Does anyone know of a web site that lists the difference between 2005
management studio and the 2000 ent mgr, and how to perform the ent mgr tasks
in mgmt studio? There are enough subtle differences that Im getting pretty
irritated with management studio.
Thanks, Mark
Why don't you tell us which parts are irritating you, rather than asking us
to walk through the tool and pick out all the differences, and hope we hit
on the ones that are bugging you?
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
"SandpointGuy" <SandpointGuy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5ACBF7D4-BA06-49E7-B642-21BC2C7E9DFD@.microsoft.com...
> Does anyone know of a web site that lists the difference between 2005
> management studio and the 2000 ent mgr, and how to perform the ent mgr
> tasks
> in mgmt studio? There are enough subtle differences that Im getting
> pretty
> irritated with management studio.
> Thanks, Mark
|||Point taken. My "Change Type greyed out ..." posting above lists one.
After spending a lot of time in Mgmt Studio lately I would say that overall
its different - not better (again, Im speaking overall, I realize some things
are very nice), just different. Love those learning curves.
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> Why don't you tell us which parts are irritating you, rather than asking us
> to walk through the tool and pick out all the differences, and hope we hit
> on the ones that are bugging you?
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "SandpointGuy" <SandpointGuy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5ACBF7D4-BA06-49E7-B642-21BC2C7E9DFD@.microsoft.com...
>
>
Showing posts with label mgmt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mgmt. Show all posts
Sunday, February 19, 2012
2005 mgmt studio -> 2000 clustered instance
Is there any way to connect to a SQL Server 2000 clustered instance uinsg 2005 Management Studio? I have not been able to get this to work. Is this a known inability of 2005 mgmt studio?
Hi,
got no problem. Which error are you getting ? Didi you connect to the virtual adress or a node adress. In some cases the direct node adresses aren′′t accessible due to network restrictions.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
|||Connecting to the virtual sql server address. The error message is "An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that under default settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections. (provider: Named Pipes Provider, error: 40 - could not open a connection to SQL Server) (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 2)|||Found it...problem was in getting around the firewall using tcp/ip. After changing the protocol order on the client side and using Named Pipes before tcp/ip, the problem was resolved. Interestingly enough, this was not an issue with SQL Server 2000 EM.Monday, February 13, 2012
2005 ft index help
I have numerous vldb's that my mgmt want to have full text indexed. Usually
there are betwen two ad four columns per table that would need the FTI put on
them. FTI on sql2000 failed miserably as it was slow and my tables were
probably too large (smallest is 10 million rows and largest is 800 million
rows).
I would like to know if 2005 FTI, since its been incorporated into the sql
engine, has had its upper limits increased in regards to the size of db can
be indexed.
also, can you replicate a FTI to another server along with its table?
thanks!!!
I believe it was tested to 20 million rows, if not more.
Yes, you can replicate SQL Server 2005 Full Text Indexes and their tables.
Hilary
"Carl Henthorn" wrote:
> I have numerous vldb's that my mgmt want to have full text indexed. Usually
> there are betwen two ad four columns per table that would need the FTI put on
> them. FTI on sql2000 failed miserably as it was slow and my tables were
> probably too large (smallest is 10 million rows and largest is 800 million
> rows).
> I would like to know if 2005 FTI, since its been incorporated into the sql
> engine, has had its upper limits increased in regards to the size of db can
> be indexed.
> also, can you replicate a FTI to another server along with its table?
> thanks!!!
|||that is not very comforting. Why is FT not tested against larger databases?
Is there a max size to the catalog? is there a peformance issue?
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I believe it was tested to 20 million rows, if not more.
> Yes, you can replicate SQL Server 2005 Full Text Indexes and their tables.
> Hilary
> "Carl Henthorn" wrote:
|||I am not sure what the limits that Microsoft has tested it against.
My statistic comes from here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...05ftsearch.asp
In this sentence:
.. For example, on the same hardware, with the same data set, building a
full-text index on 20 million rows of character-based text data took roughly
14 days in SQL Server 2000, while in SQL Server 2005, the same index
required less than 10 hours.
But reading on I see this:
SQL Server 2005 full-text catalogs, by contrast, have been tested with and
can support up to 2,000,000,000 rows of data (based on the 4-byte internal
DocId). Further, the indexing process also scales up to that amount of data
on a larger number of CPUs. Scalability of the text engine at indexing time
over multiple CPUs has also improved significantly over previous releases
(the full-text engine scales well up to roughly 16 CPUs on a 32-bit
platform).
I take it that is not a typo and Andrew means 2 billion.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
Now available for purchase at:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Carl Henthorn" <CarlHenthorn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0EF93B7D-A916-4BB3-B171-3DF9A29A48A7@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> that is not very comforting. Why is FT not tested against larger
> databases?
> Is there a max size to the catalog? is there a peformance issue?
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
there are betwen two ad four columns per table that would need the FTI put on
them. FTI on sql2000 failed miserably as it was slow and my tables were
probably too large (smallest is 10 million rows and largest is 800 million
rows).
I would like to know if 2005 FTI, since its been incorporated into the sql
engine, has had its upper limits increased in regards to the size of db can
be indexed.
also, can you replicate a FTI to another server along with its table?
thanks!!!
I believe it was tested to 20 million rows, if not more.
Yes, you can replicate SQL Server 2005 Full Text Indexes and their tables.
Hilary
"Carl Henthorn" wrote:
> I have numerous vldb's that my mgmt want to have full text indexed. Usually
> there are betwen two ad four columns per table that would need the FTI put on
> them. FTI on sql2000 failed miserably as it was slow and my tables were
> probably too large (smallest is 10 million rows and largest is 800 million
> rows).
> I would like to know if 2005 FTI, since its been incorporated into the sql
> engine, has had its upper limits increased in regards to the size of db can
> be indexed.
> also, can you replicate a FTI to another server along with its table?
> thanks!!!
|||that is not very comforting. Why is FT not tested against larger databases?
Is there a max size to the catalog? is there a peformance issue?
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I believe it was tested to 20 million rows, if not more.
> Yes, you can replicate SQL Server 2005 Full Text Indexes and their tables.
> Hilary
> "Carl Henthorn" wrote:
|||I am not sure what the limits that Microsoft has tested it against.
My statistic comes from here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...05ftsearch.asp
In this sentence:
.. For example, on the same hardware, with the same data set, building a
full-text index on 20 million rows of character-based text data took roughly
14 days in SQL Server 2000, while in SQL Server 2005, the same index
required less than 10 hours.
But reading on I see this:
SQL Server 2005 full-text catalogs, by contrast, have been tested with and
can support up to 2,000,000,000 rows of data (based on the 4-byte internal
DocId). Further, the indexing process also scales up to that amount of data
on a larger number of CPUs. Scalability of the text engine at indexing time
over multiple CPUs has also improved significantly over previous releases
(the full-text engine scales well up to roughly 16 CPUs on a 32-bit
platform).
I take it that is not a typo and Andrew means 2 billion.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
Now available for purchase at:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Carl Henthorn" <CarlHenthorn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0EF93B7D-A916-4BB3-B171-3DF9A29A48A7@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> that is not very comforting. Why is FT not tested against larger
> databases?
> Is there a max size to the catalog? is there a peformance issue?
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)