Differential backup

This may be obvious but i can't find any official word about this so...
Background:
We are using a weekly backup and a couple of differential backup daily on
sqlserver 2000 using BackupExec. According to BOL the backup works as
follows:
"Database – differential
Perform a differential database backup. A differential backup records only
the changes made to the data in the database after the last full database
backup."
Beside these normal backups, we would like to make additional full database
backups to harddrive daily.
Question:
Will the extra backups interfere with the normal backups to tape by
resetting "the last full database backup" iaw will the next differential
backup start from that full backup to the harddrrive then? We would like to
see the normal (tape) backup being undisturbed by the extra full backups.
Can anyone clear this up for me please?
When you restore a diff backup, you must first have restored the most recent database backup prior
to that diff backup. IT doesn't matter whether that database backup was to disk and the diff backup
is to tape (or vice versa).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"Hans" <Hans@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BA274B88-5E90-4799-8B9A-8F3979418051@.microsoft.com...
> This may be obvious but i can't find any official word about this so...
> Background:
> We are using a weekly backup and a couple of differential backup daily on
> sqlserver 2000 using BackupExec. According to BOL the backup works as
> follows:
> "Database - differential
> Perform a differential database backup. A differential backup records only
> the changes made to the data in the database after the last full database
> backup."
> Beside these normal backups, we would like to make additional full database
> backups to harddrive daily.
> Question:
> Will the extra backups interfere with the normal backups to tape by
> resetting "the last full database backup" iaw will the next differential
> backup start from that full backup to the harddrrive then? We would like to
> see the normal (tape) backup being undisturbed by the extra full backups.
>
> Can anyone clear this up for me please?
|||Hi Hans,
Full database backup will make differential backups to be daily, which is
not what you want to achieve. Consider daily full database backup and
backups of transaction log hourly.
Regards,
Daniel
"Hans" <Hans@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BA274B88-5E90-4799-8B9A-8F3979418051@.microsoft.com...
> This may be obvious but i can't find any official word about this so...
> Background:
> We are using a weekly backup and a couple of differential backup daily on
> sqlserver 2000 using BackupExec. According to BOL the backup works as
> follows:
> "Database - differential
> Perform a differential database backup. A differential backup records only
> the changes made to the data in the database after the last full database
> backup."
> Beside these normal backups, we would like to make additional full
database
> backups to harddrive daily.
> Question:
> Will the extra backups interfere with the normal backups to tape by
> resetting "the last full database backup" iaw will the next differential
> backup start from that full backup to the harddrrive then? We would like
to
> see the normal (tape) backup being undisturbed by the extra full backups.
>
> Can anyone clear this up for me please?

Differential backup

This may be obvious but i can't find any official word about this so...
Background:
We are using a weekly backup and a couple of differential backup daily on
sqlserver 2000 using BackupExec. According to BOL the backup works as
follows:
"Database â' differential
Perform a differential database backup. A differential backup records only
the changes made to the data in the database after the last full database
backup."
Beside these normal backups, we would like to make additional full database
backups to harddrive daily.
Question:
Will the extra backups interfere with the normal backups to tape by
resetting "the last full database backup" iaw will the next differential
backup start from that full backup to the harddrrive then? We would like to
see the normal (tape) backup being undisturbed by the extra full backups.
Can anyone clear this up for me please? :)When you restore a diff backup, you must first have restored the most recent database backup prior
to that diff backup. IT doesn't matter whether that database backup was to disk and the diff backup
is to tape (or vice versa).
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"Hans" <Hans@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BA274B88-5E90-4799-8B9A-8F3979418051@.microsoft.com...
> This may be obvious but i can't find any official word about this so...
> Background:
> We are using a weekly backup and a couple of differential backup daily on
> sqlserver 2000 using BackupExec. According to BOL the backup works as
> follows:
> "Database - differential
> Perform a differential database backup. A differential backup records only
> the changes made to the data in the database after the last full database
> backup."
> Beside these normal backups, we would like to make additional full database
> backups to harddrive daily.
> Question:
> Will the extra backups interfere with the normal backups to tape by
> resetting "the last full database backup" iaw will the next differential
> backup start from that full backup to the harddrrive then? We would like to
> see the normal (tape) backup being undisturbed by the extra full backups.
>
> Can anyone clear this up for me please? :)|||Hi Hans,
Full database backup will make differential backups to be daily, which is
not what you want to achieve. Consider daily full database backup and
backups of transaction log hourly.
Regards,
Daniel
"Hans" <Hans@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BA274B88-5E90-4799-8B9A-8F3979418051@.microsoft.com...
> This may be obvious but i can't find any official word about this so...
> Background:
> We are using a weekly backup and a couple of differential backup daily on
> sqlserver 2000 using BackupExec. According to BOL the backup works as
> follows:
> "Database - differential
> Perform a differential database backup. A differential backup records only
> the changes made to the data in the database after the last full database
> backup."
> Beside these normal backups, we would like to make additional full
database
> backups to harddrive daily.
> Question:
> Will the extra backups interfere with the normal backups to tape by
> resetting "the last full database backup" iaw will the next differential
> backup start from that full backup to the harddrrive then? We would like
to
> see the normal (tape) backup being undisturbed by the extra full backups.
>
> Can anyone clear this up for me please? :)

Differential Backup

Hello,
I am trying to do a differential backup but I have run
into a couple of problems.
I am doing this through the EM by right clicking the db
then selecting backup.
Firstly it doesn't actually seem to work. For a 7mb
database, the first backup is 7mb (which I agree with),
the second backup is also 7mb, rather than a smaller amout
with the difference.
Secondly I would like it to have different files for each
differential backup, currently it writes to one file, so
it keeps increasing from 7, 14, 21 mb.
Can anyone give me some pointers ?
Thanks
PeterPeter
1) Were there some activites in the database since last full backup
2) You will have to build the backup file by yourself .
SELECT @.FileName = 'D:\DatabaseName' + @.Date+'.bak'
BACKUP DATABASE DatabaseName
TO DISK = @.FileName
WITH DIFFERENTIAL
"Peter" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:151e01c3fbbc$37c5d000$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I am trying to do a differential backup but I have run
> into a couple of problems.
> I am doing this through the EM by right clicking the db
> then selecting backup.
> Firstly it doesn't actually seem to work. For a 7mb
> database, the first backup is 7mb (which I agree with),
> the second backup is also 7mb, rather than a smaller amout
> with the difference.
> Secondly I would like it to have different files for each
> differential backup, currently it writes to one file, so
> it keeps increasing from 7, 14, 21 mb.
> Can anyone give me some pointers ?
> Thanks
> Peter|||Peter,
I don't think that you will find that diff backup will save storage for such
small databases. At least, that is my experience. Also, a diff backup
contains all modifications since the *latest database backup*! this means
that it will only be bigger and bigger until you do the next database
backup.
IMO, diff backup is not there to replace transaction log backup. It is there
for more advanced configurations to *complement* transaction log backups. Is
there a reason why you don't want to use log backups? There are a number of
nice things that log backups will give you that diff backup wont.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Peter" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:151e01c3fbbc$37c5d000$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I am trying to do a differential backup but I have run
> into a couple of problems.
> I am doing this through the EM by right clicking the db
> then selecting backup.
> Firstly it doesn't actually seem to work. For a 7mb
> database, the first backup is 7mb (which I agree with),
> the second backup is also 7mb, rather than a smaller amout
> with the difference.
> Secondly I would like it to have different files for each
> differential backup, currently it writes to one file, so
> it keeps increasing from 7, 14, 21 mb.
> Can anyone give me some pointers ?
> Thanks
> Peter|||Thank you both for your help on this. My apologies for not
writing back earlier but I have been off work with the flu.
Anyway I will give these sugestions a try.
Thanks
Peter
>--Original Message--
>Hello,
>I am trying to do a differential backup but I have run
>into a couple of problems.
>I am doing this through the EM by right clicking the db
>then selecting backup.
>Firstly it doesn't actually seem to work. For a 7mb
>database, the first backup is 7mb (which I agree with),
>the second backup is also 7mb, rather than a smaller
amout
>with the difference.
>Secondly I would like it to have different files for each
>differential backup, currently it writes to one file, so
>it keeps increasing from 7, 14, 21 mb.
>Can anyone give me some pointers ?
>Thanks
>Peter
>.
>

Differential backup

This may be obvious but i can't find any official word about this so...
Background:
We are using a weekly backup and a couple of differential backup daily on
sqlserver 2000 using BackupExec. According to BOL the backup works as
follows:
"Database – differential
Perform a differential database backup. A differential backup records only
the changes made to the data in the database after the last full database
backup."
Beside these normal backups, we would like to make additional full database
backups to harddrive daily.
Question:
Will the extra backups interfere with the normal backups to tape by
resetting "the last full database backup" iaw will the next differential
backup start from that full backup to the harddrrive then? We would like to
see the normal (tape) backup being undisturbed by the extra full backups.
Can anyone clear this up for me please? When you restore a diff backup, you must first have restored the most recent
database backup prior
to that diff backup. IT doesn't matter whether that database backup was to d
isk and the diff backup
is to tape (or vice versa).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"Hans" <Hans@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BA274B88-5E90-4799-8B9A-8F3979418051@.microsoft.com...
> This may be obvious but i can't find any official word about this so...
> Background:
> We are using a weekly backup and a couple of differential backup daily on
> sqlserver 2000 using BackupExec. According to BOL the backup works as
> follows:
> "Database - differential
> Perform a differential database backup. A differential backup records only
> the changes made to the data in the database after the last full database
> backup."
> Beside these normal backups, we would like to make additional full databas
e
> backups to harddrive daily.
> Question:
> Will the extra backups interfere with the normal backups to tape by
> resetting "the last full database backup" iaw will the next differential
> backup start from that full backup to the harddrrive then? We would like
to
> see the normal (tape) backup being undisturbed by the extra full backups.
>
> Can anyone clear this up for me please? |||Hi Hans,
Full database backup will make differential backups to be daily, which is
not what you want to achieve. Consider daily full database backup and
backups of transaction log hourly.
Regards,
Daniel
"Hans" <Hans@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BA274B88-5E90-4799-8B9A-8F3979418051@.microsoft.com...
> This may be obvious but i can't find any official word about this so...
> Background:
> We are using a weekly backup and a couple of differential backup daily on
> sqlserver 2000 using BackupExec. According to BOL the backup works as
> follows:
> "Database - differential
> Perform a differential database backup. A differential backup records only
> the changes made to the data in the database after the last full database
> backup."
> Beside these normal backups, we would like to make additional full
database
> backups to harddrive daily.
> Question:
> Will the extra backups interfere with the normal backups to tape by
> resetting "the last full database backup" iaw will the next differential
> backup start from that full backup to the harddrrive then? We would like
to
> see the normal (tape) backup being undisturbed by the extra full backups.
>
> Can anyone clear this up for me please?

Differential Backup

Hello,
I am trying to do a differential backup but I have run
into a couple of problems.
I am doing this through the EM by right clicking the db
then selecting backup.
Firstly it doesn't actually seem to work. For a 7mb
database, the first backup is 7mb (which I agree with),
the second backup is also 7mb, rather than a smaller amout
with the difference.
Secondly I would like it to have different files for each
differential backup, currently it writes to one file, so
it keeps increasing from 7, 14, 21 mb.
Can anyone give me some pointers ?
Thanks
PeterPeter
1) Were there some activites in the database since last full backup
2) You will have to build the backup file by yourself .
SELECT @.FileName = 'D:\DatabaseName' + @.Date+'.bak'
BACKUP DATABASE DatabaseName
TO DISK = @.FileName
WITH DIFFERENTIAL
"Peter" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:151e01c3fbbc$37c5d000$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I am trying to do a differential backup but I have run
> into a couple of problems.
> I am doing this through the EM by right clicking the db
> then selecting backup.
> Firstly it doesn't actually seem to work. For a 7mb
> database, the first backup is 7mb (which I agree with),
> the second backup is also 7mb, rather than a smaller amout
> with the difference.
> Secondly I would like it to have different files for each
> differential backup, currently it writes to one file, so
> it keeps increasing from 7, 14, 21 mb.
> Can anyone give me some pointers ?
> Thanks
> Peter|||Peter,
I don't think that you will find that diff backup will save storage for such
small databases. At least, that is my experience. Also, a diff backup
contains all modifications since the *latest database backup*! this means
that it will only be bigger and bigger until you do the next database
backup.
IMO, diff backup is not there to replace transaction log backup. It is there
for more advanced configurations to *complement* transaction log backups. Is
there a reason why you don't want to use log backups? There are a number of
nice things that log backups will give you that diff backup wont.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=...ublic.sqlserver
"Peter" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:151e01c3fbbc$37c5d000$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I am trying to do a differential backup but I have run
> into a couple of problems.
> I am doing this through the EM by right clicking the db
> then selecting backup.
> Firstly it doesn't actually seem to work. For a 7mb
> database, the first backup is 7mb (which I agree with),
> the second backup is also 7mb, rather than a smaller amout
> with the difference.
> Secondly I would like it to have different files for each
> differential backup, currently it writes to one file, so
> it keeps increasing from 7, 14, 21 mb.
> Can anyone give me some pointers ?
> Thanks
> Peter

Different performance in different machines,,,

Hi All,
I am looking if somebody know how can this happen,,,
I have a couple of stored procedures that I run, one SP call the other.
There are cursor, memory table, and recursive query.
When I run this against a local database in my computer it takes arount 15
secs to return the result and it is just fine
considering the table is about 1 + million records. My PC is P4 512 kb RAM
Now, when I create this SP in the server machine and test them against the
database and run it, it takes more than 10 minutes.
Amazing!! considering is the same table, same indexes, but this server has 4
processors and 1 gig RAM.
What can that be? Can it be a MS SQL configuration?
Thanks in advance
RobertoAre statistics up to date on the server?
"Roberto Martinez" <roberto@.ccubetech.com> wrote in message
news:ecFiunkJEHA.3436@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi All,
> I am looking if somebody know how can this happen,,,
> I have a couple of stored procedures that I run, one SP call the other.
> There are cursor, memory table, and recursive query.
> When I run this against a local database in my computer it takes arount 15
> secs to return the result and it is just fine
> considering the table is about 1 + million records. My PC is P4 512 kb RAM
> Now, when I create this SP in the server machine and test them against the
> database and run it, it takes more than 10 minutes.
> Amazing!! considering is the same table, same indexes, but this server has
4
> processors and 1 gig RAM.
> What can that be? Can it be a MS SQL configuration?
> Thanks in advance
> Roberto
>|||What does you mean with statistic are up to date on the server?
"chris" <chris@.noemail.com> wrote in message
news:%23q$6gDlJEHA.3712@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Are statistics up to date on the server?
>
> "Roberto Martinez" <roberto@.ccubetech.com> wrote in message
> news:ecFiunkJEHA.3436@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I am looking if somebody know how can this happen,,,
> >
> > I have a couple of stored procedures that I run, one SP call the other.
> > There are cursor, memory table, and recursive query.
> > When I run this against a local database in my computer it takes arount
15
> > secs to return the result and it is just fine
> > considering the table is about 1 + million records. My PC is P4 512 kb
RAM
> >
> > Now, when I create this SP in the server machine and test them against
the
> > database and run it, it takes more than 10 minutes.
> > Amazing!! considering is the same table, same indexes, but this server
has
> 4
> > processors and 1 gig RAM.
> >
> > What can that be? Can it be a MS SQL configuration?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > Roberto
> >
> >
>|||Check the query plan for the queries on both machines to ensure the same
indexes are used both places.
If they differ, try doing
update statistics <tablename>
on each table used in the query, and look at the Query plan, and compare
execution times. again..
Lastly ( perhaps) try setting maxdop to 1 for the query on the multi proc
machine and see if performance improves...
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Roberto Martinez" <roberto@.ccubetech.com> wrote in message
news:ecFiunkJEHA.3436@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi All,
> I am looking if somebody know how can this happen,,,
> I have a couple of stored procedures that I run, one SP call the other.
> There are cursor, memory table, and recursive query.
> When I run this against a local database in my computer it takes arount 15
> secs to return the result and it is just fine
> considering the table is about 1 + million records. My PC is P4 512 kb RAM
> Now, when I create this SP in the server machine and test them against the
> database and run it, it takes more than 10 minutes.
> Amazing!! considering is the same table, same indexes, but this server has
4
> processors and 1 gig RAM.
> What can that be? Can it be a MS SQL configuration?
> Thanks in advance
> Roberto
>

Different performance in different machines,,,

Hi All,
I am looking if somebody know how can this happen,,,
I have a couple of stored procedures that I run, one SP call the other.
There are cursor, memory table, and recursive query.
When I run this against a local database in my computer it takes arount 15
secs to return the result and it is just fine
considering the table is about 1 + million records. My PC is P4 512 kb RAM
Now, when I create this SP in the server machine and test them against the
database and run it, it takes more than 10 minutes.
Amazing!! considering is the same table, same indexes, but this server has 4
processors and 1 gig RAM.
What can that be? Can it be a MS SQL configuration?
Thanks in advance
RobertoAre statistics up to date on the server?
"Roberto Martinez" <roberto@.ccubetech.com> wrote in message
news:ecFiunkJEHA.3436@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi All,
> I am looking if somebody know how can this happen,,,
> I have a couple of stored procedures that I run, one SP call the other.
> There are cursor, memory table, and recursive query.
> When I run this against a local database in my computer it takes arount 15
> secs to return the result and it is just fine
> considering the table is about 1 + million records. My PC is P4 512 kb RAM
> Now, when I create this SP in the server machine and test them against the
> database and run it, it takes more than 10 minutes.
> Amazing!! considering is the same table, same indexes, but this server has
4
> processors and 1 gig RAM.
> What can that be? Can it be a MS SQL configuration?
> Thanks in advance
> Roberto
>|||What does you mean with statistic are up to date on the server?
"chris" <chris@.noemail.com> wrote in message
news:%23q$6gDlJEHA.3712@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Are statistics up to date on the server?
>
> "Roberto Martinez" <roberto@.ccubetech.com> wrote in message
> news:ecFiunkJEHA.3436@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
15[vbcol=seagreen]
RAM[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
has[vbcol=seagreen]
> 4
>|||Check the query plan for the queries on both machines to ensure the same
indexes are used both places.
If they differ, try doing
update statistics <tablename>
on each table used in the query, and look at the Query plan, and compare
execution times. again..
Lastly ( perhaps) try setting maxdop to 1 for the query on the multi proc
machine and see if performance improves...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Roberto Martinez" <roberto@.ccubetech.com> wrote in message
news:ecFiunkJEHA.3436@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi All,
> I am looking if somebody know how can this happen,,,
> I have a couple of stored procedures that I run, one SP call the other.
> There are cursor, memory table, and recursive query.
> When I run this against a local database in my computer it takes arount 15
> secs to return the result and it is just fine
> considering the table is about 1 + million records. My PC is P4 512 kb RAM
> Now, when I create this SP in the server machine and test them against the
> database and run it, it takes more than 10 minutes.
> Amazing!! considering is the same table, same indexes, but this server has
4
> processors and 1 gig RAM.
> What can that be? Can it be a MS SQL configuration?
> Thanks in advance
> Roberto
>

Different performance in different machines,,,

Hi All,
I am looking if somebody know how can this happen,,,
I have a couple of stored procedures that I run, one SP call the other.
There are cursor, memory table, and recursive query.
When I run this against a local database in my computer it takes arount 15
secs to return the result and it is just fine
considering the table is about 1 + million records. My PC is P4 512 kb RAM
Now, when I create this SP in the server machine and test them against the
database and run it, it takes more than 10 minutes.
Amazing!! considering is the same table, same indexes, but this server has 4
processors and 1 gig RAM.
What can that be? Can it be a MS SQL configuration?
Thanks in advance
Roberto
Are statistics up to date on the server?
"Roberto Martinez" <roberto@.ccubetech.com> wrote in message
news:ecFiunkJEHA.3436@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi All,
> I am looking if somebody know how can this happen,,,
> I have a couple of stored procedures that I run, one SP call the other.
> There are cursor, memory table, and recursive query.
> When I run this against a local database in my computer it takes arount 15
> secs to return the result and it is just fine
> considering the table is about 1 + million records. My PC is P4 512 kb RAM
> Now, when I create this SP in the server machine and test them against the
> database and run it, it takes more than 10 minutes.
> Amazing!! considering is the same table, same indexes, but this server has
4
> processors and 1 gig RAM.
> What can that be? Can it be a MS SQL configuration?
> Thanks in advance
> Roberto
>
|||What does you mean with statistic are up to date on the server?
"chris" <chris@.noemail.com> wrote in message
news:%23q$6gDlJEHA.3712@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Are statistics up to date on the server?
>
> "Roberto Martinez" <roberto@.ccubetech.com> wrote in message
> news:ecFiunkJEHA.3436@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
15[vbcol=seagreen]
RAM[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
has
> 4
>
|||Check the query plan for the queries on both machines to ensure the same
indexes are used both places.
If they differ, try doing
update statistics <tablename>
on each table used in the query, and look at the Query plan, and compare
execution times. again..
Lastly ( perhaps) try setting maxdop to 1 for the query on the multi proc
machine and see if performance improves...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Roberto Martinez" <roberto@.ccubetech.com> wrote in message
news:ecFiunkJEHA.3436@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi All,
> I am looking if somebody know how can this happen,,,
> I have a couple of stored procedures that I run, one SP call the other.
> There are cursor, memory table, and recursive query.
> When I run this against a local database in my computer it takes arount 15
> secs to return the result and it is just fine
> considering the table is about 1 + million records. My PC is P4 512 kb RAM
> Now, when I create this SP in the server machine and test them against the
> database and run it, it takes more than 10 minutes.
> Amazing!! considering is the same table, same indexes, but this server has
4
> processors and 1 gig RAM.
> What can that be? Can it be a MS SQL configuration?
> Thanks in advance
> Roberto
>

Different data types

I have successfully made a couple of SSIS packages to read data from a legacy AS400 to SQL Server 2005. These are working fine. I am now working on one that is trying to pull some financial data and I keep getting the following error for the decimal columns:

"The component ciew is unavailable. Make sure the component view has been created. The input column "input column AMT1 (2870) cannot be mapped to "external metadata column AMT1(2852) because they have different data types."

Now I made sure that the data sitting on the AS400 is of type decimal and the SQL server column is the same. What else do I need to look for?

Thanks for the information.

Go to the advanced editor of the source component and compare the datatypes of the input and output column...that may give you a clue. Also remeber that there is a data conversion transform available in data flow.|||

how did you do that, may I ask?

I suggest you change the name of the "output column" in the

datasource this is done by

1. right clicking the datasource

2. show advance editor

3. click input or output properties

4. expand the datareader output if its a datareader

5. click on output columns.

6. look for the columns you want to change and click it,

7. Add an "x" in the column "name" property say "xuser_id" for the orginal column "user_id"

8. click ok

9. check the mappings column mapping by following steps 1 and 2

10 add a derived column transform.

12. transform the column to the desired format

13. in the derived column transform make sure that the "derived Column" property is set to "new column"

and in the derived column name remove the "x" we add in step no. 7 of course you need to set the right format

wheewww. this is long... hahaha

Different Collation designator Settings

Greetings,
In our company we have different kinds of SQL databases and SQL servers. We
are trying to consolidate those servers under a couple of powerful servers.
But when we began to tell this project to software houses and ask their
idea; we met a big problem .
Some of those companies are using SQL databases with Collation Designator =
Latin1_General setting. But the majority is using with Collation Designator
= Turkish setting. We want to consolidate them under a big MS SQL Server
2000. Anybody that we asked said that is impossible to consolidate those
databases under a server.
So my questions are ;
1- Is is really impossible to consolidate SQL dbases with different
character sets under a single server ? (Latin1_General + Turkish )
2- If no, how should I setup this MS SQL Server to support those char.sets ?
I will be very happy if anybody can help me .
Best regards.
Shadowfax
Hi Shadow,
You can have databases (and even columns) with different collations on SQL
Server 2000. That wasn't possible on SQL Server 7.
Whether it is going to work with 3rd party application is uncertain though.
The problem is that temporary tables are created with the collation of
tempdb on your server. And unless the 3rd party applications are good
quality code (which unfortunately is quite unlikely), there is a good chance
that they will compare character values in permanent tables with character
values in temporary tables while assuming that tempdb has the same collation
as the database that application uses. And if that is not the case, you will
get collation conflicts.
This can be avoided by specifying COLLATE DATABASE_DEFAULT with each
character column when creating temporary tables so that the default
collation of the database the user is currently connected to is used. But as
I said earlier, applications very rarely get up to this level of code
quality.
You would probably best off to have 2 servers, one with Latin1_General
collation and one with Turkish collation.
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Shadow" <shadowfaxx001@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ePhKpPlAFHA.2112@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Greetings,
> In our company we have different kinds of SQL databases and SQL servers.
> We are trying to consolidate those servers under a couple of powerful
> servers. But when we began to tell this project to software houses and ask
> their idea; we met a big problem .
> Some of those companies are using SQL databases with Collation Designator
> = Latin1_General setting. But the majority is using with Collation
> Designator = Turkish setting. We want to consolidate them under a big MS
> SQL Server 2000. Anybody that we asked said that is impossible to
> consolidate those databases under a server.
> So my questions are ;
> 1- Is is really impossible to consolidate SQL dbases with different
> character sets under a single server ? (Latin1_General + Turkish )
> 2- If no, how should I setup this MS SQL Server to support those char.sets
> ?
> I will be very happy if anybody can help me .
> Best regards.
> Shadowfax
>
>
|||Thanks for your help Jacco.
"Jacco Schalkwijk" <jacco.please.reply@.to.newsgroups.mvps.org.invalid > wrote
in message news:%23EJi6DmAFHA.2428@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi Shadow,
> You can have databases (and even columns) with different collations on SQL
> Server 2000. That wasn't possible on SQL Server 7.
>
|||You could also consider having two instances of SQL (one w/Latin1_General,
the other with Turkish collation) on the same server.
Bart
Bart Duncan
Microsoft SQL Server Support
Please reply to the newsgroup only - thanks.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
| From: "Shadow" <shadowfaxx001@.hotmail.com>
| References: <ePhKpPlAFHA.2112@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>
<#EJi6DmAFHA.2428@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>
| Subject: Re: Different Collation designator Settings
| Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:09:04 +0200
| Lines: 11
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
| X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
| Message-ID: <#Slv$vpAFHA.1392@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
| Newsgroups:
microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect,microsoft.publi c.sqlserver.odbc,microsoft
.public.sqlserver.server,microsoft.public.sqlserve r.setup
| NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl85-97-7802.ttnet.net.tr 85.97.30.122
| Path:
cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTFEED02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFT NGP08.phx.gbl!tk2msftngp13
.phx.gbl
| Xref: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.odbc:43188
microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:375538
microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup:68919
microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect:44240
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.odbc
|
| Thanks for your help Jacco.
|
| "Jacco Schalkwijk" <jacco.please.reply@.to.newsgroups.mvps.org.invalid >
wrote
| in message news:%23EJi6DmAFHA.2428@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
| > Hi Shadow,
| >
| > You can have databases (and even columns) with different collations on
SQL
| > Server 2000. That wasn't possible on SQL Server 7.
| >
|
|
|

Different Collation designator Settings

Greetings,
In our company we have different kinds of SQL databases and SQL servers. We
are trying to consolidate those servers under a couple of powerful servers.
But when we began to tell this project to software houses and ask their
idea; we met a big problem .
Some of those companies are using SQL databases with Collation Designator =
Latin1_General setting. But the majority is using with Collation Designator
= Turkish setting. We want to consolidate them under a big MS SQL Server
2000. Anybody that we asked said that is impossible to consolidate those
databases under a server.
So my questions are ;
1- Is is really impossible to consolidate SQL dbases with different
character sets under a single server ? (Latin1_General + Turkish )
2- If no, how should I setup this MS SQL Server to support those char.sets ?
I will be very happy if anybody can help me .
Best regards.
Shadowfax
Hi Shadow,
You can have databases (and even columns) with different collations on SQL
Server 2000. That wasn't possible on SQL Server 7.
Whether it is going to work with 3rd party application is uncertain though.
The problem is that temporary tables are created with the collation of
tempdb on your server. And unless the 3rd party applications are good
quality code (which unfortunately is quite unlikely), there is a good chance
that they will compare character values in permanent tables with character
values in temporary tables while assuming that tempdb has the same collation
as the database that application uses. And if that is not the case, you will
get collation conflicts.
This can be avoided by specifying COLLATE DATABASE_DEFAULT with each
character column when creating temporary tables so that the default
collation of the database the user is currently connected to is used. But as
I said earlier, applications very rarely get up to this level of code
quality.
You would probably best off to have 2 servers, one with Latin1_General
collation and one with Turkish collation.
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Shadow" <shadowfaxx001@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ePhKpPlAFHA.2112@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Greetings,
> In our company we have different kinds of SQL databases and SQL servers.
> We are trying to consolidate those servers under a couple of powerful
> servers. But when we began to tell this project to software houses and ask
> their idea; we met a big problem .
> Some of those companies are using SQL databases with Collation Designator
> = Latin1_General setting. But the majority is using with Collation
> Designator = Turkish setting. We want to consolidate them under a big MS
> SQL Server 2000. Anybody that we asked said that is impossible to
> consolidate those databases under a server.
> So my questions are ;
> 1- Is is really impossible to consolidate SQL dbases with different
> character sets under a single server ? (Latin1_General + Turkish )
> 2- If no, how should I setup this MS SQL Server to support those char.sets
> ?
> I will be very happy if anybody can help me .
> Best regards.
> Shadowfax
>
>
|||Thanks for your help Jacco.
"Jacco Schalkwijk" <jacco.please.reply@.to.newsgroups.mvps.org.invalid > wrote
in message news:%23EJi6DmAFHA.2428@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi Shadow,
> You can have databases (and even columns) with different collations on SQL
> Server 2000. That wasn't possible on SQL Server 7.
>
|||You could also consider having two instances of SQL (one w/Latin1_General,
the other with Turkish collation) on the same server.
Bart Duncan
Microsoft SQL Server Support
Please reply to the newsgroup only - thanks.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
| From: "Shadow" <shadowfaxx001@.hotmail.com>
| References: <ePhKpPlAFHA.2112@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>
<#EJi6DmAFHA.2428@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>
| Subject: Re: Different Collation designator Settings
| Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:09:04 +0200
| Lines: 11
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
| X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
| Message-ID: <#Slv$vpAFHA.1392@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
| Newsgroups:
microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect,microsoft.publi c.sqlserver.odbc,microsoft
public.sqlserver.server,microsoft.public.sqlserver .setup
| NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl85-97-7802.ttnet.net.tr 85.97.30.122
| Path:
cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTFEED02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFT NGP08.phx.gbl!tk2msftngp13
phx.gbl
| Xref: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.odbc:43188
microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:375538
microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup:68919
microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect:44240
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect
|
| Thanks for your help Jacco.
|
| "Jacco Schalkwijk" <jacco.please.reply@.to.newsgroups.mvps.org.invalid >
wrote
| in message news:%23EJi6DmAFHA.2428@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
| > Hi Shadow,
| >
| > You can have databases (and even columns) with different collations on
SQL
| > Server 2000. That wasn't possible on SQL Server 7.
| >
|
|
|

Different Collation designator Settings

Greetings,
In our company we have different kinds of SQL databases and SQL servers. We
are trying to consolidate those servers under a couple of powerful servers.
But when we began to tell this project to software houses and ask their
idea; we met a big problem .
Some of those companies are using SQL databases with Collation Designator = Latin1_General setting. But the majority is using with Collation Designator
= Turkish setting. We want to consolidate them under a big MS SQL Server
2000. Anybody that we asked said that is impossible to consolidate those
databases under a server.
So my questions are ;
1- Is is really impossible to consolidate SQL dbases with different
character sets under a single server ? (Latin1_General + Turkish )
2- If no, how should I setup this MS SQL Server to support those char.sets ?
I will be very happy if anybody can help me .
Best regards.
ShadowfaxHi Shadow,
You can have databases (and even columns) with different collations on SQL
Server 2000. That wasn't possible on SQL Server 7.
Whether it is going to work with 3rd party application is uncertain though.
The problem is that temporary tables are created with the collation of
tempdb on your server. And unless the 3rd party applications are good
quality code (which unfortunately is quite unlikely), there is a good chance
that they will compare character values in permanent tables with character
values in temporary tables while assuming that tempdb has the same collation
as the database that application uses. And if that is not the case, you will
get collation conflicts.
This can be avoided by specifying COLLATE DATABASE_DEFAULT with each
character column when creating temporary tables so that the default
collation of the database the user is currently connected to is used. But as
I said earlier, applications very rarely get up to this level of code
quality.
You would probably best off to have 2 servers, one with Latin1_General
collation and one with Turkish collation.
--
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Shadow" <shadowfaxx001@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ePhKpPlAFHA.2112@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Greetings,
> In our company we have different kinds of SQL databases and SQL servers.
> We are trying to consolidate those servers under a couple of powerful
> servers. But when we began to tell this project to software houses and ask
> their idea; we met a big problem .
> Some of those companies are using SQL databases with Collation Designator
> = Latin1_General setting. But the majority is using with Collation
> Designator = Turkish setting. We want to consolidate them under a big MS
> SQL Server 2000. Anybody that we asked said that is impossible to
> consolidate those databases under a server.
> So my questions are ;
> 1- Is is really impossible to consolidate SQL dbases with different
> character sets under a single server ? (Latin1_General + Turkish )
> 2- If no, how should I setup this MS SQL Server to support those char.sets
> ?
> I will be very happy if anybody can help me .
> Best regards.
> Shadowfax
>
>|||Thanks for your help Jacco.
"Jacco Schalkwijk" <jacco.please.reply@.to.newsgroups.mvps.org.invalid> wrote
in message news:%23EJi6DmAFHA.2428@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi Shadow,
> You can have databases (and even columns) with different collations on SQL
> Server 2000. That wasn't possible on SQL Server 7.
>|||You could also consider having two instances of SQL (one w/Latin1_General,
the other with Turkish collation) on the same server.
--
Bart Duncan
Microsoft SQL Server Support
Please reply to the newsgroup only - thanks.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
| From: "Shadow" <shadowfaxx001@.hotmail.com>
| References: <ePhKpPlAFHA.2112@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>
<#EJi6DmAFHA.2428@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>
| Subject: Re: Different Collation designator Settings
| Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:09:04 +0200
| Lines: 11
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
| X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
| Message-ID: <#Slv$vpAFHA.1392@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
| Newsgroups:
microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect,microsoft.public.sqlserver.odbc,microsoft
public.sqlserver.server,microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup
| NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl85-97-7802.ttnet.net.tr 85.97.30.122
| Path:
cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTFEED02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!tk2msftngp13
phx.gbl
| Xref: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.odbc:43188
microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:375538
microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup:68919
microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect:44240
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
|
| Thanks for your help Jacco.
|
| "Jacco Schalkwijk" <jacco.please.reply@.to.newsgroups.mvps.org.invalid>
wrote
| in message news:%23EJi6DmAFHA.2428@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
| > Hi Shadow,
| >
| > You can have databases (and even columns) with different collations on
SQL
| > Server 2000. That wasn't possible on SQL Server 7.
| >
|
|
|

Different Collation designator Settings

Greetings,
In our company we have different kinds of SQL databases and SQL servers. We
are trying to consolidate those servers under a couple of powerful servers.
But when we began to tell this project to software houses and ask their
idea; we met a big problem .
Some of those companies are using SQL databases with Collation Designator =
Latin1_General setting. But the majority is using with Collation Designator
= Turkish setting. We want to consolidate them under a big MS SQL Server
2000. Anybody that we asked said that is impossible to consolidate those
databases under a server.
So my questions are ;
1- Is is really impossible to consolidate SQL dbases with different
character sets under a single server ? (Latin1_General + Turkish )
2- If no, how should I setup this MS SQL Server to support those char.sets ?
I will be very happy if anybody can help me .
Best regards.
ShadowfaxHi Shadow,
You can have databases (and even columns) with different collations on SQL
Server 2000. That wasn't possible on SQL Server 7.
Whether it is going to work with 3rd party application is uncertain though.
The problem is that temporary tables are created with the collation of
tempdb on your server. And unless the 3rd party applications are good
quality code (which unfortunately is quite unlikely), there is a good chance
that they will compare character values in permanent tables with character
values in temporary tables while assuming that tempdb has the same collation
as the database that application uses. And if that is not the case, you will
get collation conflicts.
This can be avoided by specifying COLLATE DATABASE_DEFAULT with each
character column when creating temporary tables so that the default
collation of the database the user is currently connected to is used. But as
I said earlier, applications very rarely get up to this level of code
quality.
You would probably best off to have 2 servers, one with Latin1_General
collation and one with Turkish collation.
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Shadow" <shadowfaxx001@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ePhKpPlAFHA.2112@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Greetings,
> In our company we have different kinds of SQL databases and SQL servers.
> We are trying to consolidate those servers under a couple of powerful
> servers. But when we began to tell this project to software houses and ask
> their idea; we met a big problem .
> Some of those companies are using SQL databases with Collation Designator
> = Latin1_General setting. But the majority is using with Collation
> Designator = Turkish setting. We want to consolidate them under a big MS
> SQL Server 2000. Anybody that we asked said that is impossible to
> consolidate those databases under a server.
> So my questions are ;
> 1- Is is really impossible to consolidate SQL dbases with different
> character sets under a single server ? (Latin1_General + Turkish )
> 2- If no, how should I setup this MS SQL Server to support those char.sets
> ?
> I will be very happy if anybody can help me .
> Best regards.
> Shadowfax
>
>|||Thanks for your help Jacco.
"Jacco Schalkwijk" <jacco.please.reply@.to.newsgroups.mvps.org.invalid> wrote
in message news:%23EJi6DmAFHA.2428@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi Shadow,
> You can have databases (and even columns) with different collations on SQL
> Server 2000. That wasn't possible on SQL Server 7.
>|||You could also consider having two instances of SQL (one w/Latin1_General,
the other with Turkish collation) on the same server.
Bart Duncan
Microsoft SQL Server Support
Please reply to the newsgroup only - thanks.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
| From: "Shadow" <shadowfaxx001@.hotmail.com>
| References: <ePhKpPlAFHA.2112@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>
<#EJi6DmAFHA.2428@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>
| Subject: Re: Different Collation designator Settings
| Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:09:04 +0200
| Lines: 11
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
| X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
| Message-ID: <#Slv$vpAFHA.1392@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
| Newsgroups:
microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect,microsoft.public.sqlserver.odbc,microsoft
public.sqlserver.server,microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup
| NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl85-97-7802.ttnet.net.tr 85.97.30.122
| Path:
cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTFEED02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!tk2msftngp13
phx.gbl
| Xref: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.odbc:43188
microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:375538
microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup:68919
microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect:44240
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
|
| Thanks for your help Jacco.
|
| "Jacco Schalkwijk" <jacco.please.reply@.to.newsgroups.mvps.org.invalid>
wrote
| in message news:%23EJi6DmAFHA.2428@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
| > Hi Shadow,
| >
| > You can have databases (and even columns) with different collations on
SQL
| > Server 2000. That wasn't possible on SQL Server 7.
| >
|
|
|

Different Collation designator Settings

Greetings,
In our company we have different kinds of SQL databases and SQL servers. We
are trying to consolidate those servers under a couple of powerful servers.
But when we began to tell this project to software houses and ask their
idea; we met a big problem .
Some of those companies are using SQL databases with Collation Designator =
Latin1_General setting. But the majority is using with Collation Designator
= Turkish setting. We want to consolidate them under a big MS SQL Server
2000. Anybody that we asked said that is impossible to consolidate those
databases under a server.
So my questions are ;
1- Is is really impossible to consolidate SQL dbases with different
character sets under a single server ? (Latin1_General + Turkish )
2- If no, how should I setup this MS SQL Server to support those char.sets ?
I will be very happy if anybody can help me .
Best regards.
Shadowfax
Hi Shadow,
You can have databases (and even columns) with different collations on SQL
Server 2000. That wasn't possible on SQL Server 7.
Whether it is going to work with 3rd party application is uncertain though.
The problem is that temporary tables are created with the collation of
tempdb on your server. And unless the 3rd party applications are good
quality code (which unfortunately is quite unlikely), there is a good chance
that they will compare character values in permanent tables with character
values in temporary tables while assuming that tempdb has the same collation
as the database that application uses. And if that is not the case, you will
get collation conflicts.
This can be avoided by specifying COLLATE DATABASE_DEFAULT with each
character column when creating temporary tables so that the default
collation of the database the user is currently connected to is used. But as
I said earlier, applications very rarely get up to this level of code
quality.
You would probably best off to have 2 servers, one with Latin1_General
collation and one with Turkish collation.
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Shadow" <shadowfaxx001@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ePhKpPlAFHA.2112@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Greetings,
> In our company we have different kinds of SQL databases and SQL servers.
> We are trying to consolidate those servers under a couple of powerful
> servers. But when we began to tell this project to software houses and ask
> their idea; we met a big problem .
> Some of those companies are using SQL databases with Collation Designator
> = Latin1_General setting. But the majority is using with Collation
> Designator = Turkish setting. We want to consolidate them under a big MS
> SQL Server 2000. Anybody that we asked said that is impossible to
> consolidate those databases under a server.
> So my questions are ;
> 1- Is is really impossible to consolidate SQL dbases with different
> character sets under a single server ? (Latin1_General + Turkish )
> 2- If no, how should I setup this MS SQL Server to support those char.sets
> ?
> I will be very happy if anybody can help me .
> Best regards.
> Shadowfax
>
>
|||Thanks for your help Jacco.
"Jacco Schalkwijk" <jacco.please.reply@.to.newsgroups.mvps.org.invalid > wrote
in message news:%23EJi6DmAFHA.2428@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi Shadow,
> You can have databases (and even columns) with different collations on SQL
> Server 2000. That wasn't possible on SQL Server 7.
>
|||You could also consider having two instances of SQL (one w/Latin1_General,
the other with Turkish collation) on the same server.
Bart Duncan
Microsoft SQL Server Support
Please reply to the newsgroup only - thanks.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
| From: "Shadow" <shadowfaxx001@.hotmail.com>
| References: <ePhKpPlAFHA.2112@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>
<#EJi6DmAFHA.2428@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>
| Subject: Re: Different Collation designator Settings
| Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:09:04 +0200
| Lines: 11
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
| X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
| Message-ID: <#Slv$vpAFHA.1392@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>
| Newsgroups:
microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect,microsoft.publi c.sqlserver.odbc,microsoft
public.sqlserver.server,microsoft.public.sqlserver .setup
| NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl85-97-7802.ttnet.net.tr 85.97.30.122
| Path:
cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTFEED02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFT NGP08.phx.gbl!tk2msftngp13
phx.gbl
| Xref: cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.odbc:43188
microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:375538
microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup:68919
microsoft.public.sqlserver.connect:44240
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
|
| Thanks for your help Jacco.
|
| "Jacco Schalkwijk" <jacco.please.reply@.to.newsgroups.mvps.org.invalid >
wrote
| in message news:%23EJi6DmAFHA.2428@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
| > Hi Shadow,
| >
| > You can have databases (and even columns) with different collations on
SQL
| > Server 2000. That wasn't possible on SQL Server 7.
| >
|
|
|