 or 11.
> I've been running this application for almost a year and have not run into
> this until I recently instituted Group Policy settings (although I don't
> see
> where the changes to Group Policy would have a bearing).
> Sometimes the workstations can access the application, other times within
> the same day, they receive an error stating that "the server does not
> exist
> or access is denied", yet they can restart and get right in.
> Does anyone know if there IS a concurrent user limitation using MSDE to
> access a SQL application?
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Deb Landrum, AAM, AIT
> Insurance Alliance, Houston TX
> HP Workstations P4, W2K-Pro, 512 RAM, Gigabit NICs, dual monitors
>
>
|||Thanks to all for your input - the MSDE is on a server product, and, the
resolution was actually an issue within the SQL application that we are
running. For whatever reason, although the server name was properly and
correctly shown for the workstations to access it, the problematic ones were
receiving the error. However, by substituting the IP address of the server
for the actual server name, those same workstations were once again able to
access the application.
I don't know if this would be a particular weakness in the proprietary
application that we're using or not, but, again, Thank You to all for
replying.
Deb
"Deb Landrum" <dlandrum@.ins-alliance.com> wrote in message
news:edolElxsFHA.912@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi folks -
> I have an application that runs a SQL database. I am using the MSDE to
> access it. Client machine has the proprietary software and MDAC v 2.8
> installed on a Win2KPro workstation that is fully patched. The support
team
> for my proprietary application is telling me that using MSDE instead of
SQL
> Server will give me a concurrent user limit of around 10 or 11.
> I've been running this application for almost a year and have not run into
> this until I recently instituted Group Policy settings (although I don't
see
> where the changes to Group Policy would have a bearing).
> Sometimes the workstations can access the application, other times within
> the same day, they receive an error stating that "the server does not
exist
> or access is denied", yet they can restart and get right in.
> Does anyone know if there IS a concurrent user limitation using MSDE to
> access a SQL application?
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Deb Landrum, AAM, AIT
> Insurance Alliance, Houston TX
> HP Workstations P4, W2K-Pro, 512 RAM, Gigabit NICs, dual monitors
>
>
|||hi Deb,
Deb Landrum wrote:
> Thanks to all for your input - the MSDE is on a server product, and,
> the resolution was actually an issue within the SQL application that
> we are running. For whatever reason, although the server name was
> properly and correctly shown for the workstations to access it, the
> problematic ones were receiving the error. However, by substituting
> the IP address of the server for the actual server name, those same
> workstations were once again able to access the application.
> I don't know if this would be a particular weakness in the proprietary
> application that we're using or not, but, again, Thank You to all for
> replying.
you probably have a Name resolution problem in your LAN... let your Net
admin gain his money :D:D
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
Showing posts with label concurrent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label concurrent. Show all posts
Sunday, February 19, 2012
concurrent user information
dear folks,
Does anyone know how can I get concurrent user information on Microsoft SQL Server 2000/2005.?
Thanks
cheers
sbahrinot sure what you are looking for but take a look at sp_who and sp_who2. otherwise explain further.|||I’m looking information about concurrent user related with end user license agreement. How many multiple instances of database engine running concurrently on the same computer…?
thanks
sbahri
Does anyone know how can I get concurrent user information on Microsoft SQL Server 2000/2005.?
Thanks
cheers
sbahrinot sure what you are looking for but take a look at sp_who and sp_who2. otherwise explain further.|||I’m looking information about concurrent user related with end user license agreement. How many multiple instances of database engine running concurrently on the same computer…?
thanks
sbahri
Concurrent updates
I have a table that I am auditing by having a trigger insert the Deleted row
to an audit table. .Net is calling the same stored procedure to update the
same row in the base table 4 times. The stored procedure subtracts a passed
in value from a column in the base table. After the code runs, the value in
the base table is correct, but the audit rows appear to show the the first
update subtracted first two amounts. The other weird thing is the time
stamp, which is generated from a getdate() is exactly the same for two of the
rows.
How tightly is the trigger code tied to the code that causes the trigger to
fire? We have tried playing with isolation levels on the .Net transaction
and this hasn't helped. Have a tripped on a bug, or am I doing something
wrong. Thanks for the help.
Todd
Can you post the trigger?
AMB
"pralnwuf" wrote:
> I have a table that I am auditing by having a trigger insert the Deleted row
> to an audit table. .Net is calling the same stored procedure to update the
> same row in the base table 4 times. The stored procedure subtracts a passed
> in value from a column in the base table. After the code runs, the value in
> the base table is correct, but the audit rows appear to show the the first
> update subtracted first two amounts. The other weird thing is the time
> stamp, which is generated from a getdate() is exactly the same for two of the
> rows.
> How tightly is the trigger code tied to the code that causes the trigger to
> fire? We have tried playing with isolation levels on the .Net transaction
> and this hasn't helped. Have a tripped on a bug, or am I doing something
> wrong. Thanks for the help.
> Todd
|||/*
* TRIGGER: [EFTAuditTrig]
*/
CREATE TRIGGER EFTAuditTrig ON EFT FOR UPDATE
as
Set NOCOUNT on
INSERT
EFTAudit([EFTID],[CreateDate],[SubmitDate],[SubmitedUserID],[TotalAmount],[CreateUserID],[UpdateUserID],[UpdateDate])
SELECT
[EFTID],[CreateDate],[SubmitDate],[SubmitedUserID],[TotalAmount],[CreateUserID],[UpdateUserID],[UpdateDate] FROM Deleted
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Can you post the trigger?
>
> AMB
> "pralnwuf" wrote:
to an audit table. .Net is calling the same stored procedure to update the
same row in the base table 4 times. The stored procedure subtracts a passed
in value from a column in the base table. After the code runs, the value in
the base table is correct, but the audit rows appear to show the the first
update subtracted first two amounts. The other weird thing is the time
stamp, which is generated from a getdate() is exactly the same for two of the
rows.
How tightly is the trigger code tied to the code that causes the trigger to
fire? We have tried playing with isolation levels on the .Net transaction
and this hasn't helped. Have a tripped on a bug, or am I doing something
wrong. Thanks for the help.
Todd
Can you post the trigger?
AMB
"pralnwuf" wrote:
> I have a table that I am auditing by having a trigger insert the Deleted row
> to an audit table. .Net is calling the same stored procedure to update the
> same row in the base table 4 times. The stored procedure subtracts a passed
> in value from a column in the base table. After the code runs, the value in
> the base table is correct, but the audit rows appear to show the the first
> update subtracted first two amounts. The other weird thing is the time
> stamp, which is generated from a getdate() is exactly the same for two of the
> rows.
> How tightly is the trigger code tied to the code that causes the trigger to
> fire? We have tried playing with isolation levels on the .Net transaction
> and this hasn't helped. Have a tripped on a bug, or am I doing something
> wrong. Thanks for the help.
> Todd
|||/*
* TRIGGER: [EFTAuditTrig]
*/
CREATE TRIGGER EFTAuditTrig ON EFT FOR UPDATE
as
Set NOCOUNT on
INSERT
EFTAudit([EFTID],[CreateDate],[SubmitDate],[SubmitedUserID],[TotalAmount],[CreateUserID],[UpdateUserID],[UpdateDate])
SELECT
[EFTID],[CreateDate],[SubmitDate],[SubmitedUserID],[TotalAmount],[CreateUserID],[UpdateUserID],[UpdateDate] FROM Deleted
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Can you post the trigger?
>
> AMB
> "pralnwuf" wrote:
Concurrent updates
I have a table that I am auditing by having a trigger insert the Deleted row
to an audit table. .Net is calling the same stored procedure to update the
same row in the base table 4 times. The stored procedure subtracts a passed
in value from a column in the base table. After the code runs, the value in
the base table is correct, but the audit rows appear to show the the first
update subtracted first two amounts. The other weird thing is the time
stamp, which is generated from a getdate() is exactly the same for two of th
e
rows.
How tightly is the trigger code tied to the code that causes the trigger to
fire? We have tried playing with isolation levels on the .Net transaction
and this hasn't helped. Have a tripped on a bug, or am I doing something
wrong. Thanks for the help.
ToddCan you post the trigger?
AMB
"pralnwuf" wrote:
> I have a table that I am auditing by having a trigger insert the Deleted r
ow
> to an audit table. .Net is calling the same stored procedure to update th
e
> same row in the base table 4 times. The stored procedure subtracts a pass
ed
> in value from a column in the base table. After the code runs, the value
in
> the base table is correct, but the audit rows appear to show the the first
> update subtracted first two amounts. The other weird thing is the time
> stamp, which is generated from a getdate() is exactly the same for two of
the
> rows.
> How tightly is the trigger code tied to the code that causes the trigger t
o
> fire? We have tried playing with isolation levels on the .Net transaction
> and this hasn't helped. Have a tripped on a bug, or am I doing something
> wrong. Thanks for the help.
> Todd|||/*
* TRIGGER: [EFTAuditTrig]
*/
CREATE TRIGGER EFTAuditTrig ON EFT FOR UPDATE
as
Set NOCOUNT on
INSERT
EFTAudit([EFTID],[CreateDate],[SubmitDate],[SubmitedUserID],
[TotalAmount],[CreateUserID],[UpdateUserID],[UpdateDate])
SELECT
[EFTID],[CreateDate],[SubmitDate],[SubmitedUserID],[Tota
lAmount],[CreateUserID],[UpdateUserID],[UpdateDate] FROM Deleted
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Can you post the trigger?
>
> AMB
> "pralnwuf" wrote:
>
to an audit table. .Net is calling the same stored procedure to update the
same row in the base table 4 times. The stored procedure subtracts a passed
in value from a column in the base table. After the code runs, the value in
the base table is correct, but the audit rows appear to show the the first
update subtracted first two amounts. The other weird thing is the time
stamp, which is generated from a getdate() is exactly the same for two of th
e
rows.
How tightly is the trigger code tied to the code that causes the trigger to
fire? We have tried playing with isolation levels on the .Net transaction
and this hasn't helped. Have a tripped on a bug, or am I doing something
wrong. Thanks for the help.
ToddCan you post the trigger?
AMB
"pralnwuf" wrote:
> I have a table that I am auditing by having a trigger insert the Deleted r
ow
> to an audit table. .Net is calling the same stored procedure to update th
e
> same row in the base table 4 times. The stored procedure subtracts a pass
ed
> in value from a column in the base table. After the code runs, the value
in
> the base table is correct, but the audit rows appear to show the the first
> update subtracted first two amounts. The other weird thing is the time
> stamp, which is generated from a getdate() is exactly the same for two of
the
> rows.
> How tightly is the trigger code tied to the code that causes the trigger t
o
> fire? We have tried playing with isolation levels on the .Net transaction
> and this hasn't helped. Have a tripped on a bug, or am I doing something
> wrong. Thanks for the help.
> Todd|||/*
* TRIGGER: [EFTAuditTrig]
*/
CREATE TRIGGER EFTAuditTrig ON EFT FOR UPDATE
as
Set NOCOUNT on
INSERT
EFTAudit([EFTID],[CreateDate],[SubmitDate],[SubmitedUserID],
[TotalAmount],[CreateUserID],[UpdateUserID],[UpdateDate])
SELECT
[EFTID],[CreateDate],[SubmitDate],[SubmitedUserID],[Tota
lAmount],[CreateUserID],[UpdateUserID],[UpdateDate] FROM Deleted
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Can you post the trigger?
>
> AMB
> "pralnwuf" wrote:
>
Concurrent updates
I have a table that I am auditing by having a trigger insert the Deleted row
to an audit table. .Net is calling the same stored procedure to update the
same row in the base table 4 times. The stored procedure subtracts a passed
in value from a column in the base table. After the code runs, the value in
the base table is correct, but the audit rows appear to show the the first
update subtracted first two amounts. The other weird thing is the time
stamp, which is generated from a getdate() is exactly the same for two of the
rows.
How tightly is the trigger code tied to the code that causes the trigger to
fire? We have tried playing with isolation levels on the .Net transaction
and this hasn't helped. Have a tripped on a bug, or am I doing something
wrong. Thanks for the help.
ToddCan you post the trigger?
AMB
"pralnwuf" wrote:
> I have a table that I am auditing by having a trigger insert the Deleted row
> to an audit table. .Net is calling the same stored procedure to update the
> same row in the base table 4 times. The stored procedure subtracts a passed
> in value from a column in the base table. After the code runs, the value in
> the base table is correct, but the audit rows appear to show the the first
> update subtracted first two amounts. The other weird thing is the time
> stamp, which is generated from a getdate() is exactly the same for two of the
> rows.
> How tightly is the trigger code tied to the code that causes the trigger to
> fire? We have tried playing with isolation levels on the .Net transaction
> and this hasn't helped. Have a tripped on a bug, or am I doing something
> wrong. Thanks for the help.
> Todd|||/*
* TRIGGER: [EFTAuditTrig]
*/
CREATE TRIGGER EFTAuditTrig ON EFT FOR UPDATE
as
Set NOCOUNT on
INSERT
EFTAudit([EFTID],[CreateDate],[SubmitDate],[SubmitedUserID],[TotalAmount],[CreateUserID],[UpdateUserID],[UpdateDate])
SELECT
[EFTID],[CreateDate],[SubmitDate],[SubmitedUserID],[TotalAmount],[CreateUserID],[UpdateUserID],[UpdateDate] FROM Deleted
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
> Can you post the trigger?
>
> AMB
> "pralnwuf" wrote:
> > I have a table that I am auditing by having a trigger insert the Deleted row
> > to an audit table. .Net is calling the same stored procedure to update the
> > same row in the base table 4 times. The stored procedure subtracts a passed
> > in value from a column in the base table. After the code runs, the value in
> > the base table is correct, but the audit rows appear to show the the first
> > update subtracted first two amounts. The other weird thing is the time
> > stamp, which is generated from a getdate() is exactly the same for two of the
> > rows.
> >
> > How tightly is the trigger code tied to the code that causes the trigger to
> > fire? We have tried playing with isolation levels on the .Net transaction
> > and this hasn't helped. Have a tripped on a bug, or am I doing something
> > wrong. Thanks for the help.
> >
> > Todd
to an audit table. .Net is calling the same stored procedure to update the
same row in the base table 4 times. The stored procedure subtracts a passed
in value from a column in the base table. After the code runs, the value in
the base table is correct, but the audit rows appear to show the the first
update subtracted first two amounts. The other weird thing is the time
stamp, which is generated from a getdate() is exactly the same for two of the
rows.
How tightly is the trigger code tied to the code that causes the trigger to
fire? We have tried playing with isolation levels on the .Net transaction
and this hasn't helped. Have a tripped on a bug, or am I doing something
wrong. Thanks for the help.
ToddCan you post the trigger?
AMB
"pralnwuf" wrote:
> I have a table that I am auditing by having a trigger insert the Deleted row
> to an audit table. .Net is calling the same stored procedure to update the
> same row in the base table 4 times. The stored procedure subtracts a passed
> in value from a column in the base table. After the code runs, the value in
> the base table is correct, but the audit rows appear to show the the first
> update subtracted first two amounts. The other weird thing is the time
> stamp, which is generated from a getdate() is exactly the same for two of the
> rows.
> How tightly is the trigger code tied to the code that causes the trigger to
> fire? We have tried playing with isolation levels on the .Net transaction
> and this hasn't helped. Have a tripped on a bug, or am I doing something
> wrong. Thanks for the help.
> Todd|||/*
* TRIGGER: [EFTAuditTrig]
*/
CREATE TRIGGER EFTAuditTrig ON EFT FOR UPDATE
as
Set NOCOUNT on
INSERT
EFTAudit([EFTID],[CreateDate],[SubmitDate],[SubmitedUserID],[TotalAmount],[CreateUserID],[UpdateUserID],[UpdateDate])
SELECT
[EFTID],[CreateDate],[SubmitDate],[SubmitedUserID],[TotalAmount],[CreateUserID],[UpdateUserID],[UpdateDate] FROM Deleted
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
> Can you post the trigger?
>
> AMB
> "pralnwuf" wrote:
> > I have a table that I am auditing by having a trigger insert the Deleted row
> > to an audit table. .Net is calling the same stored procedure to update the
> > same row in the base table 4 times. The stored procedure subtracts a passed
> > in value from a column in the base table. After the code runs, the value in
> > the base table is correct, but the audit rows appear to show the the first
> > update subtracted first two amounts. The other weird thing is the time
> > stamp, which is generated from a getdate() is exactly the same for two of the
> > rows.
> >
> > How tightly is the trigger code tied to the code that causes the trigger to
> > fire? We have tried playing with isolation levels on the .Net transaction
> > and this hasn't helped. Have a tripped on a bug, or am I doing something
> > wrong. Thanks for the help.
> >
> > Todd
Concurrent transaction in READ COMMITED isolation level
Hello,
I currently work on Sql Serveur transactions (not distributed) and their
behaviors according to the selected isolation level.
I try to reproduce the default working of Oracle, and I have the following
problem:
With an isolation level READ COMMITED, by default Oracle "lock" no
request for reading modified records in another transaction (or connection)
not yet validated. Set apart the modifications made in the transaction in
progress, the result of a SELECT always return the "version" of the
validated recordings. Thus, there is no blocking in reading.
Sql Server 2000 function differently with the same isolation level. A
request SELECT is systematically blocked if the set of result must contain a
record new or modified not yet validated. Key word READPAST in request
SELECT solves only the problem related to the new records, the modified
record always block the request for reading!
Is there a solution?
Thank you in advance for your assistance.The key in either situation is to hold locks as short of a time span as
possible. READ COMMITTED puts a lock on an object, does it's thing with the
object, drops the lock on the object, and then moves to the next object
doing the same thing to the next object (usually we are talking about a row
in a table.)
So, in a well built system, the only contention is when you have a lot of
writes to rows that people also are trying to look at. So first question,
do you have people who need to see the data that people are actually
actively modifying? If so, then you do have a quandry. If not (and usually
not) then you may have indexing problems where you are scanning an entire
table instead of just some rows.
This is the place to start, but the crux of it all is simple, separate
readers from writers as much as possible, hold locks for as short a time
period as possible. It will be the same in 2005 when we get versioning as
well. The longer the locks, the more likely we get inconsistency and or
locking.
----
Louis Davidson - http://spaces.msn.com/members/drsql/
SQL Server MVP
"Christopher" <Dev@.effect.fr> wrote in message
news:utLZFZkWFHA.2420@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I currently work on Sql Serveur transactions (not distributed) and their
> behaviors according to the selected isolation level.
> I try to reproduce the default working of Oracle, and I have the following
> problem:
> With an isolation level READ COMMITED, by default Oracle "lock" no
> request for reading modified records in another transaction (or
> connection) not yet validated. Set apart the modifications made in the
> transaction in progress, the result of a SELECT always return the
> "version" of the validated recordings. Thus, there is no blocking in
> reading.
> Sql Server 2000 function differently with the same isolation level. A
> request SELECT is systematically blocked if the set of result must contain
> a record new or modified not yet validated. Key word READPAST in request
> SELECT solves only the problem related to the new records, the modified
> record always block the request for reading!
> Is there a solution?
> Thank you in advance for your assistance.
>|||Thank you for this explanation.
Just a precision according to my context:
I don't know if some people need frequently to see the data that others
are actually modifying, but it's a possibility in any business application.
It can be a problem in some situations.
However, in all cases, I'm agree that it's better to hold locks for a
short time (short transaction).
Christopher.
"Louis Davidson" <dr_dontspamme_sql@.hotmail.com> a crit dans le message de
news: OIIrzzlWFHA.132@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> The key in either situation is to hold locks as short of a time span as
> possible. READ COMMITTED puts a lock on an object, does it's thing with
> the object, drops the lock on the object, and then moves to the next
> object doing the same thing to the next object (usually we are talking
> about a row in a table.)
> So, in a well built system, the only contention is when you have a lot of
> writes to rows that people also are trying to look at. So first question,
> do you have people who need to see the data that people are actually
> actively modifying? If so, then you do have a quandry. If not (and
> usually not) then you may have indexing problems where you are scanning an
> entire table instead of just some rows.
> This is the place to start, but the crux of it all is simple, separate
> readers from writers as much as possible, hold locks for as short a time
> period as possible. It will be the same in 2005 when we get versioning as
> well. The longer the locks, the more likely we get inconsistency and or
> locking.
> --
> ----
--
> Louis Davidson - http://spaces.msn.com/members/drsql/
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "Christopher" <Dev@.effect.fr> wrote in message
> news:utLZFZkWFHA.2420@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>|||> I don't know if some people need frequently to see the data that others
> are actually modifying, but it's a possibility in any business
> application.
It is a possibility, though I find in quite a few cases blocking comes from
poor planning for separation rather than a need for two people to work on
the same rows.
--
----
Louis Davidson - http://spaces.msn.com/members/drsql/
SQL Server MVP
"Christopher" <Dev@.effect.fr> wrote in message
news:ORK5XV4WFHA.2740@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thank you for this explanation.
> Just a precision according to my context:
> I don't know if some people need frequently to see the data that others
> are actually modifying, but it's a possibility in any business
> application.
> It can be a problem in some situations.
> However, in all cases, I'm agree that it's better to hold locks for a
> short time (short transaction).
> Christopher.
>
> "Louis Davidson" <dr_dontspamme_sql@.hotmail.com> a crit dans le message
> de news: OIIrzzlWFHA.132@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
I currently work on Sql Serveur transactions (not distributed) and their
behaviors according to the selected isolation level.
I try to reproduce the default working of Oracle, and I have the following
problem:
With an isolation level READ COMMITED, by default Oracle "lock" no
request for reading modified records in another transaction (or connection)
not yet validated. Set apart the modifications made in the transaction in
progress, the result of a SELECT always return the "version" of the
validated recordings. Thus, there is no blocking in reading.
Sql Server 2000 function differently with the same isolation level. A
request SELECT is systematically blocked if the set of result must contain a
record new or modified not yet validated. Key word READPAST in request
SELECT solves only the problem related to the new records, the modified
record always block the request for reading!
Is there a solution?
Thank you in advance for your assistance.The key in either situation is to hold locks as short of a time span as
possible. READ COMMITTED puts a lock on an object, does it's thing with the
object, drops the lock on the object, and then moves to the next object
doing the same thing to the next object (usually we are talking about a row
in a table.)
So, in a well built system, the only contention is when you have a lot of
writes to rows that people also are trying to look at. So first question,
do you have people who need to see the data that people are actually
actively modifying? If so, then you do have a quandry. If not (and usually
not) then you may have indexing problems where you are scanning an entire
table instead of just some rows.
This is the place to start, but the crux of it all is simple, separate
readers from writers as much as possible, hold locks for as short a time
period as possible. It will be the same in 2005 when we get versioning as
well. The longer the locks, the more likely we get inconsistency and or
locking.
----
Louis Davidson - http://spaces.msn.com/members/drsql/
SQL Server MVP
"Christopher" <Dev@.effect.fr> wrote in message
news:utLZFZkWFHA.2420@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I currently work on Sql Serveur transactions (not distributed) and their
> behaviors according to the selected isolation level.
> I try to reproduce the default working of Oracle, and I have the following
> problem:
> With an isolation level READ COMMITED, by default Oracle "lock" no
> request for reading modified records in another transaction (or
> connection) not yet validated. Set apart the modifications made in the
> transaction in progress, the result of a SELECT always return the
> "version" of the validated recordings. Thus, there is no blocking in
> reading.
> Sql Server 2000 function differently with the same isolation level. A
> request SELECT is systematically blocked if the set of result must contain
> a record new or modified not yet validated. Key word READPAST in request
> SELECT solves only the problem related to the new records, the modified
> record always block the request for reading!
> Is there a solution?
> Thank you in advance for your assistance.
>|||Thank you for this explanation.
Just a precision according to my context:
I don't know if some people need frequently to see the data that others
are actually modifying, but it's a possibility in any business application.
It can be a problem in some situations.
However, in all cases, I'm agree that it's better to hold locks for a
short time (short transaction).
Christopher.
"Louis Davidson" <dr_dontspamme_sql@.hotmail.com> a crit dans le message de
news: OIIrzzlWFHA.132@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> The key in either situation is to hold locks as short of a time span as
> possible. READ COMMITTED puts a lock on an object, does it's thing with
> the object, drops the lock on the object, and then moves to the next
> object doing the same thing to the next object (usually we are talking
> about a row in a table.)
> So, in a well built system, the only contention is when you have a lot of
> writes to rows that people also are trying to look at. So first question,
> do you have people who need to see the data that people are actually
> actively modifying? If so, then you do have a quandry. If not (and
> usually not) then you may have indexing problems where you are scanning an
> entire table instead of just some rows.
> This is the place to start, but the crux of it all is simple, separate
> readers from writers as much as possible, hold locks for as short a time
> period as possible. It will be the same in 2005 when we get versioning as
> well. The longer the locks, the more likely we get inconsistency and or
> locking.
> --
> ----
--
> Louis Davidson - http://spaces.msn.com/members/drsql/
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "Christopher" <Dev@.effect.fr> wrote in message
> news:utLZFZkWFHA.2420@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>|||> I don't know if some people need frequently to see the data that others
> are actually modifying, but it's a possibility in any business
> application.
It is a possibility, though I find in quite a few cases blocking comes from
poor planning for separation rather than a need for two people to work on
the same rows.
--
----
Louis Davidson - http://spaces.msn.com/members/drsql/
SQL Server MVP
"Christopher" <Dev@.effect.fr> wrote in message
news:ORK5XV4WFHA.2740@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thank you for this explanation.
> Just a precision according to my context:
> I don't know if some people need frequently to see the data that others
> are actually modifying, but it's a possibility in any business
> application.
> It can be a problem in some situations.
> However, in all cases, I'm agree that it's better to hold locks for a
> short time (short transaction).
> Christopher.
>
> "Louis Davidson" <dr_dontspamme_sql@.hotmail.com> a crit dans le message
> de news: OIIrzzlWFHA.132@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
Concurrent stored procs?
Hi all
I have a stored proc that runs every 4 hours - as a job. The stored proc takes about 3-5 minutes to comple, depending on number of records.
To do testing we run that stored proc manually, also.
Sometimes 2 or more people may run the same stored proc without knowing that the other person is running. This may create duplicates entries once processed.
What I want to know is, Is there a way to check if that stored procedure is currently running. If so it wont run second time concurrently.
(May be semapohres,mutex or something like that?)
(I am trying not to use a table to store whether the stored proc is running or not)
Thanks in advance.
RochanaOne can use sp_getapplock and sp_releaseapplock when invoking a sp.
Hans.|||Thanks Hans for quick reply.
I tried it but found some problems.
sp_getapplock needs an active transaction, without which it fails.
I am trying not to use Transactions because it slows down the system so badly.
Originally posted by HansVE
One can use sp_getapplock and sp_releaseapplock when invoking a sp.
Hans.|||Could use global temporary table as semaphore.
CREATE TABLE ##proc_running(x int)
IF @.@.error <> 0
PRINT 'Proc already running'
ELSE BEGIN
...
DROP TABLE ##proc_running
END
Hans.|||It works to some extent Hans.
The error checking never happens. It quits the process without displaying the error.
..
IF @.@.error <> 0
PRINT 'Proc already running'
...
Originally posted by HansVE
Could use global temporary table as semaphore.
CREATE TABLE ##proc_running(x int)
IF @.@.error <> 0
PRINT 'Proc already running'
ELSE BEGIN
...
DROP TABLE ##proc_running
END
Hans.|||Yes, the error is too serious to continue. If you cannot trap that error at the client, you could instead check for existence of the table object.
IF OBJECT_ID('tempdb.dbo.##proc_running') > 0|||sysprocesses holds info about all processes currently running on the server (master.sysprocesses)
dbcc inputbuffer spid tells you what a specific process is doing
The two combined (in some way ;)) should tell you if the proc is running already..
Hope it helps a little bit..|||I am a little confused .. but isnt the job scheduled ... then why is it being run manually ... and even if it is being run manually ... why two people have been given the access ??|||Originally posted by Jonte
sysprocesses holds info about all processes currently running on the server (master.sysprocesses)
dbcc inputbuffer spid tells you what a specific process is doing
The two combined (in some way ;)) should tell you if the proc is running already..
Hope it helps a little bit..
One problem with this is that two people could still start the proc simultaneously.
Hans.|||Enigma here is the scenario:
Say, the job is scheduled at 12noon everyday.
One of the bosses come and asks us to run that particular job becos they need to see the data on their screen. So one of the programmers of the team runs that job, or invoke the particular sp.
The sp takes about 10-15 mins to complete.
If it reaches 12noon while that particular sp is running, job kicks in and invoke that same sp again. (our sp is still running)
Thats why I want to check if the particular sp is already running or not, so that the sp wont run again.
Originally posted by Enigma
I am a little confused .. but isnt the job scheduled ... then why is it being run manually ... and even if it is being run manually ... why two people have been given the access ??|||Thanks Jonte..
Your suggestion worked !! ;)
I have to check the Event Info for my stored proc, thats running in the server.
I have pasted code to test what processes are currently running on the server on a db. May be you can run and see the results too
Thanks
declare @.spid bigint
declare crsr cursor read_only
for
select spid from master..sysprocesses where dbid>1 and kpid>1
open crsr
fetch next from crsr
into @.spid
while @.@.fetch_status<>-1
begin
dbcc inputbuffer(@.spid)
fetch next from crsr
into @.spid
end
close crsr
deallocate crsr
Originally posted by Jonte
sysprocesses holds info about all processes currently running on the server (master.sysprocesses)
dbcc inputbuffer spid tells you what a specific process is doing
The two combined (in some way ;)) should tell you if the proc is running already..
Hope it helps a little bit..
I have a stored proc that runs every 4 hours - as a job. The stored proc takes about 3-5 minutes to comple, depending on number of records.
To do testing we run that stored proc manually, also.
Sometimes 2 or more people may run the same stored proc without knowing that the other person is running. This may create duplicates entries once processed.
What I want to know is, Is there a way to check if that stored procedure is currently running. If so it wont run second time concurrently.
(May be semapohres,mutex or something like that?)
(I am trying not to use a table to store whether the stored proc is running or not)
Thanks in advance.
RochanaOne can use sp_getapplock and sp_releaseapplock when invoking a sp.
Hans.|||Thanks Hans for quick reply.
I tried it but found some problems.
sp_getapplock needs an active transaction, without which it fails.
I am trying not to use Transactions because it slows down the system so badly.
Originally posted by HansVE
One can use sp_getapplock and sp_releaseapplock when invoking a sp.
Hans.|||Could use global temporary table as semaphore.
CREATE TABLE ##proc_running(x int)
IF @.@.error <> 0
PRINT 'Proc already running'
ELSE BEGIN
...
DROP TABLE ##proc_running
END
Hans.|||It works to some extent Hans.
The error checking never happens. It quits the process without displaying the error.
..
IF @.@.error <> 0
PRINT 'Proc already running'
...
Originally posted by HansVE
Could use global temporary table as semaphore.
CREATE TABLE ##proc_running(x int)
IF @.@.error <> 0
PRINT 'Proc already running'
ELSE BEGIN
...
DROP TABLE ##proc_running
END
Hans.|||Yes, the error is too serious to continue. If you cannot trap that error at the client, you could instead check for existence of the table object.
IF OBJECT_ID('tempdb.dbo.##proc_running') > 0|||sysprocesses holds info about all processes currently running on the server (master.sysprocesses)
dbcc inputbuffer spid tells you what a specific process is doing
The two combined (in some way ;)) should tell you if the proc is running already..
Hope it helps a little bit..|||I am a little confused .. but isnt the job scheduled ... then why is it being run manually ... and even if it is being run manually ... why two people have been given the access ??|||Originally posted by Jonte
sysprocesses holds info about all processes currently running on the server (master.sysprocesses)
dbcc inputbuffer spid tells you what a specific process is doing
The two combined (in some way ;)) should tell you if the proc is running already..
Hope it helps a little bit..
One problem with this is that two people could still start the proc simultaneously.
Hans.|||Enigma here is the scenario:
Say, the job is scheduled at 12noon everyday.
One of the bosses come and asks us to run that particular job becos they need to see the data on their screen. So one of the programmers of the team runs that job, or invoke the particular sp.
The sp takes about 10-15 mins to complete.
If it reaches 12noon while that particular sp is running, job kicks in and invoke that same sp again. (our sp is still running)
Thats why I want to check if the particular sp is already running or not, so that the sp wont run again.
Originally posted by Enigma
I am a little confused .. but isnt the job scheduled ... then why is it being run manually ... and even if it is being run manually ... why two people have been given the access ??|||Thanks Jonte..
Your suggestion worked !! ;)
I have to check the Event Info for my stored proc, thats running in the server.
I have pasted code to test what processes are currently running on the server on a db. May be you can run and see the results too
Thanks
declare @.spid bigint
declare crsr cursor read_only
for
select spid from master..sysprocesses where dbid>1 and kpid>1
open crsr
fetch next from crsr
into @.spid
while @.@.fetch_status<>-1
begin
dbcc inputbuffer(@.spid)
fetch next from crsr
into @.spid
end
close crsr
deallocate crsr
Originally posted by Jonte
sysprocesses holds info about all processes currently running on the server (master.sysprocesses)
dbcc inputbuffer spid tells you what a specific process is doing
The two combined (in some way ;)) should tell you if the proc is running already..
Hope it helps a little bit..
Concurrent SQL Tranasactions Fail
Hi all,
I am having trouble trying to get an efficient way of checking if a
value pair exists in a table, and if not inserting the value pair and
returning the new id in the identity column. The old method I have used
has been fine for some time but the table has grown to a very large
size and the current code is causing a bottleneck.
The table consists the three columns, An identity column and two
nvarchar(15) columns. Instead of replicating the nvarchar(15) columns
over the database I have placed them in a lookup table and use the ID
from the identity column to reference the nvarchar values. I do store
multiple languages in the database so an nvarchar is necessary.
I admit the current code I use below is poor, but all of the
enhancements I have tried to make have resulted in the system failing,
as multiple copies of the procedure run and two (or more) procedures
try and insert the same data into the table (there is a unique
clustered index on the two varchar columns, and the identity column is
the primary key).
As our server application is multithreaded, it is highly likely
(certain) that two or more of these procedures will be running at once
so I have to ensure data integrity whilst checking and updating. Im
just not sure that a TABLOCKX,HOLDLOCK lock hint is the best way.
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.CreateNewContextItem
@.CONTEXT NVARCHAR(15),
@.DATAITEM NVARCHAR(15),
@.ID INTEGER OUTPUT
AS
SET NOCOUNT ON
BEGIN TRANSACTION
SET @.ID = (SELECT id FROM contextitem WITH (TABLOCKX,HOLDLOCK) WHERE
context = @.CONTEXT AND dataitem=@.DATAITEM)
IF @.ID IS NULL
BEGIN
INSERT INTO
contextitem (context,dataitem)
VALUES
(@.CONTEXT,@.DATAITEM)
IF @.@.ERROR<>0
GOTO Errhandler
SET @.ID = Scope_Identity()
IF @.@.ERROR<>0
GOTO Errhandler
END
COMMIT TRANSACTION
RETURN 0
Errhandler:
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
RETURN 50063 -- application specific error code
GO
Is there a way of speeding up this procedure whilst still allowing
multiple copies of it to be run at once safely? Any help would be
greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.How about UPDLOCK instead of the TABLOCKX hint?
ML
http://milambda.blogspot.com/|||That seems to have worked a treat!
Thanks for your help ML
I am having trouble trying to get an efficient way of checking if a
value pair exists in a table, and if not inserting the value pair and
returning the new id in the identity column. The old method I have used
has been fine for some time but the table has grown to a very large
size and the current code is causing a bottleneck.
The table consists the three columns, An identity column and two
nvarchar(15) columns. Instead of replicating the nvarchar(15) columns
over the database I have placed them in a lookup table and use the ID
from the identity column to reference the nvarchar values. I do store
multiple languages in the database so an nvarchar is necessary.
I admit the current code I use below is poor, but all of the
enhancements I have tried to make have resulted in the system failing,
as multiple copies of the procedure run and two (or more) procedures
try and insert the same data into the table (there is a unique
clustered index on the two varchar columns, and the identity column is
the primary key).
As our server application is multithreaded, it is highly likely
(certain) that two or more of these procedures will be running at once
so I have to ensure data integrity whilst checking and updating. Im
just not sure that a TABLOCKX,HOLDLOCK lock hint is the best way.
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.CreateNewContextItem
@.CONTEXT NVARCHAR(15),
@.DATAITEM NVARCHAR(15),
@.ID INTEGER OUTPUT
AS
SET NOCOUNT ON
BEGIN TRANSACTION
SET @.ID = (SELECT id FROM contextitem WITH (TABLOCKX,HOLDLOCK) WHERE
context = @.CONTEXT AND dataitem=@.DATAITEM)
IF @.ID IS NULL
BEGIN
INSERT INTO
contextitem (context,dataitem)
VALUES
(@.CONTEXT,@.DATAITEM)
IF @.@.ERROR<>0
GOTO Errhandler
SET @.ID = Scope_Identity()
IF @.@.ERROR<>0
GOTO Errhandler
END
COMMIT TRANSACTION
RETURN 0
Errhandler:
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
RETURN 50063 -- application specific error code
GO
Is there a way of speeding up this procedure whilst still allowing
multiple copies of it to be run at once safely? Any help would be
greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.How about UPDLOCK instead of the TABLOCKX hint?
ML
http://milambda.blogspot.com/|||That seems to have worked a treat!
Thanks for your help ML
Concurrent snapshot processing
How can i check if i have concurrent snapshot processing enabled thru TSQL ?
I dont see an option to set it during the initial setup using the GUI
Hasan,
have a look at sp_helppublication (synchronization method). This can be set
after finishing the publication wizard, and before you set up a subscriber.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison
I dont see an option to set it during the initial setup using the GUI
Hasan,
have a look at sp_helppublication (synchronization method). This can be set
after finishing the publication wizard, and before you set up a subscriber.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison
Concurrent select is locked while another transaction executes Ins
Our application need to be able to concurrently insert and select from the
same table irrespective of the data.
But, the following issue has been found in the sql server 2000.
Initially , the insert statements (around 1000 rows) for a table is executed
in a transaction inside a stored procedure.
like:
"Insert into Test (pkey,field1,field2,strfield) values
(1400,1144,12025,'test sp insert 2')"
and simultaneously a select statement to retrieve all records from the same
table is executed in the query analyzer. Then the select statement waits
until the insert operation completes.
"select * from Test"
But, if a select statement that filters the data based on the index fields
is used, then it executes without delay.
select * from test where pkey=2000 and field1=1111
(Index: pkey and field1 combination) Suppose if the filter condition
includes the data that is being inserted, then also it is blocked.
In SQL Server 2000, whether it is possible to avoid the blocking of select
statement while insert.
Note that the insert statement is executed in the default isolation level of
sql server 2000.
In MS Access, concurrent inserts and select works without any issue.
Table and Index references:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Test] (
[pkey] [bigint] NOT NULL ,
[field1] [bigint] NOT NULL ,
[field2] [int] NULL ,
[strfield] [varchar] (50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
CREATE INDEX [IX_Test] ON [dbo].[Test]([field1], [pkey]) ON [PRIMARY]Baskar
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/blocking.asp
http://www.sql-server-performance.c...ucing_locks.asp
"Baskar" <Baskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:880BF5FF-E31F-4BA2-95B1-CDDE6C8616C8@.microsoft.com...
> Our application need to be able to concurrently insert and select from the
> same table irrespective of the data.
> But, the following issue has been found in the sql server 2000.
> Initially , the insert statements (around 1000 rows) for a table is
> executed
> in a transaction inside a stored procedure.
> like:
> "Insert into Test (pkey,field1,field2,strfield) values
> (1400,1144,12025,'test sp insert 2')"
> and simultaneously a select statement to retrieve all records from the
> same
> table is executed in the query analyzer. Then the select statement waits
> until the insert operation completes.
> "select * from Test"
> But, if a select statement that filters the data based on the index fields
> is used, then it executes without delay.
> select * from test where pkey=2000 and field1=1111
> (Index: pkey and field1 combination) Suppose if the filter condition
> includes the data that is being inserted, then also it is blocked.
> In SQL Server 2000, whether it is possible to avoid the blocking of select
> statement while insert.
> Note that the insert statement is executed in the default isolation level
> of
> sql server 2000.
> In MS Access, concurrent inserts and select works without any issue.
> Table and Index references:
> CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Test] (
> [pkey] [bigint] NOT NULL ,
> [field1] [bigint] NOT NULL ,
> [field2] [int] NULL ,
> [strfield] [varchar] (50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL
> ) ON [PRIMARY]
> GO
> CREATE INDEX [IX_Test] ON [dbo].[Test]([field1], [pkey]) ON [PRIMARY]
>
>
>
same table irrespective of the data.
But, the following issue has been found in the sql server 2000.
Initially , the insert statements (around 1000 rows) for a table is executed
in a transaction inside a stored procedure.
like:
"Insert into Test (pkey,field1,field2,strfield) values
(1400,1144,12025,'test sp insert 2')"
and simultaneously a select statement to retrieve all records from the same
table is executed in the query analyzer. Then the select statement waits
until the insert operation completes.
"select * from Test"
But, if a select statement that filters the data based on the index fields
is used, then it executes without delay.
select * from test where pkey=2000 and field1=1111
(Index: pkey and field1 combination) Suppose if the filter condition
includes the data that is being inserted, then also it is blocked.
In SQL Server 2000, whether it is possible to avoid the blocking of select
statement while insert.
Note that the insert statement is executed in the default isolation level of
sql server 2000.
In MS Access, concurrent inserts and select works without any issue.
Table and Index references:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Test] (
[pkey] [bigint] NOT NULL ,
[field1] [bigint] NOT NULL ,
[field2] [int] NULL ,
[strfield] [varchar] (50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
CREATE INDEX [IX_Test] ON [dbo].[Test]([field1], [pkey]) ON [PRIMARY]Baskar
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/blocking.asp
http://www.sql-server-performance.c...ucing_locks.asp
"Baskar" <Baskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:880BF5FF-E31F-4BA2-95B1-CDDE6C8616C8@.microsoft.com...
> Our application need to be able to concurrently insert and select from the
> same table irrespective of the data.
> But, the following issue has been found in the sql server 2000.
> Initially , the insert statements (around 1000 rows) for a table is
> executed
> in a transaction inside a stored procedure.
> like:
> "Insert into Test (pkey,field1,field2,strfield) values
> (1400,1144,12025,'test sp insert 2')"
> and simultaneously a select statement to retrieve all records from the
> same
> table is executed in the query analyzer. Then the select statement waits
> until the insert operation completes.
> "select * from Test"
> But, if a select statement that filters the data based on the index fields
> is used, then it executes without delay.
> select * from test where pkey=2000 and field1=1111
> (Index: pkey and field1 combination) Suppose if the filter condition
> includes the data that is being inserted, then also it is blocked.
> In SQL Server 2000, whether it is possible to avoid the blocking of select
> statement while insert.
> Note that the insert statement is executed in the default isolation level
> of
> sql server 2000.
> In MS Access, concurrent inserts and select works without any issue.
> Table and Index references:
> CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Test] (
> [pkey] [bigint] NOT NULL ,
> [field1] [bigint] NOT NULL ,
> [field2] [int] NULL ,
> [strfield] [varchar] (50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL
> ) ON [PRIMARY]
> GO
> CREATE INDEX [IX_Test] ON [dbo].[Test]([field1], [pkey]) ON [PRIMARY]
>
>
>
Concurrent select is locked while another transaction executes
In this case, ideally sql server should have blocked only the inserted rows
. The select statement could have returned all other rows and select
statement on filter condition on non-index field that matches only the
existing records could also worked.
MS Access does not block select statement while Insert transaction is
running. The retrieved records from Access also does not contain any
uncommitted records.
But still, I am very surprised why SQL Server could not perform this
operation as MS Access could very well do.
And also one option that should not happen in our application in this
scenario is "Read uncommitted" option in SQL Server which retrieves the
uncommitted rows in the select.
Suggestions please !
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Baskar
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/blocking.asp
> http://www.sql-server-performance.c...ucing_locks.asp
>
>
> "Baskar" <Baskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:880BF5FF-E31F-4BA2-95B1-CDDE6C8616C8@.microsoft.com...
>
>On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:22:01 -0700, Baskar wrote:
(snip)
>MS Access does not block select statement while Insert transaction is
>running. The retrieved records from Access also does not contain any
>uncommitted records.
Hi Baskar,
There are two possible explanations for this.
#1. Access uses what's called "snapshot isolation" - this means that
changing data doesn't block others from retrieving it, but will show the
others the "before change" image of the data. You don't see data that is
inserted in an uncommitted transaction, you still see rows that have
been deleted in an uncommitted transaction and for rows that are updated
in an uncommitted transaction, you see the values as they were before
the update.
Snapshot isolation is supported in Oracle. I've read that it will also
be supported by SQL Server 2005.
Frankly, I don;t think that Access supports snapshot isolation. I prefer
my explanation #2:
#2: Access is buggy. If a row is inserted in an uncommitted transaction,
it won't be shown - but if a row is deleted in the same uncomitted
transaction, then that row won't show either.
Why is this behaviour buggy? Well, consider this simple example: one Mr.
B. Gates enter the bank and says he wants to change his account number.
Since Account# is the primary key, the row with the old account# has to
be deleted, and a new row inserted. Before this transaction is
committed, the accountant runs a query to check the totals. And all hell
breaks loose, because suddenly a few billion dollars have gone missing!
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)|||hi,
The concurrent select while insert does not work sometimes even when the
select query is based on an index-field. This happens when there are more
records (say 3000) in the table and it works when there are less records
(<250).
Also, SQL Server restricts the select / update operations during insert even
when the insert and select / update are working on different data. Is this
the supposed behavior in SQL Server ?
Are there any work around or alternative solution for this problem ?
Regards
Baskar
"Hugo Kornelis" wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:22:01 -0700, Baskar wrote:
> (snip)
> Hi Baskar,
> There are two possible explanations for this.
> #1. Access uses what's called "snapshot isolation" - this means that
> changing data doesn't block others from retrieving it, but will show the
> others the "before change" image of the data. You don't see data that is
> inserted in an uncommitted transaction, you still see rows that have
> been deleted in an uncommitted transaction and for rows that are updated
> in an uncommitted transaction, you see the values as they were before
> the update.
> Snapshot isolation is supported in Oracle. I've read that it will also
> be supported by SQL Server 2005.
> Frankly, I don;t think that Access supports snapshot isolation. I prefer
> my explanation #2:
> #2: Access is buggy. If a row is inserted in an uncommitted transaction,
> it won't be shown - but if a row is deleted in the same uncomitted
> transaction, then that row won't show either.
> Why is this behaviour buggy? Well, consider this simple example: one Mr.
> B. Gates enter the bank and says he wants to change his account number.
> Since Account# is the primary key, the row with the old account# has to
> be deleted, and a new row inserted. Before this transaction is
> committed, the accountant runs a query to check the totals. And all hell
> breaks loose, because suddenly a few billion dollars have gone missing!
> Best, Hugo
> --
> (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)
Our application need to be able to concurrently insert and select from the
same table irrespective of the data.
But, the following issue has been found in the sql server 2000.
Initially , the insert statements (around 1000 rows) for a table is executed
in a transaction inside a stored procedure.
like:
"Insert into Test (pkey,field1,field2,strfield) values
(1400,1144,12025,'test sp insert 2')"
and simultaneously a select statement to retrieve all records from the same
table is executed in the query analyzer. Then the select statement waits
until the insert operation completes.
"select * from Test"
But, if a select statement that filters the data based on the index fields
is used, then it executes without delay.
select * from test where pkey=2000 and field1=1111
(Index: pkey and field1 combination) Suppose if the filter condition
includes the data that is being inserted, then also it is blocked.
In SQL Server 2000, whether it is possible to avoid the blocking of select
statement while insert.
Note that the insert statement is executed in the default isolation level of
sql server 2000.
In MS Access, concurrent inserts and select works without any issue.
Table and Index references:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Test] (
[pkey] [bigint] NOT NULL ,
[field1] [bigint] NOT NULL ,
[field2] [int] NULL ,
[strfield] [varchar] (50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
CREATE INDEX [IX_Test] ON [dbo].[Test]([field1], [pkey]) ON [PRIMARY]
>|||X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@.supernews.com
Lines: 55
Path: TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1
.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-09!sn-post-
01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
Xref: TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming:546663
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:49:04 -0700, Baskar wrote:
>The concurrent select while insert does not work sometimes even when the
>select query is based on an index-field. This happens when there are more
>records (say 3000) in the table and it works when there are less records
>(<250).
Hi Baskar,
Even after rereading the thread, I don't get the exact picture of what
you are doing. It would help tremendously if you could post some SQL
statements that I can run to reproduce this behaviour on my test
database. I'd need CREATE TABLE statements to set up the table, INSERT
statements for some sample starting data, then the INSERT and SELECT
statements to run concurrently.
It's much easier to comment what I can see!
>Also, SQL Server restricts the select / update operations during insert eve
n
>when the insert and select / update are working on different data. Is this
>the supposed behavior in SQL Server ?
That depends on a lot of factors. Again, I'd have to see the code in
order to comment.
>Are there any work around or alternative solution for this problem ?
Default locking behaviour is to block conflicting requests: if a
connection attempts to do something with locked data, it'll have to wait
until the lock is released. You can override this default behaviour with
one of the following locking hints:
* WITH (NOLOCK) -- specifies that no shared locks are taken, and that
existing locks are disregarded. The consequence of this is known as
"dirty reads" - data that has been updated, but not yet committed and
possibly not even yet changed. The change might be rolled back later; in
that case, your query has returned data that never really existed in the
database.
Setting the transaction isolation level to READ UNCOMMITTED is
equivalent to specifying WITH (NOLOCK) on all queries.
* WITH (READPAST) -- specifies that locked data should be skipped; if
some rows in the table are locked, your query won't wait, but will
return a result set without any data for those rows (as if they don't
exist at all). Applies only to row-level locks, and won't work if your
transaction isolation level is anything other than READ COMMITTED (the
default).
Note that these locking hints will only affect read operations. For any
data modification, the locking can't be bypassed.
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)|||hi,
The table details are available in the first thread of this question.
Basically, our application need to allow users to download data (insert
statements) and concurrently users should be able to work with the reports
(select statements).
Also, "With ReadPast" option will work for fetching records while insert.
But it will not fetch records that are locked because of update. This
behavior could not be acceptable for our application.
According to the SQL Server documentation, data that is being updated only
will be locked and insertion of data will lock only the specific data and no
t
others. But, select statement is blocked even when tried to retrieve the dat
a
which is not being inserted.
Is there any standard solution or alternative for this problem ?
Regards
Baskar
"Hugo Kornelis" wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:49:04 -0700, Baskar wrote:
>
> Hi Baskar,
> Even after rereading the thread, I don't get the exact picture of what
> you are doing. It would help tremendously if you could post some SQL
> statements that I can run to reproduce this behaviour on my test
> database. I'd need CREATE TABLE statements to set up the table, INSERT
> statements for some sample starting data, then the INSERT and SELECT
> statements to run concurrently.
> It's much easier to comment what I can see!
>
> That depends on a lot of factors. Again, I'd have to see the code in
> order to comment.
>
> Default locking behaviour is to block conflicting requests: if a
> connection attempts to do something with locked data, it'll have to wait
> until the lock is released. You can override this default behaviour with
> one of the following locking hints:
> * WITH (NOLOCK) -- specifies that no shared locks are taken, and that
> existing locks are disregarded. The consequence of this is known as
> "dirty reads" - data that has been updated, but not yet committed and
> possibly not even yet changed. The change might be rolled back later; in
> that case, your query has returned data that never really existed in the
> database.
> Setting the transaction isolation level to READ UNCOMMITTED is
> equivalent to specifying WITH (NOLOCK) on all queries.
> * WITH (READPAST) -- specifies that locked data should be skipped; if
> some rows in the table are locked, your query won't wait, but will
> return a result set without any data for those rows (as if they don't
> exist at all). Applies only to row-level locks, and won't work if your
> transaction isolation level is anything other than READ COMMITTED (the
> default).
> Note that these locking hints will only affect read operations. For any
> data modification, the locking can't be bypassed.
> Best, Hugo
> --
> (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)
>|||On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:26:07 -0700, Baskar wrote:
>The table details are available in the first thread of this question.
Hi Baskar,
I thought that was just an example made up on the fly, since there is no
primary key or unique constraint, no unique index and no clustered
index.
Also, these details do not explain this behaviour:
I'd really have to be able to run a repro script on my database that
mimics this behaviour - i.e. do a BEGIN TRAN + INSERT in one connection
but don't commit or rollback yet, then do a SELECT in another connection
and check the results.
If you can post INSERT and SELECT statements that reproduce this
behaviour, I'll see if I can find the cause.
>Basically, our application need to allow users to download data (insert
>statements) and concurrently users should be able to work with the reports
>(select statements).
>Also, "With ReadPast" option will work for fetching records while insert.
>But it will not fetch records that are locked because of update. This
>behavior could not be acceptable for our application.
That will be hard to do. Basically, you are asking SQL Server to
distinguish between locks for newly inserted data and locks for updated
data. This distinction is not available in SQL Server's architecture.
(And for good reason, I think - what if I insert a row and then go on to
update that same row, all in the same transaction? how to handle updates
to the primary key column? etc etc)
>According to the SQL Server documentation, data that is being updated only
>will be locked and insertion of data will lock only the specific data and n
ot
>others. But, select statement is blocked even when tried to retrieve the da
ta
>which is not being inserted.
That's because the data is already in the database, it's just not yet
confirmed (read: the transaction is not yet committed). SQL Server won't
just pretend it's not there (unless you use READPAST - but that would
affect updated rows as well); neither will SQL Server say that it IS
there if there is still the possibility of a rollback (unless you use
NOLOCK - but that too would affect updated rows as well).
>Is there any standard solution or alternative for this problem ?
You might consider using a two-table approach: insert the new rows into
a staging table, create the reports off a complete table and create an
automated task that will move all new rows from the staging table to the
complete table every once in a while.
If it is crucial that your reports have up-to-the-second accuracy, this
won't be a good approach - but in that case, I guess you wouldn't want
the reports to bypass rows currently inserted either.
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)|||hi,
The following are the real time table and stored proc details:
if exists (select * from dbo.sysobjects where id =
object_id(N'[dbo].[Dummy]') and OBJECTPROPERTY(id, N'IsUserTable') = 1)
drop table [dbo].[Dummy]
GO
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Dummy] (
[pkey_id] [bigint] IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL ,
[index_id] [int] NULL ,
[intField1] [int] NULL ,
[strField1] [varchar] (50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS
NOT NULL ,
[intField2] [int] NULL ,
[intField3] [int] NULL ,
[intField4] [int] NOT NULL ,
[datetimeField] [datetime] NULL ,
[bitfield] [bit] NULL ,
[strField2] [varchar] (50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS
NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Dummy] WITH NOCHECK ADD
CONSTRAINT [PK_Dummy] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[pkey_id]
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
CREATE INDEX [IX_Dummy] ON [dbo].[Dummy]([index_id]) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
Test stored procedure for insert:
CREATE procedure prcMultiInserttoDummyTable (
@.indexid bigint=777,
@.TotalRows bigint =2000
)
as
Declare @.CurRow bigint
set @.CurRow=0
begin tran
While (@.CurRow < @.TotalRows)
Begin
Insert into Dummy (indexid,intField1,strField1,intField2,i
ntField3,
intField4, datetimeField, bitfield, strField2)
values(@.indexid,555,'test',10,0,168,'02/13/1998',0,'test stored proc insert'
)
set @.CurRow = @.CurRow +1
end
waitfor delay '00:00:20' -- wait to test the concurrent insertion and
selection
commit tran
Test select statements:
select * from dummy where indexid=123 -- filtered based on index
select * from dummy
select * from Dummy where intField1=245 - filtered based on non-index
"Hugo Kornelis" wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:26:07 -0700, Baskar wrote:
>
> Hi Baskar,
> I thought that was just an example made up on the fly, since there is no
> primary key or unique constraint, no unique index and no clustered
> index.
> Also, these details do not explain this behaviour:
>
> I'd really have to be able to run a repro script on my database that
> mimics this behaviour - i.e. do a BEGIN TRAN + INSERT in one connection
> but don't commit or rollback yet, then do a SELECT in another connection
> and check the results.
> If you can post INSERT and SELECT statements that reproduce this
> behaviour, I'll see if I can find the cause.
>
> That will be hard to do. Basically, you are asking SQL Server to
> distinguish between locks for newly inserted data and locks for updated
> data. This distinction is not available in SQL Server's architecture.
> (And for good reason, I think - what if I insert a row and then go on to
> update that same row, all in the same transaction? how to handle updates
> to the primary key column? etc etc)
>
> That's because the data is already in the database, it's just not yet
> confirmed (read: the transaction is not yet committed). SQL Server won't
> just pretend it's not there (unless you use READPAST - but that would
> affect updated rows as well); neither will SQL Server say that it IS
> there if there is still the possibility of a rollback (unless you use
> NOLOCK - but that too would affect updated rows as well).
>
> You might consider using a two-table approach: insert the new rows into
> a staging table, create the reports off a complete table and create an
> automated task that will move all new rows from the staging table to the
> complete table every once in a while.
> If it is crucial that your reports have up-to-the-second accuracy, this
> won't be a good approach - but in that case, I guess you wouldn't want
> the reports to bypass rows currently inserted either.
> Best, Hugo
> --
> (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)
>|||On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:34:07 -0700, Baskar wrote:
>hi,
>The following are the real time table and stored proc details:
(snip)
Hi Baskar,
My apologies for the delay in replying.
Thanks for the excellent repro script - I was able to reproduce the
problem you're having on my computer.
I was also able to find the reason. In your table, the column index_id
has an extremely low selectivity (in case you're unfamiliar with the
term, that means that the same values are repeated over and over again).
This makes an index on this column useless - if you run the queries
while no inserts are running and check the exectuion plan, you'll see
that a table scan is used in all three queries.
The reason that an index on this column is not used is a matter of cost
estimate. If the table has for instance 120,000 total rows, and 10,000
rows have the correct value in index_id, then the choice for the
optimizer is to:
a) scan the index to find the 10,000 matches very quickly, then do
10,000 individual bookmaark lookups to retrieve the complete information
for a total of 10,000 + some page reads - or
b) scan the full table; with probably 50 - 150 rows per page, this will
cost only 1200 page reads.
There are several ways that you can modify your script to see that SQL
Server won't wait when the index really is used:
1. Make sure that the index_id column is more selective. I modified the
stored procedure to set index_id to "@.indexid+@.CurRow", so that all
values in index_id would be different. The optimizer will now choose to
use the index for the first of the SELECT statements, and the data will
be returned while the insert proc is running (unless the proc also
inserts a new matching row, of course).
2. Change the query so that the index on index_id is covering:
SELECT pkey_id, index_id
FROM Dummy
WHERE index_id = 777
Now SQL Server won't have to do a bookmaark lookup since all columns
needed are included in the index pages. You'll see all matching rows
returned while another connection is busy inserting rows with a
different value for index_id.
3. Use an index hint to force the optimizer to use the index. Of course,
this will increase the cost of the query.
SELECT *
FROM Dummy (INDEX (IX_Dummy))
WHERE index_id=777
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)
. The select statement could have returned all other rows and select
statement on filter condition on non-index field that matches only the
existing records could also worked.
MS Access does not block select statement while Insert transaction is
running. The retrieved records from Access also does not contain any
uncommitted records.
But still, I am very surprised why SQL Server could not perform this
operation as MS Access could very well do.
And also one option that should not happen in our application in this
scenario is "Read uncommitted" option in SQL Server which retrieves the
uncommitted rows in the select.
Suggestions please !
"Uri Dimant" wrote:
> Baskar
> http://www.sql-server-performance.com/blocking.asp
> http://www.sql-server-performance.c...ucing_locks.asp
>
>
> "Baskar" <Baskar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:880BF5FF-E31F-4BA2-95B1-CDDE6C8616C8@.microsoft.com...
>
>On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:22:01 -0700, Baskar wrote:
(snip)
>MS Access does not block select statement while Insert transaction is
>running. The retrieved records from Access also does not contain any
>uncommitted records.
Hi Baskar,
There are two possible explanations for this.
#1. Access uses what's called "snapshot isolation" - this means that
changing data doesn't block others from retrieving it, but will show the
others the "before change" image of the data. You don't see data that is
inserted in an uncommitted transaction, you still see rows that have
been deleted in an uncommitted transaction and for rows that are updated
in an uncommitted transaction, you see the values as they were before
the update.
Snapshot isolation is supported in Oracle. I've read that it will also
be supported by SQL Server 2005.
Frankly, I don;t think that Access supports snapshot isolation. I prefer
my explanation #2:
#2: Access is buggy. If a row is inserted in an uncommitted transaction,
it won't be shown - but if a row is deleted in the same uncomitted
transaction, then that row won't show either.
Why is this behaviour buggy? Well, consider this simple example: one Mr.
B. Gates enter the bank and says he wants to change his account number.
Since Account# is the primary key, the row with the old account# has to
be deleted, and a new row inserted. Before this transaction is
committed, the accountant runs a query to check the totals. And all hell
breaks loose, because suddenly a few billion dollars have gone missing!
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)|||hi,
The concurrent select while insert does not work sometimes even when the
select query is based on an index-field. This happens when there are more
records (say 3000) in the table and it works when there are less records
(<250).
Also, SQL Server restricts the select / update operations during insert even
when the insert and select / update are working on different data. Is this
the supposed behavior in SQL Server ?
Are there any work around or alternative solution for this problem ?
Regards
Baskar
"Hugo Kornelis" wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:22:01 -0700, Baskar wrote:
> (snip)
> Hi Baskar,
> There are two possible explanations for this.
> #1. Access uses what's called "snapshot isolation" - this means that
> changing data doesn't block others from retrieving it, but will show the
> others the "before change" image of the data. You don't see data that is
> inserted in an uncommitted transaction, you still see rows that have
> been deleted in an uncommitted transaction and for rows that are updated
> in an uncommitted transaction, you see the values as they were before
> the update.
> Snapshot isolation is supported in Oracle. I've read that it will also
> be supported by SQL Server 2005.
> Frankly, I don;t think that Access supports snapshot isolation. I prefer
> my explanation #2:
> #2: Access is buggy. If a row is inserted in an uncommitted transaction,
> it won't be shown - but if a row is deleted in the same uncomitted
> transaction, then that row won't show either.
> Why is this behaviour buggy? Well, consider this simple example: one Mr.
> B. Gates enter the bank and says he wants to change his account number.
> Since Account# is the primary key, the row with the old account# has to
> be deleted, and a new row inserted. Before this transaction is
> committed, the accountant runs a query to check the totals. And all hell
> breaks loose, because suddenly a few billion dollars have gone missing!
> Best, Hugo
> --
> (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)
Our application need to be able to concurrently insert and select from the
same table irrespective of the data.
But, the following issue has been found in the sql server 2000.
Initially , the insert statements (around 1000 rows) for a table is executed
in a transaction inside a stored procedure.
like:
"Insert into Test (pkey,field1,field2,strfield) values
(1400,1144,12025,'test sp insert 2')"
and simultaneously a select statement to retrieve all records from the same
table is executed in the query analyzer. Then the select statement waits
until the insert operation completes.
"select * from Test"
But, if a select statement that filters the data based on the index fields
is used, then it executes without delay.
select * from test where pkey=2000 and field1=1111
(Index: pkey and field1 combination) Suppose if the filter condition
includes the data that is being inserted, then also it is blocked.
In SQL Server 2000, whether it is possible to avoid the blocking of select
statement while insert.
Note that the insert statement is executed in the default isolation level of
sql server 2000.
In MS Access, concurrent inserts and select works without any issue.
Table and Index references:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Test] (
[pkey] [bigint] NOT NULL ,
[field1] [bigint] NOT NULL ,
[field2] [int] NULL ,
[strfield] [varchar] (50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
CREATE INDEX [IX_Test] ON [dbo].[Test]([field1], [pkey]) ON [PRIMARY]
>|||X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@.supernews.com
Lines: 55
Path: TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1
.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-12!sn-xit-09!sn-post-
01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
Xref: TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming:546663
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:49:04 -0700, Baskar wrote:
>The concurrent select while insert does not work sometimes even when the
>select query is based on an index-field. This happens when there are more
>records (say 3000) in the table and it works when there are less records
>(<250).
Hi Baskar,
Even after rereading the thread, I don't get the exact picture of what
you are doing. It would help tremendously if you could post some SQL
statements that I can run to reproduce this behaviour on my test
database. I'd need CREATE TABLE statements to set up the table, INSERT
statements for some sample starting data, then the INSERT and SELECT
statements to run concurrently.
It's much easier to comment what I can see!
>Also, SQL Server restricts the select / update operations during insert eve
n
>when the insert and select / update are working on different data. Is this
>the supposed behavior in SQL Server ?
That depends on a lot of factors. Again, I'd have to see the code in
order to comment.
>Are there any work around or alternative solution for this problem ?
Default locking behaviour is to block conflicting requests: if a
connection attempts to do something with locked data, it'll have to wait
until the lock is released. You can override this default behaviour with
one of the following locking hints:
* WITH (NOLOCK) -- specifies that no shared locks are taken, and that
existing locks are disregarded. The consequence of this is known as
"dirty reads" - data that has been updated, but not yet committed and
possibly not even yet changed. The change might be rolled back later; in
that case, your query has returned data that never really existed in the
database.
Setting the transaction isolation level to READ UNCOMMITTED is
equivalent to specifying WITH (NOLOCK) on all queries.
* WITH (READPAST) -- specifies that locked data should be skipped; if
some rows in the table are locked, your query won't wait, but will
return a result set without any data for those rows (as if they don't
exist at all). Applies only to row-level locks, and won't work if your
transaction isolation level is anything other than READ COMMITTED (the
default).
Note that these locking hints will only affect read operations. For any
data modification, the locking can't be bypassed.
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)|||hi,
The table details are available in the first thread of this question.
Basically, our application need to allow users to download data (insert
statements) and concurrently users should be able to work with the reports
(select statements).
Also, "With ReadPast" option will work for fetching records while insert.
But it will not fetch records that are locked because of update. This
behavior could not be acceptable for our application.
According to the SQL Server documentation, data that is being updated only
will be locked and insertion of data will lock only the specific data and no
t
others. But, select statement is blocked even when tried to retrieve the dat
a
which is not being inserted.
Is there any standard solution or alternative for this problem ?
Regards
Baskar
"Hugo Kornelis" wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:49:04 -0700, Baskar wrote:
>
> Hi Baskar,
> Even after rereading the thread, I don't get the exact picture of what
> you are doing. It would help tremendously if you could post some SQL
> statements that I can run to reproduce this behaviour on my test
> database. I'd need CREATE TABLE statements to set up the table, INSERT
> statements for some sample starting data, then the INSERT and SELECT
> statements to run concurrently.
> It's much easier to comment what I can see!
>
> That depends on a lot of factors. Again, I'd have to see the code in
> order to comment.
>
> Default locking behaviour is to block conflicting requests: if a
> connection attempts to do something with locked data, it'll have to wait
> until the lock is released. You can override this default behaviour with
> one of the following locking hints:
> * WITH (NOLOCK) -- specifies that no shared locks are taken, and that
> existing locks are disregarded. The consequence of this is known as
> "dirty reads" - data that has been updated, but not yet committed and
> possibly not even yet changed. The change might be rolled back later; in
> that case, your query has returned data that never really existed in the
> database.
> Setting the transaction isolation level to READ UNCOMMITTED is
> equivalent to specifying WITH (NOLOCK) on all queries.
> * WITH (READPAST) -- specifies that locked data should be skipped; if
> some rows in the table are locked, your query won't wait, but will
> return a result set without any data for those rows (as if they don't
> exist at all). Applies only to row-level locks, and won't work if your
> transaction isolation level is anything other than READ COMMITTED (the
> default).
> Note that these locking hints will only affect read operations. For any
> data modification, the locking can't be bypassed.
> Best, Hugo
> --
> (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)
>|||On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:26:07 -0700, Baskar wrote:
>The table details are available in the first thread of this question.
Hi Baskar,
I thought that was just an example made up on the fly, since there is no
primary key or unique constraint, no unique index and no clustered
index.
Also, these details do not explain this behaviour:
I'd really have to be able to run a repro script on my database that
mimics this behaviour - i.e. do a BEGIN TRAN + INSERT in one connection
but don't commit or rollback yet, then do a SELECT in another connection
and check the results.
If you can post INSERT and SELECT statements that reproduce this
behaviour, I'll see if I can find the cause.
>Basically, our application need to allow users to download data (insert
>statements) and concurrently users should be able to work with the reports
>(select statements).
>Also, "With ReadPast" option will work for fetching records while insert.
>But it will not fetch records that are locked because of update. This
>behavior could not be acceptable for our application.
That will be hard to do. Basically, you are asking SQL Server to
distinguish between locks for newly inserted data and locks for updated
data. This distinction is not available in SQL Server's architecture.
(And for good reason, I think - what if I insert a row and then go on to
update that same row, all in the same transaction? how to handle updates
to the primary key column? etc etc)
>According to the SQL Server documentation, data that is being updated only
>will be locked and insertion of data will lock only the specific data and n
ot
>others. But, select statement is blocked even when tried to retrieve the da
ta
>which is not being inserted.
That's because the data is already in the database, it's just not yet
confirmed (read: the transaction is not yet committed). SQL Server won't
just pretend it's not there (unless you use READPAST - but that would
affect updated rows as well); neither will SQL Server say that it IS
there if there is still the possibility of a rollback (unless you use
NOLOCK - but that too would affect updated rows as well).
>Is there any standard solution or alternative for this problem ?
You might consider using a two-table approach: insert the new rows into
a staging table, create the reports off a complete table and create an
automated task that will move all new rows from the staging table to the
complete table every once in a while.
If it is crucial that your reports have up-to-the-second accuracy, this
won't be a good approach - but in that case, I guess you wouldn't want
the reports to bypass rows currently inserted either.
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)|||hi,
The following are the real time table and stored proc details:
if exists (select * from dbo.sysobjects where id =
object_id(N'[dbo].[Dummy]') and OBJECTPROPERTY(id, N'IsUserTable') = 1)
drop table [dbo].[Dummy]
GO
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Dummy] (
[pkey_id] [bigint] IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL ,
[index_id] [int] NULL ,
[intField1] [int] NULL ,
[strField1] [varchar] (50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS
NOT NULL ,
[intField2] [int] NULL ,
[intField3] [int] NULL ,
[intField4] [int] NOT NULL ,
[datetimeField] [datetime] NULL ,
[bitfield] [bit] NULL ,
[strField2] [varchar] (50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS
NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Dummy] WITH NOCHECK ADD
CONSTRAINT [PK_Dummy] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[pkey_id]
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
CREATE INDEX [IX_Dummy] ON [dbo].[Dummy]([index_id]) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
Test stored procedure for insert:
CREATE procedure prcMultiInserttoDummyTable (
@.indexid bigint=777,
@.TotalRows bigint =2000
)
as
Declare @.CurRow bigint
set @.CurRow=0
begin tran
While (@.CurRow < @.TotalRows)
Begin
Insert into Dummy (indexid,intField1,strField1,intField2,i
ntField3,
intField4, datetimeField, bitfield, strField2)
values(@.indexid,555,'test',10,0,168,'02/13/1998',0,'test stored proc insert'
)
set @.CurRow = @.CurRow +1
end
waitfor delay '00:00:20' -- wait to test the concurrent insertion and
selection
commit tran
Test select statements:
select * from dummy where indexid=123 -- filtered based on index
select * from dummy
select * from Dummy where intField1=245 - filtered based on non-index
"Hugo Kornelis" wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:26:07 -0700, Baskar wrote:
>
> Hi Baskar,
> I thought that was just an example made up on the fly, since there is no
> primary key or unique constraint, no unique index and no clustered
> index.
> Also, these details do not explain this behaviour:
>
> I'd really have to be able to run a repro script on my database that
> mimics this behaviour - i.e. do a BEGIN TRAN + INSERT in one connection
> but don't commit or rollback yet, then do a SELECT in another connection
> and check the results.
> If you can post INSERT and SELECT statements that reproduce this
> behaviour, I'll see if I can find the cause.
>
> That will be hard to do. Basically, you are asking SQL Server to
> distinguish between locks for newly inserted data and locks for updated
> data. This distinction is not available in SQL Server's architecture.
> (And for good reason, I think - what if I insert a row and then go on to
> update that same row, all in the same transaction? how to handle updates
> to the primary key column? etc etc)
>
> That's because the data is already in the database, it's just not yet
> confirmed (read: the transaction is not yet committed). SQL Server won't
> just pretend it's not there (unless you use READPAST - but that would
> affect updated rows as well); neither will SQL Server say that it IS
> there if there is still the possibility of a rollback (unless you use
> NOLOCK - but that too would affect updated rows as well).
>
> You might consider using a two-table approach: insert the new rows into
> a staging table, create the reports off a complete table and create an
> automated task that will move all new rows from the staging table to the
> complete table every once in a while.
> If it is crucial that your reports have up-to-the-second accuracy, this
> won't be a good approach - but in that case, I guess you wouldn't want
> the reports to bypass rows currently inserted either.
> Best, Hugo
> --
> (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)
>|||On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:34:07 -0700, Baskar wrote:
>hi,
>The following are the real time table and stored proc details:
(snip)
Hi Baskar,
My apologies for the delay in replying.
Thanks for the excellent repro script - I was able to reproduce the
problem you're having on my computer.
I was also able to find the reason. In your table, the column index_id
has an extremely low selectivity (in case you're unfamiliar with the
term, that means that the same values are repeated over and over again).
This makes an index on this column useless - if you run the queries
while no inserts are running and check the exectuion plan, you'll see
that a table scan is used in all three queries.
The reason that an index on this column is not used is a matter of cost
estimate. If the table has for instance 120,000 total rows, and 10,000
rows have the correct value in index_id, then the choice for the
optimizer is to:
a) scan the index to find the 10,000 matches very quickly, then do
10,000 individual bookmaark lookups to retrieve the complete information
for a total of 10,000 + some page reads - or
b) scan the full table; with probably 50 - 150 rows per page, this will
cost only 1200 page reads.
There are several ways that you can modify your script to see that SQL
Server won't wait when the index really is used:
1. Make sure that the index_id column is more selective. I modified the
stored procedure to set index_id to "@.indexid+@.CurRow", so that all
values in index_id would be different. The optimizer will now choose to
use the index for the first of the SELECT statements, and the data will
be returned while the insert proc is running (unless the proc also
inserts a new matching row, of course).
2. Change the query so that the index on index_id is covering:
SELECT pkey_id, index_id
FROM Dummy
WHERE index_id = 777
Now SQL Server won't have to do a bookmaark lookup since all columns
needed are included in the index pages. You'll see all matching rows
returned while another connection is busy inserting rows with a
different value for index_id.
3. Use an index hint to force the optimizer to use the index. Of course,
this will increase the cost of the query.
SELECT *
FROM Dummy (INDEX (IX_Dummy))
WHERE index_id=777
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)
Concurrent query problem
hello,
I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
informations:
Event Type: Information
Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
Event Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Date: 22.04.2004
Time: 15:01:12
User: N/A
Computer: ***
Description:
17052 :
This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit has
been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
Data:
0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 B.....
0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
can someone help me please?
Thank you
Milani Omar
You are running either MSDE or Personal Edition and have hit the roof of that edition. I.e., the performance
throttling has kicked in. This is a good indication that you want to move to Standard or Enterprise Edition.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit has
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 oB.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
|||You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
to a server version of SQL Server.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
hello,
I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
informations:
Event Type: Information
Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
Event Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Date: 22.04.2004
Time: 15:01:12
User: N/A
Computer: ***
Description:
17052 :
This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit has
been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
Data:
0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 B.....
0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
can someone help me please?
Thank you
Milani Omar
|||Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
> when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
> out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
> to a server version of SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
has
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 B.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
|||Run:
select serverproperty ('Edition')
and post the results.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
> when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
> out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
> to a server version of SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
has
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 B.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
|||Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can[vbcol=seagreen]
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
degrades[vbcol=seagreen]
space[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrade
> has
>
|||Why didn't you run the query I gave you?
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:eN3PbxHKEHA.2452@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can[vbcol=seagreen]
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
degrades[vbcol=seagreen]
space[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrade
> has
>
|||result:
Personal Edition
Sorry, how can I upgrade it to the standard edition?
What is the difference between the Standard and Enterprise edition?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can[vbcol=seagreen]
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
degrades[vbcol=seagreen]
space[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrade
> has
>
|||http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...skChooseEd.asp
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message news:%23BtmUOIKEHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> result:
> Personal Edition
> Sorry, how can I upgrade it to the standard edition?
> What is the difference between the Standard and Enterprise edition?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> can
> degrades
> space
> upgrade
>
|||Hello,
how can I upgrade it to standard edition. We have buyed bevore the license
for satandard edition but I have installed the pro edition erroneously.
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> ha
scritto nel messaggio news:OxiUrhIKEHA.2580@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...skChooseEd.asp
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:%23BtmUOIKEHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
How[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
limit[vbcol=seagreen]
affected.
>
I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
informations:
Event Type: Information
Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
Event Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Date: 22.04.2004
Time: 15:01:12
User: N/A
Computer: ***
Description:
17052 :
This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit has
been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
Data:
0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 B.....
0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
can someone help me please?
Thank you
Milani Omar
You are running either MSDE or Personal Edition and have hit the roof of that edition. I.e., the performance
throttling has kicked in. This is a good indication that you want to move to Standard or Enterprise Edition.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit has
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 oB.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
|||You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
to a server version of SQL Server.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
hello,
I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
informations:
Event Type: Information
Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
Event Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Date: 22.04.2004
Time: 15:01:12
User: N/A
Computer: ***
Description:
17052 :
This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit has
been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
Data:
0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 B.....
0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
can someone help me please?
Thank you
Milani Omar
|||Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
> when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
> out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
> to a server version of SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
has
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 B.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
|||Run:
select serverproperty ('Edition')
and post the results.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
> when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
> out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
> to a server version of SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
has
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 B.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
|||Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can[vbcol=seagreen]
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
degrades[vbcol=seagreen]
space[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrade
> has
>
|||Why didn't you run the query I gave you?
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:eN3PbxHKEHA.2452@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can[vbcol=seagreen]
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
degrades[vbcol=seagreen]
space[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrade
> has
>
|||result:
Personal Edition
Sorry, how can I upgrade it to the standard edition?
What is the difference between the Standard and Enterprise edition?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can[vbcol=seagreen]
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
degrades[vbcol=seagreen]
space[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrade
> has
>
|||http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...skChooseEd.asp
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message news:%23BtmUOIKEHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> result:
> Personal Edition
> Sorry, how can I upgrade it to the standard edition?
> What is the difference between the Standard and Enterprise edition?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> can
> degrades
> space
> upgrade
>
|||Hello,
how can I upgrade it to standard edition. We have buyed bevore the license
for satandard edition but I have installed the pro edition erroneously.
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> ha
scritto nel messaggio news:OxiUrhIKEHA.2580@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...skChooseEd.asp
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:%23BtmUOIKEHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
How[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
limit[vbcol=seagreen]
affected.
>
Concurrent query problem
hello,
I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
informations:
Event Type: Information
Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
Event Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Date: 22.04.2004
Time: 15:01:12
User: N/A
Computer: ***
Description:
17052 :
This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit has
been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
Data:
0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 B.....
0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
can someone help me please?
Thank you
Milani OmarYou are running either MSDE or Personal Edition and have hit the roof of tha
t edition. I.e., the performance
throttling has kicked in. This is a good indication that you want to move to
Standard or Enterprise Edition.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[v
bcol=seagreen]
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit ha
s
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 oB.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>[/vbcol]|||You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
to a server version of SQL Server.
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
hello,
I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
informations:
Event Type: Information
Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
Event Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Date: 22.04.2004
Time: 15:01:12
User: N/A
Computer: ***
Description:
17052 :
This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit has
been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
Data:
0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 B.....
0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
can someone help me please?
Thank you
Milani Omar|||Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
> when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
> out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
> to a server version of SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
has
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 B.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>|||Run:
select serverproperty ('Edition')
and post the results.
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
> when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
> out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
> to a server version of SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
has
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 B.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>|||Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
degrades[vbcol=seagreen]
space[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrade[vbcol=seagreen]
> has
>|||Why didn't you run the query I gave you?
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:eN3PbxHKEHA.2452@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
degrades[vbcol=seagreen]
space[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrade[vbcol=seagreen]
> has
>|||result:
Personal Edition
Sorry, how can I upgrade it to the standard edition?
What is the difference between the Standard and Enterprise edition?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
degrades[vbcol=seagreen]
space[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrade[vbcol=seagreen]
> has
>|||http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...eskChooseEd.asp
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message news:%23BtmUOIKEHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> result:
> Personal Edition
> Sorry, how can I upgrade it to the standard edition?
> What is the difference between the Standard and Enterprise edition?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> can
> degrades
> space
> upgrade
>|||Hello,
how can I upgrade it to standard edition. We have buyed bevore the license
for satandard edition but I have installed the pro edition erroneously.
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> ha
scritto nel messaggio news:OxiUrhIKEHA.2580@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...eskChooseEd.asp
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:%23BtmUOIKEHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
How[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
limit[vbcol=seagreen]
affected.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
informations:
Event Type: Information
Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
Event Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Date: 22.04.2004
Time: 15:01:12
User: N/A
Computer: ***
Description:
17052 :
This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit has
been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
Data:
0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 B.....
0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
can someone help me please?
Thank you
Milani OmarYou are running either MSDE or Personal Edition and have hit the roof of tha
t edition. I.e., the performance
throttling has kicked in. This is a good indication that you want to move to
Standard or Enterprise Edition.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[v
bcol=seagreen]
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit ha
s
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 oB.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>[/vbcol]|||You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
to a server version of SQL Server.
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
hello,
I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
informations:
Event Type: Information
Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
Event Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Date: 22.04.2004
Time: 15:01:12
User: N/A
Computer: ***
Description:
17052 :
This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit has
been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
Data:
0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 B.....
0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
can someone help me please?
Thank you
Milani Omar|||Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
> when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
> out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
> to a server version of SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
has
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 B.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>|||Run:
select serverproperty ('Edition')
and post the results.
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
> when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
> out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
> to a server version of SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
has
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 B.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>|||Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
degrades[vbcol=seagreen]
space[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrade[vbcol=seagreen]
> has
>|||Why didn't you run the query I gave you?
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:eN3PbxHKEHA.2452@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
degrades[vbcol=seagreen]
space[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrade[vbcol=seagreen]
> has
>|||result:
Personal Edition
Sorry, how can I upgrade it to the standard edition?
What is the difference between the Standard and Enterprise edition?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
degrades[vbcol=seagreen]
space[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrade[vbcol=seagreen]
> has
>|||http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...eskChooseEd.asp
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message news:%23BtmUOIKEHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> result:
> Personal Edition
> Sorry, how can I upgrade it to the standard edition?
> What is the difference between the Standard and Enterprise edition?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> can
> degrades
> space
> upgrade
>|||Hello,
how can I upgrade it to standard edition. We have buyed bevore the license
for satandard edition but I have installed the pro edition erroneously.
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> ha
scritto nel messaggio news:OxiUrhIKEHA.2580@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...eskChooseEd.asp
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:%23BtmUOIKEHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
How[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
limit[vbcol=seagreen]
affected.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
Concurrent query problem
hello,
I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
informations:
--
Event Type: Information
Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
Event Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Date: 22.04.2004
Time: 15:01:12
User: N/A
Computer: ***
Description:
17052 :
This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit has
been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
Data:
0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 ?B.....
0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
--
can someone help me please?
Thank you
Milani OmarYou are running either MSDE or Personal Edition and have hit the roof of that edition. I.e., the performance
throttling has kicked in. This is a good indication that you want to move to Standard or Enterprise Edition.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit has
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 oB.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>|||You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
to a server version of SQL Server.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
hello,
I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
informations:
--
Event Type: Information
Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
Event Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Date: 22.04.2004
Time: 15:01:12
User: N/A
Computer: ***
Description:
17052 :
This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit has
been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
Data:
0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 ?B.....
0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
--
can someone help me please?
Thank you
Milani Omar|||Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
> when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
> out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
> to a server version of SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
has
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 ?B.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>|||Run:
select serverproperty ('Edition')
and post the results.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
> when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
> out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
> to a server version of SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
has
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 ?B.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>|||Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> > been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance
degrades
> > when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can
space
> > out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can
upgrade
> > to a server version of SQL Server.
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ---
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> >
> >
> > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > hello,
> > I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> > sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> > informations:
> >
> > --
> >
> > Event Type: Information
> > Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> > Event Category: (2)
> > Event ID: 17055
> > Date: 22.04.2004
> > Time: 15:01:12
> > User: N/A
> > Computer: ***
> > Description:
> > 17052 :
> > This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
> has
> > been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> >
> > Data:
> > 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 ?B.....
> > 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> > 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> > 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> > 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> >
> > --
> >
> > can someone help me please?
> >
> > Thank you
> > Milani Omar
> >
> >
> >
>|||Why didn't you run the query I gave you?
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:eN3PbxHKEHA.2452@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> > been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance
degrades
> > when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can
space
> > out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can
upgrade
> > to a server version of SQL Server.
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ---
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> >
> >
> > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > hello,
> > I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> > sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> > informations:
> >
> > --
> >
> > Event Type: Information
> > Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> > Event Category: (2)
> > Event ID: 17055
> > Date: 22.04.2004
> > Time: 15:01:12
> > User: N/A
> > Computer: ***
> > Description:
> > 17052 :
> > This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
> has
> > been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> >
> > Data:
> > 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 ?B.....
> > 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> > 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> > 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> > 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> >
> > --
> >
> > can someone help me please?
> >
> > Thank you
> > Milani Omar
> >
> >
> >
>|||result:
Personal Edition
Sorry, how can I upgrade it to the standard edition?
What is the difference between the Standard and Enterprise edition?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> > been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance
degrades
> > when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can
space
> > out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can
upgrade
> > to a server version of SQL Server.
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ---
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> >
> >
> > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > hello,
> > I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> > sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> > informations:
> >
> > --
> >
> > Event Type: Information
> > Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> > Event Category: (2)
> > Event ID: 17055
> > Date: 22.04.2004
> > Time: 15:01:12
> > User: N/A
> > Computer: ***
> > Description:
> > 17052 :
> > This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
> has
> > been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> >
> > Data:
> > 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 ?B.....
> > 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> > 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> > 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> > 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> >
> > --
> >
> > can someone help me please?
> >
> > Thank you
> > Milani Omar
> >
> >
> >
>|||http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.asp
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message news:%23BtmUOIKEHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> result:
> Personal Edition
> Sorry, how can I upgrade it to the standard edition?
> What is the difference between the Standard and Enterprise edition?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Run:
> >
> > select serverproperty ('Edition')
> >
> > and post the results.
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ---
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> >
> >
> > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Hello,
> > I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
> can
> > I see witch version I'm running?
> >
> >
> > Thank you
> > Milani Omar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> > > been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance
> degrades
> > > when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can
> space
> > > out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can
> upgrade
> > > to a server version of SQL Server.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > > Toronto, ON Canada
> > > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> > >
> > >
> > > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > > news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > hello,
> > > I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> > > sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> > > informations:
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Event Type: Information
> > > Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> > > Event Category: (2)
> > > Event ID: 17055
> > > Date: 22.04.2004
> > > Time: 15:01:12
> > > User: N/A
> > > Computer: ***
> > > Description:
> > > 17052 :
> > > This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
> > has
> > > been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> > >
> > > Data:
> > > 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 oB.....
> > > 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> > > 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> > > 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> > > 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > can someone help me please?
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > > Milani Omar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Hello,
how can I upgrade it to standard edition. We have buyed bevore the license
for satandard edition but I have installed the pro edition erroneously.
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> ha
scritto nel messaggio news:OxiUrhIKEHA.2580@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.asp
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:%23BtmUOIKEHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > result:
> > Personal Edition
> >
> > Sorry, how can I upgrade it to the standard edition?
> >
> > What is the difference between the Standard and Enterprise edition?
> >
> > Thank you
> > Milani Omar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > Run:
> > >
> > > select serverproperty ('Edition')
> > >
> > > and post the results.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > > Toronto, ON Canada
> > > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> > >
> > >
> > > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > > news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > Hello,
> > > I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure.
How
> > can
> > > I see witch version I'm running?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > > Milani Omar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These
have
> > > > been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance
> > degrades
> > > > when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can
> > space
> > > > out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can
> > upgrade
> > > > to a server version of SQL Server.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > > > SQL Server MVP
> > > > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > > > Toronto, ON Canada
> > > > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > > > news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > hello,
> > > > I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> > > > sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king
of
> > > > informations:
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Event Type: Information
> > > > Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> > > > Event Category: (2)
> > > > Event ID: 17055
> > > > Date: 22.04.2004
> > > > Time: 15:01:12
> > > > User: N/A
> > > > Computer: ***
> > > > Description:
> > > > 17052 :
> > > > This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This
limit
> > > has
> > > > been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely
affected.
> > > >
> > > > Data:
> > > > 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 oB.....
> > > > 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> > > > 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> > > > 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> > > > 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > can someone help me please?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you
> > > > Milani Omar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Milani,
SQL2000 personal edition can be upgraded to SQL2000 standard edition.Refer
the below snippet from BooksOnLine topic 'Upgrading an Existing Installation
of SQL Server' for the upgrade procedure:
<begin quote>
How to perform an edition upgrade within SQL Server 2000 (Setup)
To upgrade a SQL Server 2000 installation to a different edition of SQL
Server 2000
1.. Insert the Microsoft® SQL Server 2000T compact disc for the edition
you want to install into your CD-ROM drive. If the compact disc does not
autorun, double-click Autorun.exe in the root directory of the compact disc.
2.. Select SQL Server 2000 Components, select Install Database Server, and
then setup prepares the SQL Server Installation Wizard. At the Welcome
screen, click Next.
3.. In Computer Name dialog box, select Local Computer or Remote computer.
4.. In the Installation Selection dialog box, click Upgrade, Remove, or
Add Components to an existing instance of SQL Server, and then click Next.
5.. In the Instance Name dialog box, click Next.
6.. In the Existing Installation dialog box, click Upgrade your existing
installation, and then click Next.
7.. If Setup detects that you are doing an edition upgrade, the Upgrade
dialog box appears. Click Yes, Upgrade my <text specific to the upgrade> to
upgrade the feature set of your current installation, and click Next.
8.. After the upgrade is completed, you are prompted as to whether you
want to install additional components. If you click Yes, the Select
Components dialog box appears. Accept the defaults or select the additional
components you want to install, and then click Next.
You can select an item in the Components list, and then select items from
the related Sub-Components list. Click to select items you want to install;
clear the check box of the items you do not want to install.
9.. When you are finished specifying options, in the Start Copying Files
dialog box, click Next.
10.. In the Setup Complete dialog box, click Yes, I want to restart my
computer now, and then click Finish to complete the edition upgrade.
<end quote>
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:#bGzToIKEHA.1272@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> how can I upgrade it to standard edition. We have buyed bevore the license
> for satandard edition but I have installed the pro edition erroneously.
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> ha
> scritto nel messaggio news:OxiUrhIKEHA.2580@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.asp
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >
> >
> > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:%23BtmUOIKEHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > result:
> > > Personal Edition
> > >
> > > Sorry, how can I upgrade it to the standard edition?
> > >
> > > What is the difference between the Standard and Enterprise edition?
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > > Milani Omar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > Run:
> > > >
> > > > select serverproperty ('Edition')
> > > >
> > > > and post the results.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > > > SQL Server MVP
> > > > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > > > Toronto, ON Canada
> > > > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > > > news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > > Hello,
> > > > I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure.
> How
> > > can
> > > > I see witch version I'm running?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you
> > > > Milani Omar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > > news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional.
These
> have
> > > > > been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance
> > > degrades
> > > > > when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you
can
> > > space
> > > > > out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can
> > > upgrade
> > > > > to a server version of SQL Server.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Tom
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > > > > SQL Server MVP
> > > > > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > > > > Toronto, ON Canada
> > > > > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > > > > news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > hello,
> > > > > I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> > > > > sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this
king
> of
> > > > > informations:
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Event Type: Information
> > > > > Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> > > > > Event Category: (2)
> > > > > Event ID: 17055
> > > > > Date: 22.04.2004
> > > > > Time: 15:01:12
> > > > > User: N/A
> > > > > Computer: ***
> > > > > Description:
> > > > > 17052 :
> > > > > This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This
> limit
> > > > has
> > > > > been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely
> affected.
> > > > >
> > > > > Data:
> > > > > 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 oB.....
> > > > > 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> > > > > 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> > > > > 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> > > > > 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > can someone help me please?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you
> > > > > Milani Omar
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
informations:
--
Event Type: Information
Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
Event Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Date: 22.04.2004
Time: 15:01:12
User: N/A
Computer: ***
Description:
17052 :
This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit has
been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
Data:
0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 ?B.....
0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
--
can someone help me please?
Thank you
Milani OmarYou are running either MSDE or Personal Edition and have hit the roof of that edition. I.e., the performance
throttling has kicked in. This is a good indication that you want to move to Standard or Enterprise Edition.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit has
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 oB.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>|||You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
to a server version of SQL Server.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
hello,
I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
informations:
--
Event Type: Information
Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
Event Category: (2)
Event ID: 17055
Date: 22.04.2004
Time: 15:01:12
User: N/A
Computer: ***
Description:
17052 :
This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit has
been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
Data:
0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 ?B.....
0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
--
can someone help me please?
Thank you
Milani Omar|||Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
> when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
> out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
> to a server version of SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
has
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 ?B.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>|||Run:
select serverproperty ('Edition')
and post the results.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance degrades
> when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can space
> out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can upgrade
> to a server version of SQL Server.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> hello,
> I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> informations:
> --
> Event Type: Information
> Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> Event Category: (2)
> Event ID: 17055
> Date: 22.04.2004
> Time: 15:01:12
> User: N/A
> Computer: ***
> Description:
> 17052 :
> This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
has
> been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> Data:
> 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 ?B.....
> 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> --
> can someone help me please?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>|||Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> > been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance
degrades
> > when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can
space
> > out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can
upgrade
> > to a server version of SQL Server.
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ---
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> >
> >
> > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > hello,
> > I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> > sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> > informations:
> >
> > --
> >
> > Event Type: Information
> > Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> > Event Category: (2)
> > Event ID: 17055
> > Date: 22.04.2004
> > Time: 15:01:12
> > User: N/A
> > Computer: ***
> > Description:
> > 17052 :
> > This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
> has
> > been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> >
> > Data:
> > 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 ?B.....
> > 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> > 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> > 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> > 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> >
> > --
> >
> > can someone help me please?
> >
> > Thank you
> > Milani Omar
> >
> >
> >
>|||Why didn't you run the query I gave you?
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:eN3PbxHKEHA.2452@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Hello,
I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How can
I see witch version I'm running?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> > been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance
degrades
> > when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can
space
> > out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can
upgrade
> > to a server version of SQL Server.
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ---
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> >
> >
> > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > hello,
> > I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> > sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> > informations:
> >
> > --
> >
> > Event Type: Information
> > Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> > Event Category: (2)
> > Event ID: 17055
> > Date: 22.04.2004
> > Time: 15:01:12
> > User: N/A
> > Computer: ***
> > Description:
> > 17052 :
> > This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
> has
> > been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> >
> > Data:
> > 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 ?B.....
> > 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> > 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> > 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> > 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> >
> > --
> >
> > can someone help me please?
> >
> > Thank you
> > Milani Omar
> >
> >
> >
>|||result:
Personal Edition
Sorry, how can I upgrade it to the standard edition?
What is the difference between the Standard and Enterprise edition?
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Run:
> select serverproperty ('Edition')
> and post the results.
> --
> Tom
> ---
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> Toronto, ON Canada
> www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
can
> I see witch version I'm running?
>
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> > been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance
degrades
> > when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can
space
> > out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can
upgrade
> > to a server version of SQL Server.
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ---
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> >
> >
> > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > hello,
> > I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> > sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> > informations:
> >
> > --
> >
> > Event Type: Information
> > Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> > Event Category: (2)
> > Event ID: 17055
> > Date: 22.04.2004
> > Time: 15:01:12
> > User: N/A
> > Computer: ***
> > Description:
> > 17052 :
> > This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
> has
> > been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> >
> > Data:
> > 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 ?B.....
> > 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> > 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> > 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> > 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> >
> > --
> >
> > can someone help me please?
> >
> > Thank you
> > Milani Omar
> >
> >
> >
>|||http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.asp
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message news:%23BtmUOIKEHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> result:
> Personal Edition
> Sorry, how can I upgrade it to the standard edition?
> What is the difference between the Standard and Enterprise edition?
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
> "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Run:
> >
> > select serverproperty ('Edition')
> >
> > and post the results.
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ---
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> >
> >
> > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Hello,
> > I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure. How
> can
> > I see witch version I'm running?
> >
> >
> > Thank you
> > Milani Omar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These have
> > > been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance
> degrades
> > > when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can
> space
> > > out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can
> upgrade
> > > to a server version of SQL Server.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > > Toronto, ON Canada
> > > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> > >
> > >
> > > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > > news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > hello,
> > > I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> > > sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king of
> > > informations:
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Event Type: Information
> > > Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> > > Event Category: (2)
> > > Event ID: 17055
> > > Date: 22.04.2004
> > > Time: 15:01:12
> > > User: N/A
> > > Computer: ***
> > > Description:
> > > 17052 :
> > > This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This limit
> > has
> > > been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely affected.
> > >
> > > Data:
> > > 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 oB.....
> > > 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> > > 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> > > 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> > > 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > can someone help me please?
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > > Milani Omar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Hello,
how can I upgrade it to standard edition. We have buyed bevore the license
for satandard edition but I have installed the pro edition erroneously.
Thank you
Milani Omar
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> ha
scritto nel messaggio news:OxiUrhIKEHA.2580@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.asp
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>
> "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:%23BtmUOIKEHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > result:
> > Personal Edition
> >
> > Sorry, how can I upgrade it to the standard edition?
> >
> > What is the difference between the Standard and Enterprise edition?
> >
> > Thank you
> > Milani Omar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > Run:
> > >
> > > select serverproperty ('Edition')
> > >
> > > and post the results.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > > Toronto, ON Canada
> > > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> > >
> > >
> > > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > > news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > Hello,
> > > I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure.
How
> > can
> > > I see witch version I'm running?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > > Milani Omar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional. These
have
> > > > been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance
> > degrades
> > > > when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you can
> > space
> > > > out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can
> > upgrade
> > > > to a server version of SQL Server.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > > > SQL Server MVP
> > > > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > > > Toronto, ON Canada
> > > > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > > > news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > hello,
> > > > I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> > > > sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this king
of
> > > > informations:
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Event Type: Information
> > > > Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> > > > Event Category: (2)
> > > > Event ID: 17055
> > > > Date: 22.04.2004
> > > > Time: 15:01:12
> > > > User: N/A
> > > > Computer: ***
> > > > Description:
> > > > 17052 :
> > > > This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This
limit
> > > has
> > > > been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely
affected.
> > > >
> > > > Data:
> > > > 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 oB.....
> > > > 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> > > > 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> > > > 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> > > > 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > can someone help me please?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you
> > > > Milani Omar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Milani,
SQL2000 personal edition can be upgraded to SQL2000 standard edition.Refer
the below snippet from BooksOnLine topic 'Upgrading an Existing Installation
of SQL Server' for the upgrade procedure:
<begin quote>
How to perform an edition upgrade within SQL Server 2000 (Setup)
To upgrade a SQL Server 2000 installation to a different edition of SQL
Server 2000
1.. Insert the Microsoft® SQL Server 2000T compact disc for the edition
you want to install into your CD-ROM drive. If the compact disc does not
autorun, double-click Autorun.exe in the root directory of the compact disc.
2.. Select SQL Server 2000 Components, select Install Database Server, and
then setup prepares the SQL Server Installation Wizard. At the Welcome
screen, click Next.
3.. In Computer Name dialog box, select Local Computer or Remote computer.
4.. In the Installation Selection dialog box, click Upgrade, Remove, or
Add Components to an existing instance of SQL Server, and then click Next.
5.. In the Instance Name dialog box, click Next.
6.. In the Existing Installation dialog box, click Upgrade your existing
installation, and then click Next.
7.. If Setup detects that you are doing an edition upgrade, the Upgrade
dialog box appears. Click Yes, Upgrade my <text specific to the upgrade> to
upgrade the feature set of your current installation, and click Next.
8.. After the upgrade is completed, you are prompted as to whether you
want to install additional components. If you click Yes, the Select
Components dialog box appears. Accept the defaults or select the additional
components you want to install, and then click Next.
You can select an item in the Components list, and then select items from
the related Sub-Components list. Click to select items you want to install;
clear the check box of the items you do not want to install.
9.. When you are finished specifying options, in the Start Copying Files
dialog box, click Next.
10.. In the Setup Complete dialog box, click Yes, I want to restart my
computer now, and then click Finish to complete the edition upgrade.
<end quote>
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
"Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
news:#bGzToIKEHA.1272@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> how can I upgrade it to standard edition. We have buyed bevore the license
> for satandard edition but I have installed the pro edition erroneously.
> Thank you
> Milani Omar
>
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> ha
> scritto nel messaggio news:OxiUrhIKEHA.2580@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/planning/SQLReskChooseEd.asp
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> >
> >
> > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> news:%23BtmUOIKEHA.4004@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > result:
> > > Personal Edition
> > >
> > > Sorry, how can I upgrade it to the standard edition?
> > >
> > > What is the difference between the Standard and Enterprise edition?
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > > Milani Omar
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > news:eN%23G9THKEHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > Run:
> > > >
> > > > select serverproperty ('Edition')
> > > >
> > > > and post the results.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > > > SQL Server MVP
> > > > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > > > Toronto, ON Canada
> > > > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > > > news:ux1naRHKEHA.3292@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > > Hello,
> > > > I'm running che SQL Server 2000 Standard edition. But I'm not sure.
> How
> > > can
> > > > I see witch version I'm running?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you
> > > > Milani Omar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > > news:%23UFtmAHKEHA.2380@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > You are running either MSDE or SQL Server 2000 Professional.
These
> have
> > > > > been optimized for 8 concurrently running queries and performance
> > > degrades
> > > > > when you have more queries running at the same time. Either you
can
> > > space
> > > > > out your queries so that fewer are running concurrently or you can
> > > upgrade
> > > > > to a server version of SQL Server.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Tom
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > > > > SQL Server MVP
> > > > > Columnist, SQL Server Professional
> > > > > Toronto, ON Canada
> > > > > www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Milani Omar" <omar@.tio.ch> wrote in message
> > > > > news:eRQZI9GKEHA.3472@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > hello,
> > > > > I have an SQL SERVER 2000.
> > > > > sometimes this server become slow. In the event log I see this
king
> of
> > > > > informations:
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Event Type: Information
> > > > > Event Source: MSSQLSERVER
> > > > > Event Category: (2)
> > > > > Event ID: 17055
> > > > > Date: 22.04.2004
> > > > > Time: 15:01:12
> > > > > User: N/A
> > > > > Computer: ***
> > > > > Description:
> > > > > 17052 :
> > > > > This SQL Server has been optimized for 8 concurrent queries. This
> limit
> > > > has
> > > > > been exceeded by 1 queries and performance may be adversely
> affected.
> > > > >
> > > > > Data:
> > > > > 0000: 9c 42 00 00 0a 00 00 00 oB.....
> > > > > 0008: 04 00 00 00 53 00 51 00 ...S.Q.
> > > > > 0010: 4c 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 L......
> > > > > 0018: 6d 00 61 00 73 00 74 00 m.a.s.t.
> > > > > 0020: 65 00 72 00 00 00 e.r...
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > can someone help me please?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you
> > > > > Milani Omar
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)