Case sensitivity in SQL -- ignore

Hi,

I believe my SQL server was configured as Case sensitivity. I have a
number of stored procedures which were moved from a non-Case
sensitivity SQL server. Because of the Case sensitivity, I have to do
a lot of editing in those stored procedures. Is there a quick way to
avoid the editing?

Something like ignoring the case in one statement?

Thanks in advance, your advice will be greatly appreciated.On Mar 14, 11:59 pm, sweetpota...@.yahoo.com wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Hi,
>
I believe my SQL server was configured as Case sensitivity. I have a
number of stored procedures which were moved from a non-Case
sensitivity SQL server. Because of the Case sensitivity, I have to do
a lot of editing in those stored procedures. Is there a quick way to
avoid the editing?
>
Something like ignoring the case in one statement?
>
Thanks in advance, your advice will be greatly appreciated.

I think by changing the collation of your database to case
insenstitvity may help
but this may cause problems when you create #temp tables as tempdb
will have server collation

If your column and table names are in lower case , you can modify the
SP by selecting the SP and changing to lowercase (SHIFT+CTRL+L) . But
if you have string constants which need to be in uppercase , you need
to change it accordingly

M A Srinivas|||>I believe my SQL server was configured as Case sensitivity. <<

As it should be; that is how Standard SQL is defined

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>Because of the Case sensitivity, I have to do a lot of editing in those stored procedures. <<

Life is tough when someone screws up. You need to just do it right
and stop looking for kludges. Oh, and if yuou can kill them guy that
did this, you will probably improve the quality of your company's
software in other places as well.

Capture table & index scanning

I have a table I believe is the subject of excessive
scanning on the table & its indexes. I am having trouble
getting SQLProfiler to capture the calls to SPs that are
causing scans on the table. Anybody know how to config
SQLProfiler to do this or a better way?
Thanks,
RogerHave you set filters to search for the SP name?
TextData--> Like %whatever%
I use this combined with the databaseid filter to limit the thousands of
rows my dbs put out to Profiler
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1f72301c457be$1c6e9b30$a401280a@.phx
.gbl...
> I have a table I believe is the subject of excessive
> scanning on the table & its indexes. I am having trouble
> getting SQLProfiler to capture the calls to SPs that are
> causing scans on the table. Anybody know how to config
> SQLProfiler to do this or a better way?
> Thanks,
> Roger|||Roger
http://www.sql-server-performance.c...ofiler_tips.asp
"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1f72301c457be$1c6e9b30$a401280a@.phx
.gbl...
> I have a table I believe is the subject of excessive
> scanning on the table & its indexes. I am having trouble
> getting SQLProfiler to capture the calls to SPs that are
> causing scans on the table. Anybody know how to config
> SQLProfiler to do this or a better way?
> Thanks,
> Roger|||Thanks for the reply Kevin. I know the table & its
actually the SPs I'm trying to identify. Here's my
Profiler settings:
Events:
Scan:Started
RPC:Completed
SP:Completed
Data Columns:
IndexID (Grouped)
EventClass
StartTime
SPID
Duration
TextData
HostName
DatabaseID
ApplicationName
CPU
Reads
Filters:
DatabaseID = 8
ObjectID = 295776211 (the table thats being scanned)
I suspect the table is being scanned because SQL slows
down, CPU goes up & I run sp_lock & a few SPIDs have
taken out 2million+ locks on the table. The above
Profiler settings indicate scans, but doesn't tell me
what SPs are running when the scan occurs. Any help
appreciated.
Thanks,
Roger

>--Original Message--
>Have you set filters to search for the SP name?
>TextData--> Like %whatever%
>I use this combined with the databaseid filter to limit
the thousands of
>rows my dbs put out to Profiler
>--
>Kevin Hill
>President
>3NF Consulting
>www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
Worth area DBAs.
>"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message
> news:1f72301c457be$1c6e9b30$a401280a@.phx
.gbl...
trouble[vbcol=seagreen]
are[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>|||Thanks Uri. I had already found this article. The whole
site is excellent. Please see my reply to Kevin. I
would appreciate any more help as this is really hurting
our production system.
Thanks,
Roger
>--Original Message--
>Roger
>http://www.sql-server-
performance.com/sql_server_profiler_tips.asp
>|||Roger
Can you identify where does the table involve?
Look at these stored procedure/queries.
Have you appropriate indexes for searching on the table?
"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1fa4c01c45836$aad376c0$a501280a@.phx
.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks Uri. I had already found this article. The whole
> site is excellent. Please see my reply to Kevin. I
> would appreciate any more help as this is really hurting
> our production system.
> Thanks,
> Roger
> performance.com/sql_server_profiler_tips.asp|||Uri,
We have 4000 SPs. The table is probably called by
hundreds of these SPs. Through knowledge of the front-
ends, we have clustered, non-clustered & composite
indexes which we have seen improvements in some SPs, but
we are still experiencing problems. Can I assume that
SQLProfiler can't do this?
Thanks,
Roger

>--Original Message--
>Roger
>Can you identify where does the table involve?
>Look at these stored procedure/queries.
>Have you appropriate indexes for searching on the table?
>
>
>"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message
> news:1fa4c01c45836$aad376c0$a501280a@.phx
.gbl...
whole[vbcol=seagreen]
hurting[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>.
>|||Can you set a filter on the duration to only show those that are taking over
a certain amount of time?
I have a trace template established to identify anything over 5000 (5
seconds) in my environment...
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1fddf01c45835$fc33ca20$a001280a@.phx
.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for the reply Kevin. I know the table & its
> actually the SPs I'm trying to identify. Here's my
> Profiler settings:
> Events:
> Scan:Started
> RPC:Completed
> SP:Completed
> Data Columns:
> IndexID (Grouped)
> EventClass
> StartTime
> SPID
> Duration
> TextData
> HostName
> DatabaseID
> ApplicationName
> CPU
> Reads
> Filters:
> DatabaseID = 8
> ObjectID = 295776211 (the table thats being scanned)
> I suspect the table is being scanned because SQL slows
> down, CPU goes up & I run sp_lock & a few SPIDs have
> taken out 2million+ locks on the table. The above
> Profiler settings indicate scans, but doesn't tell me
> what SPs are running when the scan occurs. Any help
> appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Roger
>
> the thousands of
> Worth area DBAs.
> wrote in message
> trouble
> are|||Roger
Well, I would go with idetifying those stored procedures (although it might
be >100) and then run SQL Server Profiler to capture a long running stored
procedures (group by duration).
"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1fa4401c4584c$6739b350$a101280a@.phx
.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Uri,
> We have 4000 SPs. The table is probably called by
> hundreds of these SPs. Through knowledge of the front-
> ends, we have clustered, non-clustered & composite
> indexes which we have seen improvements in some SPs, but
> we are still experiencing problems. Can I assume that
> SQLProfiler can't do this?
> Thanks,
> Roger
>
> wrote in message
> whole
> hurting

Capture table & index scanning

I have a table I believe is the subject of excessive
scanning on the table & its indexes. I am having trouble
getting SQLProfiler to capture the calls to SPs that are
causing scans on the table. Anybody know how to config
SQLProfiler to do this or a better way?
Thanks,
RogerHave you set filters to search for the SP name?
TextData--> Like %whatever%
I use this combined with the databaseid filter to limit the thousands of
rows my dbs put out to Profiler
--
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1f72301c457be$1c6e9b30$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a table I believe is the subject of excessive
> scanning on the table & its indexes. I am having trouble
> getting SQLProfiler to capture the calls to SPs that are
> causing scans on the table. Anybody know how to config
> SQLProfiler to do this or a better way?
> Thanks,
> Roger|||Roger
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_profiler_tips.asp
"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1f72301c457be$1c6e9b30$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a table I believe is the subject of excessive
> scanning on the table & its indexes. I am having trouble
> getting SQLProfiler to capture the calls to SPs that are
> causing scans on the table. Anybody know how to config
> SQLProfiler to do this or a better way?
> Thanks,
> Roger|||Thanks for the reply Kevin. I know the table & its
actually the SPs I'm trying to identify. Here's my
Profiler settings:
Events:
Scan:Started
RPC:Completed
SP:Completed
Data Columns:
IndexID (Grouped)
EventClass
StartTime
SPID
Duration
TextData
HostName
DatabaseID
ApplicationName
CPU
Reads
Filters:
DatabaseID = 8
ObjectID = 295776211 (the table thats being scanned)
I suspect the table is being scanned because SQL slows
down, CPU goes up & I run sp_lock & a few SPIDs have
taken out 2million+ locks on the table. The above
Profiler settings indicate scans, but doesn't tell me
what SPs are running when the scan occurs. Any help
appreciated.
Thanks,
Roger
>--Original Message--
>Have you set filters to search for the SP name?
>TextData--> Like %whatever%
>I use this combined with the databaseid filter to limit
the thousands of
>rows my dbs put out to Profiler
>--
>Kevin Hill
>President
>3NF Consulting
>www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
Worth area DBAs.
>"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message
>news:1f72301c457be$1c6e9b30$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
>> I have a table I believe is the subject of excessive
>> scanning on the table & its indexes. I am having
trouble
>> getting SQLProfiler to capture the calls to SPs that
are
>> causing scans on the table. Anybody know how to config
>> SQLProfiler to do this or a better way?
>> Thanks,
>> Roger
>
>.
>|||Thanks Uri. I had already found this article. The whole
site is excellent. Please see my reply to Kevin. I
would appreciate any more help as this is really hurting
our production system.
Thanks,
Roger
>--Original Message--
>Roger
>http://www.sql-server-
performance.com/sql_server_profiler_tips.asp
>|||Roger
Can you identify where does the table involve?
Look at these stored procedure/queries.
Have you appropriate indexes for searching on the table?
"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1fa4c01c45836$aad376c0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Uri. I had already found this article. The whole
> site is excellent. Please see my reply to Kevin. I
> would appreciate any more help as this is really hurting
> our production system.
> Thanks,
> Roger
> >--Original Message--
> >Roger
> >http://www.sql-server-
> performance.com/sql_server_profiler_tips.asp
> >|||Uri,
We have 4000 SPs. The table is probably called by
hundreds of these SPs. Through knowledge of the front-
ends, we have clustered, non-clustered & composite
indexes which we have seen improvements in some SPs, but
we are still experiencing problems. Can I assume that
SQLProfiler can't do this?
Thanks,
Roger
>--Original Message--
>Roger
>Can you identify where does the table involve?
>Look at these stored procedure/queries.
>Have you appropriate indexes for searching on the table?
>
>
>"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message
>news:1fa4c01c45836$aad376c0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Uri. I had already found this article. The
whole
>> site is excellent. Please see my reply to Kevin. I
>> would appreciate any more help as this is really
hurting
>> our production system.
>> Thanks,
>> Roger
>> >--Original Message--
>> >Roger
>> >http://www.sql-server-
>> performance.com/sql_server_profiler_tips.asp
>> >
>
>.
>|||Can you set a filter on the duration to only show those that are taking over
a certain amount of time?
I have a trace template established to identify anything over 5000 (5
seconds) in my environment...
--
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1fddf01c45835$fc33ca20$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the reply Kevin. I know the table & its
> actually the SPs I'm trying to identify. Here's my
> Profiler settings:
> Events:
> Scan:Started
> RPC:Completed
> SP:Completed
> Data Columns:
> IndexID (Grouped)
> EventClass
> StartTime
> SPID
> Duration
> TextData
> HostName
> DatabaseID
> ApplicationName
> CPU
> Reads
> Filters:
> DatabaseID = 8
> ObjectID = 295776211 (the table thats being scanned)
> I suspect the table is being scanned because SQL slows
> down, CPU goes up & I run sp_lock & a few SPIDs have
> taken out 2million+ locks on the table. The above
> Profiler settings indicate scans, but doesn't tell me
> what SPs are running when the scan occurs. Any help
> appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Roger
> >--Original Message--
> >Have you set filters to search for the SP name?
> >
> >TextData--> Like %whatever%
> >
> >I use this combined with the databaseid filter to limit
> the thousands of
> >rows my dbs put out to Profiler
> >
> >--
> >Kevin Hill
> >President
> >3NF Consulting
> >
> >www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
> >www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
> Worth area DBAs.
> >
> >"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote in message
> >news:1f72301c457be$1c6e9b30$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> I have a table I believe is the subject of excessive
> >> scanning on the table & its indexes. I am having
> trouble
> >> getting SQLProfiler to capture the calls to SPs that
> are
> >> causing scans on the table. Anybody know how to config
> >> SQLProfiler to do this or a better way?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Roger
> >
> >
> >.
> >|||Roger
Well, I would go with idetifying those stored procedures (although it might
be >100) and then run SQL Server Profiler to capture a long running stored
procedures (group by duration).
"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1fa4401c4584c$6739b350$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> Uri,
> We have 4000 SPs. The table is probably called by
> hundreds of these SPs. Through knowledge of the front-
> ends, we have clustered, non-clustered & composite
> indexes which we have seen improvements in some SPs, but
> we are still experiencing problems. Can I assume that
> SQLProfiler can't do this?
> Thanks,
> Roger
> >--Original Message--
> >Roger
> >Can you identify where does the table involve?
> >Look at these stored procedure/queries.
> >Have you appropriate indexes for searching on the table?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote in message
> >news:1fa4c01c45836$aad376c0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> >> Thanks Uri. I had already found this article. The
> whole
> >> site is excellent. Please see my reply to Kevin. I
> >> would appreciate any more help as this is really
> hurting
> >> our production system.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Roger
> >> >--Original Message--
> >> >Roger
> >> >http://www.sql-server-
> >> performance.com/sql_server_profiler_tips.asp
> >> >
> >
> >
> >.
> >

Capture table & index scanning

I have a table I believe is the subject of excessive
scanning on the table & its indexes. I am having trouble
getting SQLProfiler to capture the calls to SPs that are
causing scans on the table. Anybody know how to config
SQLProfiler to do this or a better way?
Thanks,
Roger
Have you set filters to search for the SP name?
TextData--> Like %whatever%
I use this combined with the databaseid filter to limit the thousands of
rows my dbs put out to Profiler
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1f72301c457be$1c6e9b30$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a table I believe is the subject of excessive
> scanning on the table & its indexes. I am having trouble
> getting SQLProfiler to capture the calls to SPs that are
> causing scans on the table. Anybody know how to config
> SQLProfiler to do this or a better way?
> Thanks,
> Roger
|||Roger
http://www.sql-server-performance.co...filer_tips.asp
"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1f72301c457be$1c6e9b30$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I have a table I believe is the subject of excessive
> scanning on the table & its indexes. I am having trouble
> getting SQLProfiler to capture the calls to SPs that are
> causing scans on the table. Anybody know how to config
> SQLProfiler to do this or a better way?
> Thanks,
> Roger
|||Thanks for the reply Kevin. I know the table & its
actually the SPs I'm trying to identify. Here's my
Profiler settings:
Events:
Scan:Started
RPC:Completed
SP:Completed
Data Columns:
IndexID (Grouped)
EventClass
StartTime
SPID
Duration
TextData
HostName
DatabaseID
ApplicationName
CPU
Reads
Filters:
DatabaseID = 8
ObjectID = 295776211 (the table thats being scanned)
I suspect the table is being scanned because SQL slows
down, CPU goes up & I run sp_lock & a few SPIDs have
taken out 2million+ locks on the table. The above
Profiler settings indicate scans, but doesn't tell me
what SPs are running when the scan occurs. Any help
appreciated.
Thanks,
Roger

>--Original Message--
>Have you set filters to search for the SP name?
>TextData--> Like %whatever%
>I use this combined with the databaseid filter to limit
the thousands of
>rows my dbs put out to Profiler
>--
>Kevin Hill
>President
>3NF Consulting
>www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
>www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft.
Worth area DBAs.
>"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:1f72301c457be$1c6e9b30$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
trouble[vbcol=seagreen]
are
>
>.
>
|||Thanks Uri. I had already found this article. The whole
site is excellent. Please see my reply to Kevin. I
would appreciate any more help as this is really hurting
our production system.
Thanks,
Roger
>--Original Message--
>Roger
>http://www.sql-server-
performance.com/sql_server_profiler_tips.asp
>
|||Roger
Can you identify where does the table involve?
Look at these stored procedure/queries.
Have you appropriate indexes for searching on the table?
"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1fa4c01c45836$aad376c0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks Uri. I had already found this article. The whole
> site is excellent. Please see my reply to Kevin. I
> would appreciate any more help as this is really hurting
> our production system.
> Thanks,
> Roger
> performance.com/sql_server_profiler_tips.asp
|||Uri,
We have 4000 SPs. The table is probably called by
hundreds of these SPs. Through knowledge of the front-
ends, we have clustered, non-clustered & composite
indexes which we have seen improvements in some SPs, but
we are still experiencing problems. Can I assume that
SQLProfiler can't do this?
Thanks,
Roger

>--Original Message--
>Roger
>Can you identify where does the table involve?
>Look at these stored procedure/queries.
>Have you appropriate indexes for searching on the table?
>
>
>"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message[vbcol=seagreen]
>news:1fa4c01c45836$aad376c0$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
whole[vbcol=seagreen]
hurting
>
>.
>
|||Can you set a filter on the duration to only show those that are taking over
a certain amount of time?
I have a trace template established to identify anything over 5000 (5
seconds) in my environment...
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting
www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm
www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.
"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1fddf01c45835$fc33ca20$a001280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for the reply Kevin. I know the table & its
> actually the SPs I'm trying to identify. Here's my
> Profiler settings:
> Events:
> Scan:Started
> RPC:Completed
> SP:Completed
> Data Columns:
> IndexID (Grouped)
> EventClass
> StartTime
> SPID
> Duration
> TextData
> HostName
> DatabaseID
> ApplicationName
> CPU
> Reads
> Filters:
> DatabaseID = 8
> ObjectID = 295776211 (the table thats being scanned)
> I suspect the table is being scanned because SQL slows
> down, CPU goes up & I run sp_lock & a few SPIDs have
> taken out 2million+ locks on the table. The above
> Profiler settings indicate scans, but doesn't tell me
> what SPs are running when the scan occurs. Any help
> appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Roger
> the thousands of
> Worth area DBAs.
> wrote in message
> trouble
> are
|||Roger
Well, I would go with idetifying those stored procedures (although it might
be >100) and then run SQL Server Profiler to capture a long running stored
procedures (group by duration).
"Roger White" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1fa4401c4584c$6739b350$a101280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Uri,
> We have 4000 SPs. The table is probably called by
> hundreds of these SPs. Through knowledge of the front-
> ends, we have clustered, non-clustered & composite
> indexes which we have seen improvements in some SPs, but
> we are still experiencing problems. Can I assume that
> SQLProfiler can't do this?
> Thanks,
> Roger
> wrote in message
> whole
> hurting

Capatibility between 32 bit and 64 bit SQL Server 2000

Is SQL Server 2000 64-bit edition 100% compatible with SQL Server 2000
32-bit edition? I don't believe there would be any problems with us moving
to the 64-bit version, but my supervisor is a bit nervous because a previous
upgrade of our Dispatch software through a fit when we upgraded to a new
version.Hi Ben,
Would you please explain the "compatible" means in detail? Based on my
knowledge, x64 edition is totally the same sa 32bit edition except more
powerful performance.
Check following article:
Features Supported by the Editions of SQL Server 2005
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143761.aspx
Let me know if you still have any concerns.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Vincent Xu
Microsoft Online Partner Support
========================================
==============
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
========================================
==============
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others
may learn and benefit from this issue.
========================================
==============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,and confers no rights.
========================================
==============
--[vbcol=seagreen]
moving[vbcol=seagreen]
previous[vbcol=seagreen]|||Specifically I was refering to all of our tables, saved queries, and ODBC
connection to our client programs.
"Vincent Xu [MSFT]" <v-xuwen@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:PvGRqtS3GHA.4548@.TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl...
> Hi Ben,
> Would you please explain the "compatible" means in detail? Based on my
> knowledge, x64 edition is totally the same sa 32bit edition except more
> powerful performance.
> Check following article:
> Features Supported by the Editions of SQL Server 2005
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143761.aspx
> Let me know if you still have any concerns.
> Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
> Vincent Xu
> Microsoft Online Partner Support
> ========================================
==============
> Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
> ========================================
==============
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
> that others
> may learn and benefit from this issue.
> ========================================
==============
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,and confers no rights.
> ========================================
==============
>
> --
> moving
> previous
>|||Hi Ben,
If so, I think you don't need to worry about anything. Because they are
compatible for sure!
Thanks.
Best regards,
Vincent Xu
Microsoft Online Partner Support
========================================
==============
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
========================================
==============
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others
may learn and benefit from this issue.
========================================
==============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,and confers no rights.
========================================
==============
--[vbcol=seagreen]
<PvGRqtS3GHA.4548@.TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl>[vbcol=seagreen]
rights.[vbcol=seagreen]
new[vbcol=seagreen]

Capatibility between 32 bit and 64 bit SQL Server 2000

Is SQL Server 2000 64-bit edition 100% compatible with SQL Server 2000
32-bit edition? I don't believe there would be any problems with us moving
to the 64-bit version, but my supervisor is a bit nervous because a previous
upgrade of our Dispatch software through a fit when we upgraded to a new
version.Hi Ben,
Would you please explain the "compatible" means in detail? Based on my
knowledge, x64 edition is totally the same sa 32bit edition except more
powerful performance.
Check following article:
Features Supported by the Editions of SQL Server 2005
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143761.aspx
Let me know if you still have any concerns.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Vincent Xu
Microsoft Online Partner Support
======================================================Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
======================================================When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others
may learn and benefit from this issue.
======================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,and confers no rights.
======================================================>>From: "Ben Mullen" <bmullengb@.nospam.nospam>
>>Subject: Capatibility between 32 bit and 64 bit SQL Server 2000
>>Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:47:53 -0500
>>Lines: 7
>>X-Priority: 3
>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
>>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
>>X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
>>Message-ID: <uiw#SbQ3GHA.4228@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>
>>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.150.66.2
>>Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl
>>Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:445761
>>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>>Is SQL Server 2000 64-bit edition 100% compatible with SQL Server 2000
>>32-bit edition? I don't believe there would be any problems with us
moving
>>to the 64-bit version, but my supervisor is a bit nervous because a
previous
>>upgrade of our Dispatch software through a fit when we upgraded to a new
>>version.
>>|||Specifically I was refering to all of our tables, saved queries, and ODBC
connection to our client programs.
"Vincent Xu [MSFT]" <v-xuwen@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:PvGRqtS3GHA.4548@.TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl...
> Hi Ben,
> Would you please explain the "compatible" means in detail? Based on my
> knowledge, x64 edition is totally the same sa 32bit edition except more
> powerful performance.
> Check following article:
> Features Supported by the Editions of SQL Server 2005
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143761.aspx
> Let me know if you still have any concerns.
> Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
> Vincent Xu
> Microsoft Online Partner Support
> ======================================================> Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
> ======================================================> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
> that others
> may learn and benefit from this issue.
> ======================================================> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,and confers no rights.
> ======================================================>
> --
>>From: "Ben Mullen" <bmullengb@.nospam.nospam>
>>Subject: Capatibility between 32 bit and 64 bit SQL Server 2000
>>Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:47:53 -0500
>>Lines: 7
>>X-Priority: 3
>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
>>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
>>X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
>>Message-ID: <uiw#SbQ3GHA.4228@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>
>>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.150.66.2
>>Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl
>>Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:445761
>>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>>Is SQL Server 2000 64-bit edition 100% compatible with SQL Server 2000
>>32-bit edition? I don't believe there would be any problems with us
> moving
>>to the 64-bit version, but my supervisor is a bit nervous because a
> previous
>>upgrade of our Dispatch software through a fit when we upgraded to a new
>>version.
>>
>|||Hi Ben,
If so, I think you don't need to worry about anything. Because they are
compatible for sure!
Thanks.
Best regards,
Vincent Xu
Microsoft Online Partner Support
======================================================
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
======================================================When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others
may learn and benefit from this issue.
======================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,and confers no rights.
======================================================>>From: "Ben Mullen" <bmullengb@.nospam.nospam>
>>References: <uiw#SbQ3GHA.4228@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>
<PvGRqtS3GHA.4548@.TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl>
>>Subject: Re: Capatibility between 32 bit and 64 bit SQL Server 2000
>>Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:51:58 -0500
>>Lines: 68
>>X-Priority: 3
>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
>>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
>>X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
>>Message-ID: <#ATq$yX3GHA.4648@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>
>>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: 206-40-98-90.papertransport.com 206.40.98.90
>>Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl
>>Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:445816
>>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>>Specifically I was refering to all of our tables, saved queries, and ODBC
>>connection to our client programs.
>>"Vincent Xu [MSFT]" <v-xuwen@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>news:PvGRqtS3GHA.4548@.TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl...
>> Hi Ben,
>> Would you please explain the "compatible" means in detail? Based on my
>> knowledge, x64 edition is totally the same sa 32bit edition except more
>> powerful performance.
>> Check following article:
>> Features Supported by the Editions of SQL Server 2005
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143761.aspx
>> Let me know if you still have any concerns.
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Vincent Xu
>> Microsoft Online Partner Support
>> ======================================================>> Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
>> ======================================================>> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
>> that others
>> may learn and benefit from this issue.
>> ======================================================>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,and confers no
rights.
>> ======================================================>>
>> --
>>From: "Ben Mullen" <bmullengb@.nospam.nospam>
>>Subject: Capatibility between 32 bit and 64 bit SQL Server 2000
>>Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:47:53 -0500
>>Lines: 7
>>X-Priority: 3
>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
>>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
>>X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
>>Message-ID: <uiw#SbQ3GHA.4228@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>
>>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.150.66.2
>>Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl
>>Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.sqlserver.server:445761
>>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.sqlserver.server
>>Is SQL Server 2000 64-bit edition 100% compatible with SQL Server 2000
>>32-bit edition? I don't believe there would be any problems with us
>> moving
>>to the 64-bit version, but my supervisor is a bit nervous because a
>> previous
>>upgrade of our Dispatch software through a fit when we upgraded to a
new
>>version.
>>
>>
>>

Capatibility between 32 bit and 64 bit SQL Server 2000

Is SQL Server 2000 64-bit edition 100% compatible with SQL Server 2000
32-bit edition? I don't believe there would be any problems with us moving
to the 64-bit version, but my supervisor is a bit nervous because a previous
upgrade of our Dispatch software through a fit when we upgraded to a new
version.
Hi Ben,
Would you please explain the "compatible" means in detail? Based on my
knowledge, x64 edition is totally the same sa 32bit edition except more
powerful performance.
Check following article:
Features Supported by the Editions of SQL Server 2005
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143761.aspx
Let me know if you still have any concerns.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Vincent Xu
Microsoft Online Partner Support
================================================== ====
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
================================================== ====
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others
may learn and benefit from this issue.
================================================== ====
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,and confers no rights.
================================================== ====
--[vbcol=seagreen]
moving[vbcol=seagreen]
previous[vbcol=seagreen]
|||Specifically I was refering to all of our tables, saved queries, and ODBC
connection to our client programs.
"Vincent Xu [MSFT]" <v-xuwen@.online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:PvGRqtS3GHA.4548@.TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl...
> Hi Ben,
> Would you please explain the "compatible" means in detail? Based on my
> knowledge, x64 edition is totally the same sa 32bit edition except more
> powerful performance.
> Check following article:
> Features Supported by the Editions of SQL Server 2005
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143761.aspx
> Let me know if you still have any concerns.
> Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
> Vincent Xu
> Microsoft Online Partner Support
> ================================================== ====
> Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
> ================================================== ====
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
> that others
> may learn and benefit from this issue.
> ================================================== ====
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,and confers no rights.
> ================================================== ====
>
> --
> moving
> previous
>
|||Hi Ben,
If so, I think you don't need to worry about anything. Because they are
compatible for sure!
Thanks.
Best regards,
Vincent Xu
Microsoft Online Partner Support
================================================== ====
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
================================================== ====
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others
may learn and benefit from this issue.
================================================== ====
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,and confers no rights.
================================================== ====
--[vbcol=seagreen]
<PvGRqtS3GHA.4548@.TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl>[vbcol=seagreen]
rights.[vbcol=seagreen]
new[vbcol=seagreen]