I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not alone.
I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
HK wrote:
> I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not alone.
> I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
> to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
> others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
> upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
|||I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
clustering is involved at this moment.
How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
along. I didn't know there was one.
"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
> existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
> since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
> Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
> same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
> sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
> upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
> HK wrote:
alone.[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrading[vbcol=seagreen]
database
>
|||SQL 2005 Upgrade Advisor is a separate download:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
HK wrote:
>I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
>to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
>The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
>clustering is involved at this moment.
>How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
>UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
>along. I didn't know there was one.
>
>"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googleg roups.com...
>
>alone.
>
>upgrading
>
>database
>
>
>
|||Assuming no syntax errors are present that aren't supported in 2005,
then I think you should be fine. Although, I think it leaves it in 80
(2000) compatability mode if you restore/attach. You might want to go
check the db options after you've done it and try & push it up to 2005.
The upgrade advisor is a must though. Try the link that Mike sent.
Showing posts with label advice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advice. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Please share advice about upgrading to SQL 2005
I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not alone.
I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
HK wrote:
> I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not alone
.
> I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgradin
g
> to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
> others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major databa
se
> upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.|||I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
clustering is involved at this moment.
How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
along. I didn't know there was one.
"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
> existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
> since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
> Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
> same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
> sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
> upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
> HK wrote:
alone.[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrading[vbcol=seagreen]
database[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||SQL 2005 Upgrade Advisor is a separate download:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&DisplayLang=en
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
HK wrote:
>I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
>to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
>The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
>clustering is involved at this moment.
>How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
>UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
>along. I didn't know there was one.
>
>"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>alone.
>
>upgrading
>
>database
>
>
>|||Assuming no syntax errors are present that aren't supported in 2005,
then I think you should be fine. Although, I think it leaves it in 80
(2000) compatability mode if you restore/attach. You might want to go
check the db options after you've done it and try & push it up to 2005.
The upgrade advisor is a must though. Try the link that Mike sent.
I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
HK wrote:
> I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not alone
.
> I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgradin
g
> to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
> others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major databa
se
> upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.|||I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
clustering is involved at this moment.
How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
along. I didn't know there was one.
"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
> existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
> since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
> Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
> same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
> sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
> upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
> HK wrote:
alone.[vbcol=seagreen]
upgrading[vbcol=seagreen]
database[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||SQL 2005 Upgrade Advisor is a separate download:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...&DisplayLang=en
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
HK wrote:
>I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
>to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
>The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
>clustering is involved at this moment.
>How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
>UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
>along. I didn't know there was one.
>
>"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>alone.
>
>upgrading
>
>database
>
>
>|||Assuming no syntax errors are present that aren't supported in 2005,
then I think you should be fine. Although, I think it leaves it in 80
(2000) compatability mode if you restore/attach. You might want to go
check the db options after you've done it and try & push it up to 2005.
The upgrade advisor is a must though. Try the link that Mike sent.
Please share advice about upgrading to SQL 2005
I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not alone.
I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
HK wrote:
> I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not alone.
> I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
> to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
> others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
> upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.|||I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
clustering is involved at this moment.
How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
along. I didn't know there was one.
"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
> existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
> since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
> Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
> same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
> sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
> upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
> HK wrote:
> > I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not
alone.
> > I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about
upgrading
> > to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
> > others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major
database
> > upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
>|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--020908040403080301030804
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SQL 2005 Upgrade Advisor is a separate download:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=451fbf81-ab07-4ccb-a18b-da38f6bcf484&DisplayLang=en
--
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
HK wrote:
>I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
>to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
>The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
>clustering is involved at this moment.
>How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
>UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
>along. I didn't know there was one.
>
>"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
>>existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
>>since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
>>Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
>>same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
>>sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
>>upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
>>HK wrote:
>>
>>I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not
>>
>alone.
>
>>I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about
>>
>upgrading
>
>>to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
>>others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major
>>
>database
>
>>upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
>>
>
>
--020908040403080301030804
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>SQL 2005 Upgrade Advisor is a separate download:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=451fbf81-ab07-4ccb-a18b-da38f6bcf484&DisplayLang=en</a><br>">http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=451fbf81-ab07-4ccb-a18b-da38f6bcf484&DisplayLang=en">http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=451fbf81-ab07-4ccb-a18b-da38f6bcf484&DisplayLang=en</a><br>
</tt>
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<p><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">--<br>
</font></span> <b><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">mike
hodgson</font></span></b><span lang="en-au"><br>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>
</p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
HK wrote:
<blockquote cite="midm04Pf.1448$pV5.620@.tornado.socal.rr.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
clustering is involved at this moment.
How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
along. I didn't know there was one.
"Corey Bunch" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:unc27932@.yahoo.com"><unc27932@.yahoo.com></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com">news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
HK wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->alone.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->upgrading
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->database
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--020908040403080301030804--|||Assuming no syntax errors are present that aren't supported in 2005,
then I think you should be fine. Although, I think it leaves it in 80
(2000) compatability mode if you restore/attach. You might want to go
check the db options after you've done it and try & push it up to 2005.
The upgrade advisor is a must though. Try the link that Mike sent.
I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
HK wrote:
> I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not alone.
> I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about upgrading
> to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
> others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major database
> upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.|||I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
clustering is involved at this moment.
How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
along. I didn't know there was one.
"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
> existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
> since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
> Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
> same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
> sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
> upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
> HK wrote:
> > I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not
alone.
> > I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about
upgrading
> > to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
> > others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major
database
> > upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
>|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--020908040403080301030804
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SQL 2005 Upgrade Advisor is a separate download:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=451fbf81-ab07-4ccb-a18b-da38f6bcf484&DisplayLang=en
--
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
HK wrote:
>I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
>to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
>The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
>clustering is involved at this moment.
>How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
>UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
>along. I didn't know there was one.
>
>"Corey Bunch" <unc27932@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
>>existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
>>since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
>>Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
>>same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
>>sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
>>upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
>>HK wrote:
>>
>>I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not
>>
>alone.
>
>>I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about
>>
>upgrading
>
>>to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
>>others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major
>>
>database
>
>>upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
>>
>
>
--020908040403080301030804
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>SQL 2005 Upgrade Advisor is a separate download:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=451fbf81-ab07-4ccb-a18b-da38f6bcf484&DisplayLang=en</a><br>">http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=451fbf81-ab07-4ccb-a18b-da38f6bcf484&DisplayLang=en">http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=451fbf81-ab07-4ccb-a18b-da38f6bcf484&DisplayLang=en</a><br>
</tt>
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<p><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">--<br>
</font></span> <b><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">mike
hodgson</font></span></b><span lang="en-au"><br>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>
</p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
HK wrote:
<blockquote cite="midm04Pf.1448$pV5.620@.tornado.socal.rr.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'll pull a development database, that has good data, from 2000, attach it
to the new hardware that is running 2005, and make it live for production.
The client application connection strings will change, of course. No
clustering is involved at this moment.
How do you start the Upgrade Advisor? I haven't tried that. The
UI/documentation is, thus far, very lousy for a new version that is 5 years
along. I didn't know there was one.
"Corey Bunch" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:unc27932@.yahoo.com"><unc27932@.yahoo.com></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://links.10026.com/?link=news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com">news:1141686052.211469.242010@.z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Are you running side-by-side (another instance) or upgrading an
existing 2K instance? I've been running side-by-side on my workstation
since Nov. and have noticed almost no issues.
Also - are you using clustering at all? Don't run a 2K & 2005 on the
same cluster. We've had some issues with that & saw in a Microsoft
sponsored class that was a no-no. Other than that, we love 2005. The
upgrade advisor seems to work well too.
HK wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'm about to start using SQL 2005 on new hardware. I'm sure I'm not
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->alone.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I thought perhaps people here might share their experiences about
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->upgrading
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">to 2005 (whether on new hardware or not), and what tips they'd give to
others. Invariably, something goes wrong in the course of a major
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->database
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">upgrade, and I'm wondering what those things have been for people here.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!-->
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--020908040403080301030804--|||Assuming no syntax errors are present that aren't supported in 2005,
then I think you should be fine. Although, I think it leaves it in 80
(2000) compatability mode if you restore/attach. You might want to go
check the db options after you've done it and try & push it up to 2005.
The upgrade advisor is a must though. Try the link that Mike sent.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Please Help: Cannot Sort row of size 8104: any advice.
I have a database linked too a website that, we've just put the live data into and hay presto the thing has fallen over. The data has gone in fine but When we search on it it coming up with this error:
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server (0x80040E14) Cannot sort a row of size 8104, which is greater than the allowable maximum of 8094.
Has anyone come across this kinda of problem before and is their any nice work arounds. Thanks EdObviously, you managed to get a row size which is 10 more than the maximum. Consider to shorten one of your VARCHAR(x) fields by 10.|||Okay I think I understand the problem now, But I'm still slightly stuck;
I've got the huge amount of data that I've imported and it gone in fine it just this search which throws up problems.
So as far as I can see the only two solution I can look at are some way to make the search accept these size of data or come up with some kind of way of identifing just those singler rows which are causing the problem and deal with them indevidually. Is their some kind of SQL statment that would just return the row where data is above a certain size?
If it any help the SQL look like this:
SELECT DISTINCT
terms.TermName, terms.TermAltName, terms.TermShortDesc, linkSectionSub.SectionID, linkSectionSub.SubID, terms.AutoId,
subSections.SUBName, sections.SCTName
FROM terms INNER JOIN
linkSectorSection INNER JOIN
linkSectionSub ON linkSectorSection.SectionID = linkSectionSub.SectionID INNER JOIN
linkSubTerm ON linkSectionSub.SubID = linkSubTerm.SubID ON terms.AutoId = linkSubTerm.TermID INNER JOIN
sections ON linkSectionSub.SectionID = sections.AutoId INNER JOIN
subSections ON linkSectionSub.SubID = subSections.AutoID
WHERE (linkSectorSection.SectorID = 1)
AND (terms.TermName LIKE '%mortgage%')
OR (linkSectorSection.SectorID = 1)
AND (terms.TermShortDesc LIKE '%mortgage%')
ORDER BY terms.TermName
And the field causing the problems is:
terms.TermShortDesc
Thanks Again|||Originally posted by Nixies
Okay I think I understand the problem now, But I'm still slightly stuck;
I've got the huge amount of data that I've imported and it gone in fine it just this search which throws up problems.
So as far as I can see the only two solution I can look at are some way to make the search accept these size of data or come up with some kind of way of identifing just those singler rows which are causing the problem and deal with them indevidually. Is their some kind of SQL statment that would just return the row where data is above a certain size?
If it any help the SQL look like this:
SELECT DISTINCT
terms.TermName, terms.TermAltName, terms.TermShortDesc, linkSectionSub.SectionID, linkSectionSub.SubID, terms.AutoId,
subSections.SUBName, sections.SCTName
FROM terms INNER JOIN
linkSectorSection INNER JOIN
linkSectionSub ON linkSectorSection.SectionID = linkSectionSub.SectionID INNER JOIN
linkSubTerm ON linkSectionSub.SubID = linkSubTerm.SubID ON terms.AutoId = linkSubTerm.TermID INNER JOIN
sections ON linkSectionSub.SectionID = sections.AutoId INNER JOIN
subSections ON linkSectionSub.SubID = subSections.AutoID
WHERE (linkSectorSection.SectorID = 1)
AND (terms.TermName LIKE '%mortgage%')
OR (linkSectorSection.SectorID = 1)
AND (terms.TermShortDesc LIKE '%mortgage%')
ORDER BY terms.TermName
And the field causing the problems is:
terms.TermShortDesc
Thanks Again
I'm assuming that TermShortDesc is a text field not a varchar.
You have two possible solutions:
Fix the problem short term:
SELECT terms.AutoId, LEN(terms.TermShortDesc) AS CHAR_LEN, terms.TermShortDesc
FROM TERMS
WHERE LEN(terms.TermShortDesc) >8093.
and then edit that data down in length.
The permanent solution is:
Before you get to deep into this, ask yourself these questions:
Do you have to search the entire field? Can you limit data to 8093 characters? In your search do you really have to go beyond the first 500 characters? 1000?
For a permanent solution if you only need the first 500 characters, then make an in your import that TermShortDescSort field and just take the LEFT(TermShortDesc,500) and insert them into TermShortDescSort on import. If you need to go beyond and have all 24,282, then make 3 fields TermShortDesc1, TermShortDesc2, TermShortDesc3 and on import insert into them as Substr(TermShortDesc,1,8094), Substr(TermShortDesc,8095,8094), Substr(TermShortDesc,16188,8094).
Just throwing in my 2 centavos....|||This is fantasic, we've found the offending rows and everything is up and working, Thanks for your Help, Ed
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server (0x80040E14) Cannot sort a row of size 8104, which is greater than the allowable maximum of 8094.
Has anyone come across this kinda of problem before and is their any nice work arounds. Thanks EdObviously, you managed to get a row size which is 10 more than the maximum. Consider to shorten one of your VARCHAR(x) fields by 10.|||Okay I think I understand the problem now, But I'm still slightly stuck;
I've got the huge amount of data that I've imported and it gone in fine it just this search which throws up problems.
So as far as I can see the only two solution I can look at are some way to make the search accept these size of data or come up with some kind of way of identifing just those singler rows which are causing the problem and deal with them indevidually. Is their some kind of SQL statment that would just return the row where data is above a certain size?
If it any help the SQL look like this:
SELECT DISTINCT
terms.TermName, terms.TermAltName, terms.TermShortDesc, linkSectionSub.SectionID, linkSectionSub.SubID, terms.AutoId,
subSections.SUBName, sections.SCTName
FROM terms INNER JOIN
linkSectorSection INNER JOIN
linkSectionSub ON linkSectorSection.SectionID = linkSectionSub.SectionID INNER JOIN
linkSubTerm ON linkSectionSub.SubID = linkSubTerm.SubID ON terms.AutoId = linkSubTerm.TermID INNER JOIN
sections ON linkSectionSub.SectionID = sections.AutoId INNER JOIN
subSections ON linkSectionSub.SubID = subSections.AutoID
WHERE (linkSectorSection.SectorID = 1)
AND (terms.TermName LIKE '%mortgage%')
OR (linkSectorSection.SectorID = 1)
AND (terms.TermShortDesc LIKE '%mortgage%')
ORDER BY terms.TermName
And the field causing the problems is:
terms.TermShortDesc
Thanks Again|||Originally posted by Nixies
Okay I think I understand the problem now, But I'm still slightly stuck;
I've got the huge amount of data that I've imported and it gone in fine it just this search which throws up problems.
So as far as I can see the only two solution I can look at are some way to make the search accept these size of data or come up with some kind of way of identifing just those singler rows which are causing the problem and deal with them indevidually. Is their some kind of SQL statment that would just return the row where data is above a certain size?
If it any help the SQL look like this:
SELECT DISTINCT
terms.TermName, terms.TermAltName, terms.TermShortDesc, linkSectionSub.SectionID, linkSectionSub.SubID, terms.AutoId,
subSections.SUBName, sections.SCTName
FROM terms INNER JOIN
linkSectorSection INNER JOIN
linkSectionSub ON linkSectorSection.SectionID = linkSectionSub.SectionID INNER JOIN
linkSubTerm ON linkSectionSub.SubID = linkSubTerm.SubID ON terms.AutoId = linkSubTerm.TermID INNER JOIN
sections ON linkSectionSub.SectionID = sections.AutoId INNER JOIN
subSections ON linkSectionSub.SubID = subSections.AutoID
WHERE (linkSectorSection.SectorID = 1)
AND (terms.TermName LIKE '%mortgage%')
OR (linkSectorSection.SectorID = 1)
AND (terms.TermShortDesc LIKE '%mortgage%')
ORDER BY terms.TermName
And the field causing the problems is:
terms.TermShortDesc
Thanks Again
I'm assuming that TermShortDesc is a text field not a varchar.
You have two possible solutions:
Fix the problem short term:
SELECT terms.AutoId, LEN(terms.TermShortDesc) AS CHAR_LEN, terms.TermShortDesc
FROM TERMS
WHERE LEN(terms.TermShortDesc) >8093.
and then edit that data down in length.
The permanent solution is:
Before you get to deep into this, ask yourself these questions:
Do you have to search the entire field? Can you limit data to 8093 characters? In your search do you really have to go beyond the first 500 characters? 1000?
For a permanent solution if you only need the first 500 characters, then make an in your import that TermShortDescSort field and just take the LEFT(TermShortDesc,500) and insert them into TermShortDescSort on import. If you need to go beyond and have all 24,282, then make 3 fields TermShortDesc1, TermShortDesc2, TermShortDesc3 and on import insert into them as Substr(TermShortDesc,1,8094), Substr(TermShortDesc,8095,8094), Substr(TermShortDesc,16188,8094).
Just throwing in my 2 centavos....|||This is fantasic, we've found the offending rows and everything is up and working, Thanks for your Help, Ed
Monday, February 20, 2012
please help! log backups not being copied to destination server
sql2k sp3
*No domain accounts being used due to advice from
yesterday.*
Im trying to get Log Shipping going between 2 sql boxes.
The tlog backups arent being transferred to the
destination server. The primary box is in a domain and the
secondary is in a workgroup. As of this morning for the
purposes of this test, all sql services on both boxes are
running in local admin accounts that have the same name
and password. No domain accounts being used. After some
time the I get a red x because they are out of sync.
Nothing in the error log.
I can go into Query Analyzer logged in as the same account
that the services on both boxes are running in and copy a
file to the share without having to set up a linked server
login for him:
declare @.path varchar(200),
@.cmd varchar(200)
set @.cmd = 'copy C:\FIN\ds01
\SystemOnlyDBFiles\MSSQL\BACKUP\bla.txt '
set @.path = '\\backupsql1\BACKUP\bla.txt'
set @.cmd = @.cmd + @.path
exec master..xp_cmdshell @.cmd
Any ideas from anybody?
ThanksThe sql server agent on the destination server wasn't
running. I didnt realize it needed to be. Thanks to all
who may have been trying to figure it out.
Chris
>--Original Message--
>sql2k sp3
>*No domain accounts being used due to advice from
>yesterday.*
>Im trying to get Log Shipping going between 2 sql boxes.
>The tlog backups arent being transferred to the
>destination server. The primary box is in a domain and
the
>secondary is in a workgroup. As of this morning for the
>purposes of this test, all sql services on both boxes are
>running in local admin accounts that have the same name
>and password. No domain accounts being used. After some
>time the I get a red x because they are out of sync.
>Nothing in the error log.
>I can go into Query Analyzer logged in as the same
account
>that the services on both boxes are running in and copy a
>file to the share without having to set up a linked
server
>login for him:
>declare @.path varchar(200),
>@.cmd varchar(200)
>set @.cmd = 'copy C:\FIN\ds01
>\SystemOnlyDBFiles\MSSQL\BACKUP\bla.txt '
>set @.path = '\\backupsql1\BACKUP\bla.txt'
>set @.cmd = @.cmd + @.path
>exec master..xp_cmdshell @.cmd
>Any ideas from anybody?
>Thanks
>.
>
*No domain accounts being used due to advice from
yesterday.*
Im trying to get Log Shipping going between 2 sql boxes.
The tlog backups arent being transferred to the
destination server. The primary box is in a domain and the
secondary is in a workgroup. As of this morning for the
purposes of this test, all sql services on both boxes are
running in local admin accounts that have the same name
and password. No domain accounts being used. After some
time the I get a red x because they are out of sync.
Nothing in the error log.
I can go into Query Analyzer logged in as the same account
that the services on both boxes are running in and copy a
file to the share without having to set up a linked server
login for him:
declare @.path varchar(200),
@.cmd varchar(200)
set @.cmd = 'copy C:\FIN\ds01
\SystemOnlyDBFiles\MSSQL\BACKUP\bla.txt '
set @.path = '\\backupsql1\BACKUP\bla.txt'
set @.cmd = @.cmd + @.path
exec master..xp_cmdshell @.cmd
Any ideas from anybody?
ThanksThe sql server agent on the destination server wasn't
running. I didnt realize it needed to be. Thanks to all
who may have been trying to figure it out.
Chris
>--Original Message--
>sql2k sp3
>*No domain accounts being used due to advice from
>yesterday.*
>Im trying to get Log Shipping going between 2 sql boxes.
>The tlog backups arent being transferred to the
>destination server. The primary box is in a domain and
the
>secondary is in a workgroup. As of this morning for the
>purposes of this test, all sql services on both boxes are
>running in local admin accounts that have the same name
>and password. No domain accounts being used. After some
>time the I get a red x because they are out of sync.
>Nothing in the error log.
>I can go into Query Analyzer logged in as the same
account
>that the services on both boxes are running in and copy a
>file to the share without having to set up a linked
server
>login for him:
>declare @.path varchar(200),
>@.cmd varchar(200)
>set @.cmd = 'copy C:\FIN\ds01
>\SystemOnlyDBFiles\MSSQL\BACKUP\bla.txt '
>set @.path = '\\backupsql1\BACKUP\bla.txt'
>set @.cmd = @.cmd + @.path
>exec master..xp_cmdshell @.cmd
>Any ideas from anybody?
>Thanks
>.
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)