Case Statement in Stored Procedure ?

I am converting IIF statements from an Access Query into a Stored Procedure
and was doing ok until I got to this one which is a bit more complicated:
CASE WHEN [Field1] = 1 THEN 0 ELSE [Field2] + [Field3] -[Field4] / [Field5]
END
All fields are valid boleen fields
I have tried putting parens around the equation part but still get errors.
How can I get the data into this field? Thanks.CAST as the bit columns as INT such as CAST([Field2] AS INT)
I think that [Field2] + [Field3] -[Field4] / [Field5]
should be ([Field2] + [Field3] -[Field4]) / [Field5]
"AkAlan" <AkAlan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F23EB696-E2B4-43EA-AC88-664FB8B2221E@.microsoft.com...
>I am converting IIF statements from an Access Query into a Stored
>Procedure
> and was doing ok until I got to this one which is a bit more complicated:
> CASE WHEN [Field1] = 1 THEN 0 ELSE [Field2] + [Field3] -[Field4] /
> [Field5]
> END
> All fields are valid boleen fields
> I have tried putting parens around the equation part but still get errors.
> How can I get the data into this field? Thanks.
>|||Please explain what "All fields are valid boleen fields" means.
Also post the error message that you get.
ML|||The Fields I'm trying to perform math on are boolean fields and are already
in place in the stored procedure.
The error says:
ADO Error:Invalid operator for data type. Operator equals add, type equals
bit.
Thanks for helping.
"ML" wrote:

> Please explain what "All fields are valid boleen fields" means.
> Also post the error message that you get.
>
> ML|||>> All fields are valid Boolean fields <<
UNH' Let's get back to the basics of an RDBMS. Rows are not records;
fields are not columns; tables are not files.
Where is the DDL? SQL has no Boolean data types and good programemrs
do not use the proprietary BIT data type.
There is no CASE statement in SQL, either; there is a CASE expression.
So what "field" are you trying to assign this exprsssion to?|||First of all, bit is not boolean, and second - the error message is pretty
much self-explanatory. Why are you adding, subtracting and dividing values
that can either be 1 or 0?
E.g.:
what does this mean to you:
1 + 0 - 1 / 1
or:
1 + 1 - 0 / 1
or worse:
1 + 1 -1 / 0
Please describe what you're trying to achieve. There must be some reason...?
ML|||
"ML" wrote:

> First of all, bit is not boolean, and second - the error message is pretty
> much self-explanatory. Why are you adding, subtracting and dividing values
> that can either be 1 or 0?
> E.g.:
> what does this mean to you:
> 1 + 0 - 1 / 1...this means 0%
> 1 + 0 / 1 + 1 ...this would be 50%
> 1 + 1 / 1 + 1 ...100%
> or:
> 1 + 1 - 0 / 1
> or worse:
> 1 + 1 -1 / 0...checked for and not allowed through business rules
> Please describe what you're trying to achieve. There must be some reason..
.?
>
> ML
I needed to be able to do math on the fields like I can in MS
Access...Changing the bits to integers worked.|||> Where is the DDL? SQL has no Boolean data types and good programemrs
> do not use the proprietary BIT data type.
Good programmers make proper use of approriate dtaa types in any given
situation.
Similary, good programmers don't just follow along with the comment "all
GOTO statements or CURSORs are bad", but take the time to understand why
other programmers prefer to use better alternatives. Cursors can also be
very powerful, but only when used in an appropriate situation where the same
result cannot be equally-well achieved via set-based operations.
If you were defining a table ApplicationUsers, and needed to store (in a
SQL2000 database) a field indicating whether the user was enabled, ( a field
that could only ever have a value of Yes/No), what field would YOU use ...

> There is no CASE statement in SQL, either; there is a CASE expression.
> So what "field" are you trying to assign this exprsssion to?
Whilst I agree with you that the snippet is technically an expression, not a
statement, this value doesn't necessarily need to be assigned to a field.|||I guess if I were an SQL expert I wouldn't need to use this web site and
expose my ignorance of SQL terminology to arrogant know-it-alls who find it
easier to berate my lack of knowledge than just simply give me the answer I
was looking for like Raymond D'Anjou so kindly did. I would appreciate you
not anwering any of my posts in the future.
"--CELKO--" wrote:

> UNH' Let's get back to the basics of an RDBMS. Rows are not records;
> fields are not columns; tables are not files.
> Where is the DDL? SQL has no Boolean data types and good programemrs
> do not use the proprietary BIT data type.
> There is no CASE statement in SQL, either; there is a CASE expression.
> So what "field" are you trying to assign this exprsssion to?
>|||AkAlan,
Don't let Celko intimidate you, and as for him being a SQL expert, well,
perhaps an ANSI 92 expert and thats about as far as it goes.
Tony.
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials
"AkAlan" <AkAlan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0A58D8F7-6E39-4072-9634-2082745BA421@.microsoft.com...
>I guess if I were an SQL expert I wouldn't need to use this web site and
> expose my ignorance of SQL terminology to arrogant know-it-alls who find
> it
> easier to berate my lack of knowledge than just simply give me the answer
> I
> was looking for like Raymond D'Anjou so kindly did. I would appreciate you
> not anwering any of my posts in the future.
> "--CELKO--" wrote:
>

Case statement in a where clause

Hi All,
I have a bit of a delema here, that I know someone knows how to do it
properly.
If the value of DSP_IN_HOUSE = 1, I need the where clause to say:
where DSP_IN_HOUSE_IN = F.CollectorDesc
the code I am using is:
left outer join tlkCollector F
on case when DSP_IN_HOUSE = 1 then DSP_IN_HOUSE_IN = F.CollectorDesc
when DSP_IN_HOUSE = 0 then DSP_RE_OPEN_IN = F.CollectorDesc
end
Is this possible without building the where clause dynamically?
TIA,
JoeCASE is an expression that returns a value; it is not a logic flow operator
that allows you to change the meaning and semantics of a query. Assuming
F.CollectorDesc, DSP_IN_HOUSE_IN and DSP_RE_OPEN_IN (curse the people who
named your columns!) are the same data type:
ON F.CollectorDesc = CASE DSP_IN_HOUSE
WHEN 1 THEN DSP_IN_HOUSE_IN
WHEN 0 THEN DSP_RE_OPEN_IN
END
By the way, you should really get in the habit of using aliases on all of
the tables in your join/where clauses. Leaving them out just because
they're the only table with such a column is confusing for other readers /
maintainers of the code, and could bite you if such a column is added to one
of the tables later.
A
"jaylou" <jaylou@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B8391A53-D820-4EF7-8BA8-751A341E0EED@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I have a bit of a delema here, that I know someone knows how to do it
> properly.
> If the value of DSP_IN_HOUSE = 1, I need the where clause to say:
> where DSP_IN_HOUSE_IN = F.CollectorDesc
> the code I am using is:
> left outer join tlkCollector F
> on case when DSP_IN_HOUSE = 1 then DSP_IN_HOUSE_IN = F.CollectorDesc
> when DSP_IN_HOUSE = 0 then DSP_RE_OPEN_IN = F.CollectorDesc
> end
> Is this possible without building the where clause dynamically?
> TIA,
> Joe
>|||You cannot use case statments like that. A case statement returns a value.
Honestly, when you run into problems like this in your query you know it is
time to reconsider your design :-)
John
"jaylou" wrote:

> Hi All,
> I have a bit of a delema here, that I know someone knows how to do it
> properly.
> If the value of DSP_IN_HOUSE = 1, I need the where clause to say:
> where DSP_IN_HOUSE_IN = F.CollectorDesc
> the code I am using is:
> left outer join tlkCollector F
> on case when DSP_IN_HOUSE = 1 then DSP_IN_HOUSE_IN = F.CollectorDesc
> when DSP_IN_HOUSE = 0 then DSP_RE_OPEN_IN = F.CollectorDesc
> end
> Is this possible without building the where clause dynamically?
> TIA,
> Joe
>|||Thank you for the help! I did know this but my brain went on vacation for
some reason. I guess I needed an extra pair of eyes look at what I thought
looked right. :)
I normally use aliases when I create SPs this is a one time converstion from
an Access Application into a .net App with a SQL Backend.
And YES I do curse them out all the time. this is part of my very large
project of cleaning up all tables and procedure here.
Aren't I a lucky one' :)
"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:

> CASE is an expression that returns a value; it is not a logic flow operato
r
> that allows you to change the meaning and semantics of a query. Assuming
> F.CollectorDesc, DSP_IN_HOUSE_IN and DSP_RE_OPEN_IN (curse the people who
> named your columns!) are the same data type:
>
> ON F.CollectorDesc = CASE DSP_IN_HOUSE
> WHEN 1 THEN DSP_IN_HOUSE_IN
> WHEN 0 THEN DSP_RE_OPEN_IN
> END
>
> By the way, you should really get in the habit of using aliases on all of
> the tables in your join/where clauses. Leaving them out just because
> they're the only table with such a column is confusing for other readers /
> maintainers of the code, and could bite you if such a column is added to o
ne
> of the tables later.
> A
>
> "jaylou" <jaylou@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B8391A53-D820-4EF7-8BA8-751A341E0EED@.microsoft.com...
>
>sql

CASE Statement - I'm in a bit of a quandry

Hello everyone,

I'm having a problem with trying to check a value from one column and add a value to the next column based on what the first column is. Below are my to CASE statements. What I need is to make field IN_OUT either "IN" for when field UpDnGrd is "Upgrade" and "Out" for when UpDnGrd is "Downgrade"

Kinda like this:

IF UpDnGrd = "U" THEN make IN_OUT = IN

OR

IF UpDnGrd = "D" THEN make IN_OUT = OUT

ELSE keep the original value of IN_OUT which will always be either IN or OUT

see below example of my current CASE statement. Just want to know how to change the value of IN_OUT based on what the value of UpDnGrd is.

================================================== =
CASE sv7.InOut
WHEN 'I' THEN 'IN'
WHEN 'O' THEN 'OUT'

END AS IN_OUT,

CASE sv11.S11M14

WHEN 'D' THEN 'Downgrade'
WHEN 'U' THEN 'Upgrade'
ELSE ' '

END AS UpDnGrd
================================================== =

Thank YOU!How could I merge the 2 case statements?|||You question and code sample are a little confusing, but I think this is what you want:

SELECT
CASE

WHEN sv11.S11M14 = 'D' THEN 'OUT'
WHEN sv11.S11M14 = 'U' THEN 'IN'
WHEN sv7.InOut = 'I' THEN 'IN'
WHEN sv7.InOut = 'O' THEN 'OUT'
ELSE ' '

END AS IN_OUT

FROM ...

Only the first WHEN condition will be processed.

Cascading Triggers

Hi,
I have 3 Tables with After Update Triggers.
They all cascade like City -> Province -> State (as a simplified example)
If I Update a bit (A) in City, a Trigger Sets a bit (B) in Province.
If I Update the bit B in Province, a Trigger Sets a Bit (C) in State.
This works.
However:
If I Set A, a trigger on table City sets B BUT a trigger on table Province
DOESN'T in turn Set C in table State.
So: Individually the Triggers work, but they don't Cascade their action.
Any advise?
TIA,
MichaelHi Michael,
I think I'm having the same problem. I'm hoping to take action via a
trigger on child records when the parent is deleted, but the child table's
trigger doesn't seem to fire. Hopefully someone has a suggestion.
Rgds,
Bill
"Michael Maes" <michael@.merlot.com> wrote in message
news:5BEB7F99-288B-48A8-98DE-F2FBD22AFE75@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have 3 Tables with After Update Triggers.
> They all cascade like City -> Province -> State (as a simplified example)
> If I Update a bit (A) in City, a Trigger Sets a bit (B) in Province.
> If I Update the bit B in Province, a Trigger Sets a Bit (C) in State.
> This works.
> However:
> If I Set A, a trigger on table City sets B BUT a trigger on table Province
> DOESN'T in turn Set C in table State.
> So: Individually the Triggers work, but they don't Cascade their action.
> Any advise?
> TIA,
>
> Michael
>|||There is a server option "Allow triggers to be fired which fire other
triggers (nested triggers)". Here is the description copied from BO:
1. Expand a server group.
2. Right-click a server, and then click Properties.
3. Click the Server Settings tab.
4. Under Server behavior, select or clear the Allow triggers to be
fired which fire other triggers (nested triggers) check box.
For more information, see Books Online, article "Using Nested Triggers"|||Hi Sergei,
Thanks for your advise!
I just found an article on this:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/col.../triggers_1.asp
Nested and Recursive Triggers
Nested triggers are triggers that fire due to actions of other triggers.
For instance, I delete a row from TableA. A trigger on TableA fires to
delete rows from TableB. Because I'm deleting rows from TableB, a trigger
fires on TableB to record the deletes. This is an example of a nested
trigger. As we've talked about, SQL Server 7.0 doesn't support cascading
updates and deletes based on foreign key relationships. Therefore, if we
want to relate our data we can't use DRI and must resort to triggers or some
application oversight. Let's say we've got a cascade delete to fire down 3
or 4 tables. Nested triggers are our answer. Our delete on a particular
table fires a trigger which deletes rows for another table, which fires a
trigger, so on and so forth. SQL Server 7 and 2000 support up to 32 levels
of nested triggers.
Now the big question is, does my SQL Server allow nested triggers? That's
an easy question to answer. It's on by default, but in Query Analyzer we ca
n
issue the following command:
EXEC sp_configure 'nested triggers'
If your run_value is set to 0, your server isn't allowing nested triggers.
If it's set to 1, nested triggers may fire. This is a server wide setting.
Now, to change your setting, once again use the sp_configure command:
To turn off nested triggers:
EXEC sp_configure 'nested triggers', 0
RECONFIGURE
To turn on nested triggers:
EXEC sp_configure 'nested triggers', 1
RECONFIGURE
"Sergei Almazov" wrote:

> There is a server option "Allow triggers to be fired which fire other
> triggers (nested triggers)". Here is the description copied from BO:
> 1. Expand a server group.
> 2. Right-click a server, and then click Properties.
> 3. Click the Server Settings tab.
> 4. Under Server behavior, select or clear the Allow triggers to be
> fired which fire other triggers (nested triggers) check box.
> For more information, see Books Online, article "Using Nested Triggers"
>|||I wonder why the defualt setting is off for this. (Protecting us from
potentially faulty programming perhaps?) ;-) Also, seems like it would be
handy to be able to turn it on per table or database, rather than at the
server level.
In my case where I'm just trying to perform some actions first with the
information in detail records that will be deleted, would it be better to
turn off the cascade delete for the related table and handle deleting of the
detail records in the delete trigger of the master table, or is it better to
allow nested triggers?
"Sergei Almazov" <almazik@.ukr.net> wrote in message
news:1127473954.892200.319820@.g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> There is a server option "Allow triggers to be fired which fire other
> triggers (nested triggers)". Here is the description copied from BO:
> 1. Expand a server group.
> 2. Right-click a server, and then click Properties.
> 3. Click the Server Settings tab.
> 4. Under Server behavior, select or clear the Allow triggers to be
> fired which fire other triggers (nested triggers) check box.
> For more information, see Books Online, article "Using Nested Triggers"
>|||I wonder why the defualt setting is off for this. (Protecting us from
potentially faulty programming perhaps?) ;-) Also, seems like it would be
handy to be able to turn it on per table or database, rather than at the
server level.
In my case where I'm just trying to perform some actions first with the
information in detail records that will be deleted, would it be better to
turn off the cascade delete for the related table and handle deleting of the
detail records in the delete trigger of the master table, or is it better to
allow nested triggers?
"Sergei Almazov" <almazik@.ukr.net> wrote in message
news:1127473954.892200.319820@.g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> There is a server option "Allow triggers to be fired which fire other
> triggers (nested triggers)". Here is the description copied from BO:
> 1. Expand a server group.
> 2. Right-click a server, and then click Properties.
> 3. Click the Server Settings tab.
> 4. Under Server behavior, select or clear the Allow triggers to be
> fired which fire other triggers (nested triggers) check box.
> For more information, see Books Online, article "Using Nested Triggers"
>|||Hi Bill,
What scares me is that someone or something else can disable your nested
triggers because it's DataServer-Wide :-(((
"Bill Hicks" wrote:

> I wonder why the defualt setting is off for this. (Protecting us from
> potentially faulty programming perhaps?) ;-) Also, seems like it would be
> handy to be able to turn it on per table or database, rather than at the
> server level.
> In my case where I'm just trying to perform some actions first with the
> information in detail records that will be deleted, would it be better to
> turn off the cascade delete for the related table and handle deleting of t
he
> detail records in the delete trigger of the master table, or is it better
to
> allow nested triggers?
> "Sergei Almazov" <almazik@.ukr.net> wrote in message
> news:1127473954.892200.319820@.g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>

carrying metric through a table

Hi. this is a tricky one to explain but I'm at a bit of a loss

Consider a product demand table such as
Product Demand Qty
Prod 1 500
Prod 2 300
Prod 3 0

Now consider a Inventory table such as
Product Batch Total qty Free qty
Prod 1 Batch 1 300 0
Prod 1 Batch 2 300 100
Prod 1 Batch 3 200 200
Prod 2 Batch 22 600 300

Wha I am trying to achieve is the "Free Qty" column such that, within each product, the demand is "comsumed" by each batch in turn until completly comsumed (or no batches are left). Hence the demand of 500 would result in 300 going to zero for batch 1, carry forward 200 demand which would be completly comsuemd by batch 2 leaving 100 "free". Subsequnet batches would remain all free for that first product. Then the operation continues for the next product.

How on earth do I do it ???

Thanks for you thoughts

GerryJust guessing, but I can't get mental "traction" on this problem. I passed on trying to answer, to let somebody else get a clear shot at it. Since nobody else has posted, I'm betting that they can't get a handle on it either. Maybe it would help if you explain just a wee bit more ?!?

-PatP|||Thanks Pat. I'll try

Perhaps I shoudl explain the physical process.
you have a food store and you have all the "sell buy" dates for each incoming shipment. You have some orders for a given quantity and you want to simulate a FIFO (First in First out) process of use. So the "free to sell" of the oldest stock is reduced by the open orders leaving the newest stock to last. In fact I'm talking about electronic devices and the physical date of manufacture but the analogy is good. Does that explain ?

Gerry|||[QUOTE][SIZE=1]Originally posted by GerryP
Thanks Pat. I'll try

Perhaps I shoudl explain the physical process.
you have a food store and you have all the "sell buy" dates for each incoming shipment. You have some orders for a given quantity and you want to simulate a FIFO (First in First out) process of use. So the "free to sell" of the oldest stock is reduced by the open orders leaving the newest stock to last. In fact I'm talking about electronic devices and the physical date of manufacture but the analogy is good. Does that explain ?

TO put it another way. here is a slice of the documentation I ma doing (ahead of the code.. Weird!)

Take a demand of 1000 and a Batch content as here
Batch Qty Free
Batch 1 500 0 (1000-500 carried forward demand= 500)
Batch 2 300 0 (500 300 Carried forward demand= 200
Batch 3 450 250 All consumed: nothing carried forward
Batch 4 400 400 All consumed: nothing carried forward|||CREATE TABLE Demand(
Product smallint PRIMARY KEY,
Qty smallint)

INSERT Demand
SELECT 1, 500
UNION ALL SELECT 2, 300
UNION ALL SELECT 3, 0

CREATE TABLE Inventory(
Product smallint,
Batch smallint,
Totalqty smallint,
PRIMARY KEY(Product,Batch))

INSERT Inventory
SELECT 1, 1, 300, 0
UNION ALL SELECT 1, 2, 300, 100
UNION ALL SELECT 1, 3, 200, 200
UNION ALL SELECT 2, 22, 600, 300

SELECT i.Product, i.Batch, i.TotalQty,
CASE
WHEN
(SELECT SUM(TotalQty)
FROM Inventory
WHERE Product = i.Product AND Batch <= i.Batch) <= d.Qty
THEN 0
WHEN
(SELECT SUM(TotalQty)
FROM Inventory
WHERE Product = i.Product AND Batch <= i.Batch) - d.Qty < TotalQty
THEN
(SELECT SUM(TotalQty)
FROM Inventory
WHERE Product = i.Product AND Batch <= i.Batch) - d.Qty
ELSE TotalQty
END FreeQty
FROM Inventory i LEFT JOIN Demand d ON i.Product = d.Product

If there will always be row in Demand for each product, then just use inner join instead of left join.|||It worked a DREAM.
I think you missed out defining a fourth metric in Inventory but thats fine. It's good for me to add just a little value.

My question now is.. How does it work ?
reformating the core somewhat we see
SELECT i.Product, i.Batch, i.TotalQty,
CASE
WHEN
(SELECT SUM(TotalQty) FROM Inventory WHERE Product = i.Product AND Batch <= i.Batch) <= d.Qty THEN 0
WHEN
(SELECT SUM(TotalQty) FROM Inventory WHERE Product = i.Product AND Batch <= i.Batch) - d.Qty < TotalQty
THEN
(SELECT SUM(TotalQty) FROM Inventory WHERE Product = i.Product AND Batch <= i.Batch) - d.Qty
ELSE TotalQty
END FreeQty
FROM Inventory i LEFT JOIN Demand d ON i.Product = d.Product

what is not clear is how it carries the 'remainder' down from one batch to the next ? There is no question it works... but how ?

Thanks again

Gerry|||Do not use code unless you understand it.

Try this query to understand value of subquery:

SELECT i.Product, i.Batch, i.TotalQty, d.Qty,
(SELECT SUM(TotalQty)
FROM Inventory
WHERE Product = i.Product AND Batch <= i.Batch) CumulativeTotal
FROM Inventory i LEFT JOIN Demand d ON i.Product = d.Product

Unless this is static OLAP database, FreeQty column should not be denormalized into Inventory table because that will add complexity to OLTP code and hinder performance.|||Ah. The proverbial penny has dropped and I understand !

I've applied it to my real world example with excellent results

Thanks for your help and have a good weekend

Gerry

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]