cleaning up system objects left by a merge repl.

Hi,
After disabling publishing on my server, there were
numerous merge replication related objects.
How do I clean them up. I tried to drop them, but I get a
message saying I am trying to drop system objects, and the
effort fails.
Thanks,
Sang
Sang,
try sp_removedbreplication (assuming the database is no longer contains any
publications/subscriptions).
Hilary Cotter sent me a link to a script he created at http://www.ava.co.uk
(technical resouces section) that you might want to look at, if the above
stored proc doesn't remove all the objects.
HTH,
Paul Ibison

Circular FK Constraints

Hi.
My system includes Clients and Contacts in a many-to-many relationship
handled in the usual way using a link table with a primary key of Client key
plus Contact key and foreign key constraints against Client and Contact
tables. Each Client may have a Main Contact, which is handled at present wit
h
a 'Main Contact' column in the Client table, which for referential integrity
has a foreign key constraint against the link table. These circular FK
constraints are a nuisance when it comes to deleting a client. I suppose I
could use a trigger to enforce referential integrity, but I don't want to -
the Client table already has a rather complicated trigger.
Can anyone think of a better way?
Thanks.
--
Peter HyssettPeter Hyssett wrote:
> Hi.
> My system includes Clients and Contacts in a many-to-many relationship
> handled in the usual way using a link table with a primary key of Client k
ey
> plus Contact key and foreign key constraints against Client and Contact
> tables. Each Client may have a Main Contact, which is handled at present w
ith
> a 'Main Contact' column in the Client table, which for referential integri
ty
> has a foreign key constraint against the link table. These circular FK
> constraints are a nuisance when it comes to deleting a client. I suppose I
> could use a trigger to enforce referential integrity, but I don't want to
-
> the Client table already has a rather complicated trigger.
> Can anyone think of a better way?
> Thanks.
Well, in my mind, your main contact fk would be better off referencing
the contact table instead of the link table.
When deleting a contact, you would obviously need to either set the
client.main contact column to a valid id from the contact table first,
or set it to null whichever is appropriate.
Then you should be fine.
JB|||Thanks. I'm afraid the FK is against the link table because the main contact
must be a contact already linked to the client, which an FK against the
Contact table would not enforce. Nowadays I do set the Main Contact column t
o
NULL before deleting (the link table rows being deleted first), but I would
prefer not to.
--
Peter Hyssett
"John B" wrote:

> Peter Hyssett wrote:
> Well, in my mind, your main contact fk would be better off referencing
> the contact table instead of the link table.
> When deleting a contact, you would obviously need to either set the
> client.main contact column to a valid id from the contact table first,
> or set it to null whichever is appropriate.
> Then you should be fine.
> JB
>|||Hello, Peter
As I understand this, your DDL is (or should be) something like this:
CREATE TABLE Contacts (
ContactID int PRIMARY KEY,
FirstName varchar(30) NOT NULL,
LastName varchar(20) NOT NULL,
--other columns...
UNIQUE (FirstName, LastName)
)
CREATE TABLE Clients (
ClientID int PRIMARY KEY,
ClientName varchar(50) NOT NULL UNIQUE,
--other columns...
MainContactID int NULL
)
CREATE TABLE ClientContacts (
ClientID int REFERENCES Clients ON DELETE CASCADE,
ContactID int REFERENCES Contacts ON DELETE CASCADE,
PRIMARY KEY (ClientID, ContactID)
)
ALTER TABLE Clients ADD CONSTRAINT TheFK
FOREIGN KEY (ClientID, MainContactID)
REFERENCES ClientContacts (ClientID, ContactID)
Assuming the following sample data:
SET NOCOUNT ON
INSERT INTO Clients (ClientID, ClientName)
VALUES (100, 'Big Company, Inc.')
INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (1, 'John', 'Smith')
INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (2, 'Mary', 'Smith')
INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (100, 1)
INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (100, 2)
UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=1 WHERE ClientID=100
INSERT INTO Clients (ClientID, ClientName)
VALUES (200, 'Another Company, Ltd.')
INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (3, 'John', 'Doe')
INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (4, 'Jane', 'Doe')
INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 2)
INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 3)
INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 4)
UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=3 WHERE ClientID=200
SET NOCOUNT OFF
Let's suppose you want to delete the client with the ClientID=100.
Using a simple "DELETE Clients WHERE ClientID=100" works (without any
error): the client is deleted and it's links with the contacts, too
(but the contacts themselves remain). If you want to also delete the
contacts (the ones that are not linked with any other client), you can
use the following trigger:
CREATE TRIGGER Clients_DeleteContacts ON Clients
INSTEAD OF DELETE
AS
IF @.@.ROWCOUNT>0 BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON
UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=NULL
WHERE ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
DELETE Contacts WHERE ContactID IN (
SELECT x.ContactID FROM ClientContacts x
WHERE x.ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
AND NOT EXISTS (
SELECT * FROM ClientContacts y
WHERE x.ContactID=y.ContactID
AND y.ClientID NOT IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
)
)
DELETE Clients
WHERE ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
END
Razvan|||On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:19:05 -0700, Peter Hyssett wrote:

>Hi.
>My system includes Clients and Contacts in a many-to-many relationship
>handled in the usual way using a link table with a primary key of Client ke
y
>plus Contact key and foreign key constraints against Client and Contact
>tables. Each Client may have a Main Contact, which is handled at present wi
th
>a 'Main Contact' column in the Client table, which for referential integrit
y
>has a foreign key constraint against the link table. These circular FK
>constraints are a nuisance when it comes to deleting a client. I suppose I
>could use a trigger to enforce referential integrity, but I don't want to -
>the Client table already has a rather complicated trigger.
>Can anyone think of a better way?
>Thanks.
Hi Peter,
I'd consider something like this (stealing lots from Razvan Socol's
post)
CREATE TABLE Contacts (
ContactID int NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
FirstName varchar(30) NOT NULL,
LastName varchar(20) NOT NULL,
--other columns--
UNIQUE (FirstName, LastName)
)
CREATE TABLE Clients (
ClientID int NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
ClientName varchar(50) NOT NULL UNIQUE,
--other columns--
)
CREATE TABLE ClientContacts (
ClientID int NOT NULL REFERENCES Clients ON DELETE CASCADE,
ContactID int NOT NULL REFERENCES Contacts ON DELETE CASCADE,
Priority smallint NOT NULL CHECK Priority > 0,
PRIMARY KEY (ClientID, ContactID),
UNIQUE (ClientID, Priority)
)
CREATE VIEW PrimaryContact
AS
SELECT cc.ClientID, cc.ContactID
FROM (SELECT ClientID, MIN(Priority) AS MinPrio
FROM ClientContacts
GROUP BY ClientID) AS d
INNER JOIN ClientContacts AS cc
ON cc.ClientID = d.ClientID
AND cc.Priority = d.MinPrio
go
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)|||Peter Hyssett wrote:
> Thanks. I'm afraid the FK is against the link table because the main conta
ct
> must be a contact already linked to the client,
Ah, that makes sense
> which an FK against the
> Contact table would not enforce. Nowadays I do set the Main Contact column
to
> NULL before deleting (the link table rows being deleted first), but I woul
d
> prefer not to.
Why would you prefer not to?
Cascade delete _might_ set it to null but Im not sure.
If you wished to keep the MainContactId, then it would be a referential
break as the actual contact would have been deleted.
You could do this by removing the FK constraint though.
JB|||Thanks, Razvan. The ON DELETE CASCADE construct is what I wanted - I just
hadn't come across it before.
Cheers,
Peter.
Peter Hyssett
"Razvan Socol" wrote:

> Hello, Peter
> As I understand this, your DDL is (or should be) something like this:
> CREATE TABLE Contacts (
> ContactID int PRIMARY KEY,
> FirstName varchar(30) NOT NULL,
> LastName varchar(20) NOT NULL,
> --other columns...
> UNIQUE (FirstName, LastName)
> )
> CREATE TABLE Clients (
> ClientID int PRIMARY KEY,
> ClientName varchar(50) NOT NULL UNIQUE,
> --other columns...
> MainContactID int NULL
> )
> CREATE TABLE ClientContacts (
> ClientID int REFERENCES Clients ON DELETE CASCADE,
> ContactID int REFERENCES Contacts ON DELETE CASCADE,
> PRIMARY KEY (ClientID, ContactID)
> )
> ALTER TABLE Clients ADD CONSTRAINT TheFK
> FOREIGN KEY (ClientID, MainContactID)
> REFERENCES ClientContacts (ClientID, ContactID)
>
> Assuming the following sample data:
> SET NOCOUNT ON
> INSERT INTO Clients (ClientID, ClientName)
> VALUES (100, 'Big Company, Inc.')
> INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (1, 'John', 'Smith')
> INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (2, 'Mary', 'Smith')
> INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (100, 1)
> INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (100, 2)
> UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=1 WHERE ClientID=100
>
> INSERT INTO Clients (ClientID, ClientName)
> VALUES (200, 'Another Company, Ltd.')
> INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (3, 'John', 'Doe')
> INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (4, 'Jane', 'Doe')
> INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 2)
> INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 3)
> INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 4)
> UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=3 WHERE ClientID=200
> SET NOCOUNT OFF
>
> Let's suppose you want to delete the client with the ClientID=100.
> Using a simple "DELETE Clients WHERE ClientID=100" works (without any
> error): the client is deleted and it's links with the contacts, too
> (but the contacts themselves remain). If you want to also delete the
> contacts (the ones that are not linked with any other client), you can
> use the following trigger:
> CREATE TRIGGER Clients_DeleteContacts ON Clients
> INSTEAD OF DELETE
> AS
> IF @.@.ROWCOUNT>0 BEGIN
> SET NOCOUNT ON
> UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=NULL
> WHERE ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
> DELETE Contacts WHERE ContactID IN (
> SELECT x.ContactID FROM ClientContacts x
> WHERE x.ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
> AND NOT EXISTS (
> SELECT * FROM ClientContacts y
> WHERE x.ContactID=y.ContactID
> AND y.ClientID NOT IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
> )
> )
> DELETE Clients
> WHERE ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
> END
> Razvan
>

Circular FK Constraints

Hi.
My system includes Clients and Contacts in a many-to-many relationship
handled in the usual way using a link table with a primary key of Client key
plus Contact key and foreign key constraints against Client and Contact
tables. Each Client may have a Main Contact, which is handled at present with
a 'Main Contact' column in the Client table, which for referential integrity
has a foreign key constraint against the link table. These circular FK
constraints are a nuisance when it comes to deleting a client. I suppose I
could use a trigger to enforce referential integrity, but I don't want to -
the Client table already has a rather complicated trigger.
Can anyone think of a better way?
Thanks.
--
Peter HyssettPeter Hyssett wrote:
> Hi.
> My system includes Clients and Contacts in a many-to-many relationship
> handled in the usual way using a link table with a primary key of Client key
> plus Contact key and foreign key constraints against Client and Contact
> tables. Each Client may have a Main Contact, which is handled at present with
> a 'Main Contact' column in the Client table, which for referential integrity
> has a foreign key constraint against the link table. These circular FK
> constraints are a nuisance when it comes to deleting a client. I suppose I
> could use a trigger to enforce referential integrity, but I don't want to -
> the Client table already has a rather complicated trigger.
> Can anyone think of a better way?
> Thanks.
Well, in my mind, your main contact fk would be better off referencing
the contact table instead of the link table.
When deleting a contact, you would obviously need to either set the
client.main contact column to a valid id from the contact table first,
or set it to null whichever is appropriate.
Then you should be fine.
JB|||Thanks. I'm afraid the FK is against the link table because the main contact
must be a contact already linked to the client, which an FK against the
Contact table would not enforce. Nowadays I do set the Main Contact column to
NULL before deleting (the link table rows being deleted first), but I would
prefer not to.
--
Peter Hyssett
"John B" wrote:
> Peter Hyssett wrote:
> > Hi.
> > My system includes Clients and Contacts in a many-to-many relationship
> > handled in the usual way using a link table with a primary key of Client key
> > plus Contact key and foreign key constraints against Client and Contact
> > tables. Each Client may have a Main Contact, which is handled at present with
> > a 'Main Contact' column in the Client table, which for referential integrity
> > has a foreign key constraint against the link table. These circular FK
> > constraints are a nuisance when it comes to deleting a client. I suppose I
> > could use a trigger to enforce referential integrity, but I don't want to -
> > the Client table already has a rather complicated trigger.
> >
> > Can anyone think of a better way?
> >
> > Thanks.
> Well, in my mind, your main contact fk would be better off referencing
> the contact table instead of the link table.
> When deleting a contact, you would obviously need to either set the
> client.main contact column to a valid id from the contact table first,
> or set it to null whichever is appropriate.
> Then you should be fine.
> JB
>|||Hello, Peter
As I understand this, your DDL is (or should be) something like this:
CREATE TABLE Contacts (
ContactID int PRIMARY KEY,
FirstName varchar(30) NOT NULL,
LastName varchar(20) NOT NULL,
--other columns...
UNIQUE (FirstName, LastName)
)
CREATE TABLE Clients (
ClientID int PRIMARY KEY,
ClientName varchar(50) NOT NULL UNIQUE,
--other columns...
MainContactID int NULL
)
CREATE TABLE ClientContacts (
ClientID int REFERENCES Clients ON DELETE CASCADE,
ContactID int REFERENCES Contacts ON DELETE CASCADE,
PRIMARY KEY (ClientID, ContactID)
)
ALTER TABLE Clients ADD CONSTRAINT TheFK
FOREIGN KEY (ClientID, MainContactID)
REFERENCES ClientContacts (ClientID, ContactID)
Assuming the following sample data:
SET NOCOUNT ON
INSERT INTO Clients (ClientID, ClientName)
VALUES (100, 'Big Company, Inc.')
INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (1, 'John', 'Smith')
INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (2, 'Mary', 'Smith')
INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (100, 1)
INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (100, 2)
UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=1 WHERE ClientID=100
INSERT INTO Clients (ClientID, ClientName)
VALUES (200, 'Another Company, Ltd.')
INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (3, 'John', 'Doe')
INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (4, 'Jane', 'Doe')
INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 2)
INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 3)
INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 4)
UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=3 WHERE ClientID=200
SET NOCOUNT OFF
Let's suppose you want to delete the client with the ClientID=100.
Using a simple "DELETE Clients WHERE ClientID=100" works (without any
error): the client is deleted and it's links with the contacts, too
(but the contacts themselves remain). If you want to also delete the
contacts (the ones that are not linked with any other client), you can
use the following trigger:
CREATE TRIGGER Clients_DeleteContacts ON Clients
INSTEAD OF DELETE
AS
IF @.@.ROWCOUNT>0 BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON
UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=NULL
WHERE ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
DELETE Contacts WHERE ContactID IN (
SELECT x.ContactID FROM ClientContacts x
WHERE x.ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
AND NOT EXISTS (
SELECT * FROM ClientContacts y
WHERE x.ContactID=y.ContactID
AND y.ClientID NOT IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
)
)
DELETE Clients
WHERE ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
END
Razvan|||On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:19:05 -0700, Peter Hyssett wrote:
>Hi.
>My system includes Clients and Contacts in a many-to-many relationship
>handled in the usual way using a link table with a primary key of Client key
>plus Contact key and foreign key constraints against Client and Contact
>tables. Each Client may have a Main Contact, which is handled at present with
>a 'Main Contact' column in the Client table, which for referential integrity
>has a foreign key constraint against the link table. These circular FK
>constraints are a nuisance when it comes to deleting a client. I suppose I
>could use a trigger to enforce referential integrity, but I don't want to -
>the Client table already has a rather complicated trigger.
>Can anyone think of a better way?
>Thanks.
Hi Peter,
I'd consider something like this (stealing lots from Razvan Socol's
post)
CREATE TABLE Contacts (
ContactID int NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
FirstName varchar(30) NOT NULL,
LastName varchar(20) NOT NULL,
--other columns--
UNIQUE (FirstName, LastName)
)
CREATE TABLE Clients (
ClientID int NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
ClientName varchar(50) NOT NULL UNIQUE,
--other columns--
)
CREATE TABLE ClientContacts (
ClientID int NOT NULL REFERENCES Clients ON DELETE CASCADE,
ContactID int NOT NULL REFERENCES Contacts ON DELETE CASCADE,
Priority smallint NOT NULL CHECK Priority > 0,
PRIMARY KEY (ClientID, ContactID),
UNIQUE (ClientID, Priority)
)
CREATE VIEW PrimaryContact
AS
SELECT cc.ClientID, cc.ContactID
FROM (SELECT ClientID, MIN(Priority) AS MinPrio
FROM ClientContacts
GROUP BY ClientID) AS d
INNER JOIN ClientContacts AS cc
ON cc.ClientID = d.ClientID
AND cc.Priority = d.MinPrio
go
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)|||Peter Hyssett wrote:
> Thanks. I'm afraid the FK is against the link table because the main contact
> must be a contact already linked to the client,
Ah, that makes sense
> which an FK against the
> Contact table would not enforce. Nowadays I do set the Main Contact column to
> NULL before deleting (the link table rows being deleted first), but I would
> prefer not to.
Why would you prefer not to?
Cascade delete _might_ set it to null but Im not sure.
If you wished to keep the MainContactId, then it would be a referential
break as the actual contact would have been deleted.
You could do this by removing the FK constraint though.
JB|||Thanks, Razvan. The ON DELETE CASCADE construct is what I wanted - I just
hadn't come across it before.
Cheers,
Peter.
--
Peter Hyssett
"Razvan Socol" wrote:
> Hello, Peter
> As I understand this, your DDL is (or should be) something like this:
> CREATE TABLE Contacts (
> ContactID int PRIMARY KEY,
> FirstName varchar(30) NOT NULL,
> LastName varchar(20) NOT NULL,
> --other columns...
> UNIQUE (FirstName, LastName)
> )
> CREATE TABLE Clients (
> ClientID int PRIMARY KEY,
> ClientName varchar(50) NOT NULL UNIQUE,
> --other columns...
> MainContactID int NULL
> )
> CREATE TABLE ClientContacts (
> ClientID int REFERENCES Clients ON DELETE CASCADE,
> ContactID int REFERENCES Contacts ON DELETE CASCADE,
> PRIMARY KEY (ClientID, ContactID)
> )
> ALTER TABLE Clients ADD CONSTRAINT TheFK
> FOREIGN KEY (ClientID, MainContactID)
> REFERENCES ClientContacts (ClientID, ContactID)
>
> Assuming the following sample data:
> SET NOCOUNT ON
> INSERT INTO Clients (ClientID, ClientName)
> VALUES (100, 'Big Company, Inc.')
> INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (1, 'John', 'Smith')
> INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (2, 'Mary', 'Smith')
> INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (100, 1)
> INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (100, 2)
> UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=1 WHERE ClientID=100
>
> INSERT INTO Clients (ClientID, ClientName)
> VALUES (200, 'Another Company, Ltd.')
> INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (3, 'John', 'Doe')
> INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (4, 'Jane', 'Doe')
> INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 2)
> INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 3)
> INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 4)
> UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=3 WHERE ClientID=200
> SET NOCOUNT OFF
>
> Let's suppose you want to delete the client with the ClientID=100.
> Using a simple "DELETE Clients WHERE ClientID=100" works (without any
> error): the client is deleted and it's links with the contacts, too
> (but the contacts themselves remain). If you want to also delete the
> contacts (the ones that are not linked with any other client), you can
> use the following trigger:
> CREATE TRIGGER Clients_DeleteContacts ON Clients
> INSTEAD OF DELETE
> AS
> IF @.@.ROWCOUNT>0 BEGIN
> SET NOCOUNT ON
> UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=NULL
> WHERE ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
> DELETE Contacts WHERE ContactID IN (
> SELECT x.ContactID FROM ClientContacts x
> WHERE x.ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
> AND NOT EXISTS (
> SELECT * FROM ClientContacts y
> WHERE x.ContactID=y.ContactID
> AND y.ClientID NOT IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
> )
> )
> DELETE Clients
> WHERE ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
> END
> Razvan
>

Circular FK Constraints

Hi.
My system includes Clients and Contacts in a many-to-many relationship
handled in the usual way using a link table with a primary key of Client key
plus Contact key and foreign key constraints against Client and Contact
tables. Each Client may have a Main Contact, which is handled at present with
a 'Main Contact' column in the Client table, which for referential integrity
has a foreign key constraint against the link table. These circular FK
constraints are a nuisance when it comes to deleting a client. I suppose I
could use a trigger to enforce referential integrity, but I don't want to -
the Client table already has a rather complicated trigger.
Can anyone think of a better way?
Thanks.
Peter Hyssett
Peter Hyssett wrote:
> Hi.
> My system includes Clients and Contacts in a many-to-many relationship
> handled in the usual way using a link table with a primary key of Client key
> plus Contact key and foreign key constraints against Client and Contact
> tables. Each Client may have a Main Contact, which is handled at present with
> a 'Main Contact' column in the Client table, which for referential integrity
> has a foreign key constraint against the link table. These circular FK
> constraints are a nuisance when it comes to deleting a client. I suppose I
> could use a trigger to enforce referential integrity, but I don't want to -
> the Client table already has a rather complicated trigger.
> Can anyone think of a better way?
> Thanks.
Well, in my mind, your main contact fk would be better off referencing
the contact table instead of the link table.
When deleting a contact, you would obviously need to either set the
client.main contact column to a valid id from the contact table first,
or set it to null whichever is appropriate.
Then you should be fine.
JB
|||Thanks. I'm afraid the FK is against the link table because the main contact
must be a contact already linked to the client, which an FK against the
Contact table would not enforce. Nowadays I do set the Main Contact column to
NULL before deleting (the link table rows being deleted first), but I would
prefer not to.
Peter Hyssett
"John B" wrote:

> Peter Hyssett wrote:
> Well, in my mind, your main contact fk would be better off referencing
> the contact table instead of the link table.
> When deleting a contact, you would obviously need to either set the
> client.main contact column to a valid id from the contact table first,
> or set it to null whichever is appropriate.
> Then you should be fine.
> JB
>
|||Hello, Peter
As I understand this, your DDL is (or should be) something like this:
CREATE TABLE Contacts (
ContactID int PRIMARY KEY,
FirstName varchar(30) NOT NULL,
LastName varchar(20) NOT NULL,
--other columns...
UNIQUE (FirstName, LastName)
)
CREATE TABLE Clients (
ClientID int PRIMARY KEY,
ClientName varchar(50) NOT NULL UNIQUE,
--other columns...
MainContactID int NULL
)
CREATE TABLE ClientContacts (
ClientID int REFERENCES Clients ON DELETE CASCADE,
ContactID int REFERENCES Contacts ON DELETE CASCADE,
PRIMARY KEY (ClientID, ContactID)
)
ALTER TABLE Clients ADD CONSTRAINT TheFK
FOREIGN KEY (ClientID, MainContactID)
REFERENCES ClientContacts (ClientID, ContactID)
Assuming the following sample data:
SET NOCOUNT ON
INSERT INTO Clients (ClientID, ClientName)
VALUES (100, 'Big Company, Inc.')
INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (1, 'John', 'Smith')
INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (2, 'Mary', 'Smith')
INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (100, 1)
INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (100, 2)
UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=1 WHERE ClientID=100
INSERT INTO Clients (ClientID, ClientName)
VALUES (200, 'Another Company, Ltd.')
INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (3, 'John', 'Doe')
INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (4, 'Jane', 'Doe')
INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 2)
INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 3)
INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 4)
UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=3 WHERE ClientID=200
SET NOCOUNT OFF
Let's suppose you want to delete the client with the ClientID=100.
Using a simple "DELETE Clients WHERE ClientID=100" works (without any
error): the client is deleted and it's links with the contacts, too
(but the contacts themselves remain). If you want to also delete the
contacts (the ones that are not linked with any other client), you can
use the following trigger:
CREATE TRIGGER Clients_DeleteContacts ON Clients
INSTEAD OF DELETE
AS
IF @.@.ROWCOUNT>0 BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON
UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=NULL
WHERE ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
DELETE Contacts WHERE ContactID IN (
SELECT x.ContactID FROM ClientContacts x
WHERE x.ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
AND NOT EXISTS (
SELECT * FROM ClientContacts y
WHERE x.ContactID=y.ContactID
AND y.ClientID NOT IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
)
)
DELETE Clients
WHERE ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
END
Razvan
|||On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:19:05 -0700, Peter Hyssett wrote:

>Hi.
>My system includes Clients and Contacts in a many-to-many relationship
>handled in the usual way using a link table with a primary key of Client key
>plus Contact key and foreign key constraints against Client and Contact
>tables. Each Client may have a Main Contact, which is handled at present with
>a 'Main Contact' column in the Client table, which for referential integrity
>has a foreign key constraint against the link table. These circular FK
>constraints are a nuisance when it comes to deleting a client. I suppose I
>could use a trigger to enforce referential integrity, but I don't want to -
>the Client table already has a rather complicated trigger.
>Can anyone think of a better way?
>Thanks.
Hi Peter,
I'd consider something like this (stealing lots from Razvan Socol's
post)
CREATE TABLE Contacts (
ContactID int NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
FirstName varchar(30) NOT NULL,
LastName varchar(20) NOT NULL,
--other columns--
UNIQUE (FirstName, LastName)
)
CREATE TABLE Clients (
ClientID int NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
ClientName varchar(50) NOT NULL UNIQUE,
--other columns--
)
CREATE TABLE ClientContacts (
ClientID int NOT NULL REFERENCES Clients ON DELETE CASCADE,
ContactID int NOT NULL REFERENCES Contacts ON DELETE CASCADE,
Priority smallint NOT NULL CHECK Priority > 0,
PRIMARY KEY (ClientID, ContactID),
UNIQUE (ClientID, Priority)
)
CREATE VIEW PrimaryContact
AS
SELECT cc.ClientID, cc.ContactID
FROM (SELECT ClientID, MIN(Priority) AS MinPrio
FROM ClientContacts
GROUP BY ClientID) AS d
INNER JOIN ClientContacts AS cc
ON cc.ClientID = d.ClientID
AND cc.Priority = d.MinPrio
go
Best, Hugo
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)
|||Peter Hyssett wrote:
> Thanks. I'm afraid the FK is against the link table because the main contact
> must be a contact already linked to the client,
Ah, that makes sense
> which an FK against the
> Contact table would not enforce. Nowadays I do set the Main Contact column to
> NULL before deleting (the link table rows being deleted first), but I would
> prefer not to.
Why would you prefer not to?
Cascade delete _might_ set it to null but Im not sure.
If you wished to keep the MainContactId, then it would be a referential
break as the actual contact would have been deleted.
You could do this by removing the FK constraint though.
JB
|||Thanks, Razvan. The ON DELETE CASCADE construct is what I wanted - I just
hadn't come across it before.
Cheers,
Peter.
Peter Hyssett
"Razvan Socol" wrote:

> Hello, Peter
> As I understand this, your DDL is (or should be) something like this:
> CREATE TABLE Contacts (
> ContactID int PRIMARY KEY,
> FirstName varchar(30) NOT NULL,
> LastName varchar(20) NOT NULL,
> --other columns...
> UNIQUE (FirstName, LastName)
> )
> CREATE TABLE Clients (
> ClientID int PRIMARY KEY,
> ClientName varchar(50) NOT NULL UNIQUE,
> --other columns...
> MainContactID int NULL
> )
> CREATE TABLE ClientContacts (
> ClientID int REFERENCES Clients ON DELETE CASCADE,
> ContactID int REFERENCES Contacts ON DELETE CASCADE,
> PRIMARY KEY (ClientID, ContactID)
> )
> ALTER TABLE Clients ADD CONSTRAINT TheFK
> FOREIGN KEY (ClientID, MainContactID)
> REFERENCES ClientContacts (ClientID, ContactID)
>
> Assuming the following sample data:
> SET NOCOUNT ON
> INSERT INTO Clients (ClientID, ClientName)
> VALUES (100, 'Big Company, Inc.')
> INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (1, 'John', 'Smith')
> INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (2, 'Mary', 'Smith')
> INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (100, 1)
> INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (100, 2)
> UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=1 WHERE ClientID=100
>
> INSERT INTO Clients (ClientID, ClientName)
> VALUES (200, 'Another Company, Ltd.')
> INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (3, 'John', 'Doe')
> INSERT INTO Contacts VALUES (4, 'Jane', 'Doe')
> INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 2)
> INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 3)
> INSERT INTO ClientContacts VALUES (200, 4)
> UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=3 WHERE ClientID=200
> SET NOCOUNT OFF
>
> Let's suppose you want to delete the client with the ClientID=100.
> Using a simple "DELETE Clients WHERE ClientID=100" works (without any
> error): the client is deleted and it's links with the contacts, too
> (but the contacts themselves remain). If you want to also delete the
> contacts (the ones that are not linked with any other client), you can
> use the following trigger:
> CREATE TRIGGER Clients_DeleteContacts ON Clients
> INSTEAD OF DELETE
> AS
> IF @.@.ROWCOUNT>0 BEGIN
> SET NOCOUNT ON
> UPDATE Clients SET MainContactID=NULL
> WHERE ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
> DELETE Contacts WHERE ContactID IN (
> SELECT x.ContactID FROM ClientContacts x
> WHERE x.ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
> AND NOT EXISTS (
> SELECT * FROM ClientContacts y
> WHERE x.ContactID=y.ContactID
> AND y.ClientID NOT IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
> )
> )
> DELETE Clients
> WHERE ClientID IN (SELECT ClientID FROM deleted)
> END
> Razvan
>

cipher

hi
i'm a web application developer. i am writeing a commercial system. i want to cipher my data. i use microsoft sql server 2000 to store my data.i use ASP to develop my application.
please tell me how i cipher my database and ensure my application security.
thanks.if you're using ASP you're on the wrong site. this is an ASP.NET site. However...

as for 'cipher'ing your data, there's more to security than just ROT13ing the stuff you store in your database. you ought to sit down and read up on web application security rather than just asuming encipherment is your friend (it's not - by definition encipherment is NOT the same as encryption and is inherently breakable)

for a start-out, try www.aspin.com (they have a security section), www.badwebmasters.net, www.securityfocus.com, www.4guysfromrolla.com, www.aspfaq.com, www.developersdex.com and most importantly google. with the right keywords you'll turn up a host of information on ways to secure your ASP code.

j

Chosen datatype for Primary key field and performance questions?

Hi there,

I have been hired for a couple of weeks to investigate the performance of a sql server 2000 system.

One of the things that strikes me is that all the Primary key (identity field) fileds uses an decimal(18,0) as it's datatype.

An decimal with a precision of 18,0 takes 9 bytes for each column, while an int takes only 4 bytes and and bigint 8 bytes.

Many tables aren't that big, so the values will fit in an int datatype.

1. Is iot a good option to change the decimals columns to an int column ?

2. Many of these columns are indexed by a clustered index. Can the decimal datatype be a performance issue ?

3. sometimes they have deadlocks due page splits. Can this by reduced by changing the data types, while more data fit's into an page?

Thanks in advance,

Greetz,

Patrick de Jong

To me decimal (18,0) does not make sense at all... if at all u need to store larger number u could have gone for BigInt. Ofcourse the index size increases. To reduce the page split the change of datatype may not be sufficient. you many need to re-look your fillfactor for the index.

Madhu

|||

Using int for an indentity column is the most common solution, but just be aware of the roughly 2.1 billion upper limit for that data type. If 2.1 billion is not large enough, most people use bigint.

Changing your fillfactor can help minimize page splits, at the cost of making your index larger. Your deadlocks are probably not caused by page splits. Its more likely that they are caused by lack of, or improper indexes. You might try running this query to see if you are seeing any blocking:

-- Detect blocking

SELECT blocked_query.session_id AS blocked_session_id,

blocking_query.session_id AS blocking_session_id,

sql_text.text AS blocked_text,

sql_btext.text AS blocking_text,

waits.wait_type AS blocking_resource

FROM sys.dm_exec_requests AS blocked_query

INNER JOIN sys.dm_exec_requests AS blocking_query

ON blocked_query.blocking_session_id = blocking_query.session_id

CROSS APPLY

(SELECT *

FROM sys.dm_exec_sql_text(blocking_query.sql_handle)

) sql_btext

CROSS APPLY

(SELECT *

FROM sys.dm_exec_sql_text(blocked_query.sql_handle)

) sql_text

INNER JOIN sys.dm_os_waiting_tasks AS waits

ON waits.session_id = blocking_query.session_id

Chkdsk and MS SQL Server 7

Dear Subscribers,
My SQL Server 7 is running on Win NT 4.0 SP6a system with RAID5. I suspect
that one of the system disk volumes has a problem with its file system, and
I was advised to check that by running CHKDSK /F /R. The problem is the
database files are stored on this volume and I'm not sure what kind of
effect the disk checker will have on them if it finds any errors. Will
everything be OK?
Many thanks!Hi
I am not sure what effect it will have as the files will be in use, and if
there was any corruption SQL Server may have problems anyhow!
I suggest that you back up the databases before trying this and make sure
they are retained on some reliable media.
John
"Oskars Salnins" <osalnins@.inbox.lv> wrote in message
news:uwmiilFVDHA.532@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Dear Subscribers,
> My SQL Server 7 is running on Win NT 4.0 SP6a system with RAID5. I suspect
> that one of the system disk volumes has a problem with its file system,
and
> I was advised to check that by running CHKDSK /F /R. The problem is the
> database files are stored on this volume and I'm not sure what kind of
> effect the disk checker will have on them if it finds any errors. Will
> everything be OK?
>
> Many thanks!
>|||Thanks John.
Surely I would stop SQL server before carrying out the check. This far I
didn't notice any problems with SQL Server itself (i.e. DBCC CHECKDB shows
all DB's are clean). I think that means DB files aren't affected.
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f240abf$0$10766$afc38c87@.news.easynet.co.uk...
> Hi
> I am not sure what effect it will have as the files will be in use, and if
> there was any corruption SQL Server may have problems anyhow!
> I suggest that you back up the databases before trying this and make sure
> they are retained on some reliable media.
> John
> "Oskars Salnins" <osalnins@.inbox.lv> wrote in message
> news:uwmiilFVDHA.532@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Dear Subscribers,
> >
> > My SQL Server 7 is running on Win NT 4.0 SP6a system with RAID5. I
suspect
> > that one of the system disk volumes has a problem with its file system,
> and
> > I was advised to check that by running CHKDSK /F /R. The problem is the
> > database files are stored on this volume and I'm not sure what kind of
> > effect the disk checker will have on them if it finds any errors. Will
> > everything be OK?
> >
> >
> > Many thanks!
> >
> >
>|||Oskars,
> Surely I would stop SQL server before carrying out the check.
Yes you would.
> This far I
> didn't notice any problems with SQL Server itself (i.e. DBCC CHECKDB shows
> all DB's are clean). I think that means DB files aren't affected.
What symptoms are you getting that makes you think a chkdsk is needed?
Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
Reply here - no email
SQL FAQ (484 entries) see
http://forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforums/UK/default.asp?SRV=MSDevApps
(faqxxx.zip in lib 7)
or www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800
or www.sqlserverfaq.com
or www.mssqlserver.com/faq|||Neil,
The system's paging file and DB files are stored on the same disk volume,
and I got into paging file corruption issue as discussed in this KB article:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=216446
which suggests to run chkdsk /F /R to see if it corrects the problem. I've
already followed the other suggestion from the article - rebuilt the paging
file and moved it to another disk volume. Nevertheless, I'd also like to
know what caused the corruption, and fix that. Server hardware is clean so I
suspect the file system. Besides, if the paging file got corrupt then the
same thing could probably happen to DB files as well.
"Neil Pike" <neilpike@.compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:VA.000060fd.0fe50a5f@.compuserve.com...
> Oskars,
> > Surely I would stop SQL server before carrying out the check.
> Yes you would.
> > This far I
> > didn't notice any problems with SQL Server itself (i.e. DBCC CHECKDB
shows
> > all DB's are clean). I think that means DB files aren't affected.
> What symptoms are you getting that makes you think a chkdsk is needed?
> Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
> Reply here - no email
> SQL FAQ (484 entries) see
> http://forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforums/UK/default.asp?SRV=MSDevApps
> (faqxxx.zip in lib 7)
> or www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800
> or www.sqlserverfaq.com
> or www.mssqlserver.com/faq
>|||Oskars - the the chkdsk /f /r output say that it found and fixed problems?
The Q article you listed is a tad vague - just because you got an A or a 1E
blue screen doesn't mean you had a corrupt page file. This is one of 100's or
1000's of reasons for the same blue screen...
> The system's paging file and DB files are stored on the same disk volume,
> and I got into paging file corruption issue as discussed in this KB article:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=216446
> which suggests to run chkdsk /F /R to see if it corrects the problem. I've
> already followed the other suggestion from the article - rebuilt the paging
> file and moved it to another disk volume. Nevertheless, I'd also like to
> know what caused the corruption, and fix that. Server hardware is clean so I
> suspect the file system. Besides, if the paging file got corrupt then the
> same thing could probably happen to DB files as well.
Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
Reply here - no email
SQL FAQ (484 entries) see
http://forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforums/UK/default.asp?SRV=MSDevApps
(faqxxx.zip in lib 7)
or www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800
or www.sqlserverfaq.com
or www.mssqlserver.com/faq

Checksum problem on system database

Hey there,
we're having an issue with the SQL (MSDE) database that sharepoint uses.
The service starts and immediately stops. In the logs (in dutch) there's
an error: "Het checksumbestand van de systeemdatabase heeft een
ongeldige ondertekening." freely translated it says "The checksumfile
from the system database has a invalid signature".
Anyone know how to solve this or where start searching? Does SQL have
something like eseutil I might try to repair the database?
TIA
hi,
Freaky wrote:
> Hey there,
> we're having an issue with the SQL (MSDE) database that sharepoint
> uses. The service starts and immediately stops. In the logs (in
> dutch) there's an error: "Het checksumbestand van de systeemdatabase
> heeft een ongeldige ondertekening." freely translated it says "The
> checksumfile from the system database has a invalid signature".
> Anyone know how to solve this or where start searching? Does SQL have
> something like eseutil I might try to repair the database?
if you have a valid master database backup, you can restore it as indicated
in http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Aa173557(SQL.80).aspx and
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Aa176749(SQL.80).aspx ... if you
don't, you are in trouble, as MSDE does not provide the Rebuild utility
(rebuildm.exe) and the scripts to re-generate it.. if this is the case, you
have to uninstall and reinstall the MSDE instance.. you can or course keep
your user's databases files an re-attach them once re-installed..
regards
Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
http://www.asql.biz http://italy.mvps.org
DbaMgr2k ver 0.21.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.65.0 and further SQL Tools
-- remove DMO to reply
|||Hey Andrea,
thx for the re. I was already afraid I would have to reinstall. It's the
instance from sharepoint. We do maintenance at a lot of customers and
some have full SQL versions so perhaps I could use the rebuildm tool
there. But reinstalling sharepoint and replacing the database STS and
STS_Config might be faster as I think those are the only ones that matter.
Anyways thanks again
Andrea Montanari wrote:
> hi,
> Freaky wrote:
> if you have a valid master database backup, you can restore it as indicated
> in http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Aa173557(SQL.80).aspx and
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Aa176749(SQL.80).aspx ... if you
> don't, you are in trouble, as MSDE does not provide the Rebuild utility
> (rebuildm.exe) and the scripts to re-generate it.. if this is the case, you
> have to uninstall and reinstall the MSDE instance.. you can or course keep
> your user's databases files an re-attach them once re-installed..
> regards

Checking Out Data to Client Users

I'm trying to resolve an issue that I've run into in my current system.

I have about 10 clients accessing a SQL Server several times per minute (every 10-20 seconds). To have an individual find the next record, I follow the following process:

1. Select the value of the next record in the database to be checked out.
2. Update the record to show that it is checked out to the user.
3. Select the data in the record to display to the user.
3. Update the record to show any changes and to check the record back in after the user edits it.

My issue is that clients can execute at the same time. Right now, with just SQL statements, two clients can get the same value in step #1. That makes them select the same record for editing. Can I use T-SQL to prevent this from happening? If I use a transaction, will the SQL Server 2005 queue up the transactions, or could I still get the same problem of opening up the same record?

Thanks!
Drew

Hi,

this depends on your update clause for setting the "inUseFlag". If you code it the following way there will be no concurrency with any user:

UPDATE SOMETABLE T
SET Checkout = 'CheckOutorWhatever'
OUTPUT INSERTED.IDColumn
FROM SomeTable T
WHERE EXISTS
(
SELECT * FROM SomeTable TSub
WHere T.IDColumn = TSub.IDColumn
AND Checkout IS NULL
)

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de|||Thanks! I didn't know about the OUTPUT statement and couldn't find anything through Google.

Checking for Primary Key Dependencies

Anybody know if there is a system function that can be used from a
stored procedure that determines if a given primary key has existing
dependencies? I want to make a check for this and if there are none, I
will delete the record. If there are, I will change a field called
bitStatus from 1 to 0. Enterprise Mgr. does something like this under
All Tasks, Display Dependencies. The normal way I do it is to manually
check for the existance of the primary key in every dependent table.

SQL 2000 serverI don't know about dependancies, but iof you use
EXEC sp_primarykeys (check books for parameter)
This will give you a list of the PK

--
__________________________________________________ _________________
Remotely manage MS SQL db with SQLdirector - www.ciquery.com/tools/sqldirector/

"Dan Hartshorn" <dharts@.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8ce6b687.0308281418.12df77dc@.posting.google.c om...
> Anybody know if there is a system function that can be used from a
> stored procedure that determines if a given primary key has existing
> dependencies? I want to make a check for this and if there are none, I
> will delete the record. If there are, I will change a field called
> bitStatus from 1 to 0. Enterprise Mgr. does something like this under
> All Tasks, Display Dependencies. The normal way I do it is to manually
> check for the existance of the primary key in every dependent table.
>
> SQL 2000 server|||John Bell (jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com) writes:
> How about sp_depends?
> If you want different output look at the source in master.

Not sure what you are thinking of, but it does not seem to me that
SQL Server saves any of this kind of information on sysdepends. It
saves CHECK constraints, but not FOREIGN KEY constraints. Presumably,
because CHECK constraints have code, while FK constraints have not.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar@.algonet.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||Dan,

It sounds like you are asking this:

How can I find out if a particular primary key value
exists in the foreign key column of any dependent table?

Or for example, does customer number #324989 have any
entries in the Orders table, the BadChecks table, or the
ReturnedMerchandise table?

The dependencies displayed in Enterprise Manager are
dependencies of database objects (tables, columns,
views, etc.), not of single rows of data, so I don't think
sp_depends or Enterprise Manager is going to have anything.

And I don't think there is simple function to do this,
but there are solutions to the problem. This
is something like a garbage collection problem for
pointers in C - how do we know we've deleted the last pointer
to allocated data?

In the context of PK/FK relationships, you could
keep a master count of referring rows. Keep an integer,
in the main table - not just a bit, and that count will
be at zero when there are no references. It would have to
be updated by triggers on the dependent tables.

Let us know if this is what you are asking about.

-- Steve Kass
-- Drew University
-- Ref: 5D4089BF-0B8A-4D45-B820-923A2D6886EE

Dan Hartshorn wrote:
> Anybody know if there is a system function that can be used from a
> stored procedure that determines if a given primary key has existing
> dependencies? I want to make a check for this and if there are none, I
> will delete the record. If there are, I will change a field called
> bitStatus from 1 to 0. Enterprise Mgr. does something like this under
> All Tasks, Display Dependencies. The normal way I do it is to manually
> check for the existance of the primary key in every dependent table.
> SQL 2000 server

CHECKDB finds consistency errors in table 'sysdepends'

I've tried to follow any kind of tips for the solution og this problem, but
I cannot use the repair tools because of the system table "sysdepends".
What can I do? The regular integrity check, database and transaction log
backups fail every single day!
The error, according to CHECKDB is:
"CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 1 consistency errors in table
'sysdepends' (object ID 12)."
(SQL 2000 SP3)
Any suggestions?
/Angelo
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/inf...suspect_db.asp
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Angelo Brusati" <angelo@.intrasuite.net> wrote in message
news:unfjPEWBGHA.4076@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I've tried to follow any kind of tips for the solution og this problem, but
> I cannot use the repair tools because of the system table "sysdepends".
> What can I do? The regular integrity check, database and transaction log
> backups fail every single day!
> The error, according to CHECKDB is:
> "CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 1 consistency errors in table
> 'sysdepends' (object ID 12)."
> (SQL 2000 SP3)
> Any suggestions?
>
> /Angelo
>
>
|||Tibor, thanks for your answer.
But has the article of your link something to do with my problem?
The database is not suspect and the hardware is OK, as well as the disks.
/Angelo
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:eja3qWZBGHA.272@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/inf...suspect_db.asp
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Angelo Brusati" <angelo@.intrasuite.net> wrote in message
> news:unfjPEWBGHA.4076@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||The DBCC message states that you have a corruption in your database. So the database isn't suspect,
but you still have a corruption in the database.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Angelo Brusati" <angelo@.intrasuite.net> wrote in message
news:%23u%231PugBGHA.3984@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Tibor, thanks for your answer.
> But has the article of your link something to do with my problem?
> The database is not suspect and the hardware is OK, as well as the disks.
> /Angelo
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:eja3qWZBGHA.272@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>

check whats needed if load doubled over the next few months

If we anticipate our load to double i.e twice the number of customers,etc..,
how do we go about planning if the db system today is adequate to meet that
demand ? What areas should we look at and what to consider to provide that
scale ?
ThanksOn Jan 31, 8:14=A0am, "Hassan" <has...@.test.com> wrote:
> If we anticipate our load to double i.e twice the number of customers,etc.=.,
> how do we go about planning if the db system today is adequate to meet tha=t
> demand ? What areas should we look at and what to consider to provide that=
> scale ?
> Thanks
You will need to start analyzing towards the capacity planning and
the elements you will have to think for
Disk Space
CPU (32 bit or 64 bit as per your need)
Memory :- based on CPU selection again you can think for Memory.
Thanks
Ajay|||Before you can answer that question, you need to determine where your
bottleneck will be on your database server when your number of customers
doubles.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> If we anticipate our load to double i.e twice the number of customers,etc..,
> how do we go about planning if the db system today is adequate to meet that
> demand ? What areas should we look at and what to consider to provide that
> scale ?
> Thanks
>|||Unfortunately most things don't scale linearly either, in addition to the
other comments on this thread. Once you hit saturation points for various
resources, performance starts to degrade dramatically, sometimes at at
exponentially decreasing rate. You cannot specifically know WHERE the
limits are either, although a good analysis can get you pretty close
usually.
I will once again take this opportunity to recommend you hire a seasoned DBA
sooner rather than later. :)
--
Kevin G. Boles
Indicium Resources, Inc.
SQL Server MVP
kgboles a earthlink dt net
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:%23B9Rbd7YIHA.4448@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> If we anticipate our load to double i.e twice the number of
> customers,etc.., how do we go about planning if the db system today is
> adequate to meet that demand ? What areas should we look at and what to
> consider to provide that scale ?
> Thanks

Check the sql server service account

Hello!

I would need to check the name of the sql server service account from inside TSQL.

I had one idea about reading from the sysprocesses system table,
but that only gives me information about the SQL Server Agent service account.

Are there other ways?

(It has to work for both SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2005.)

Best regards

Ola Hallengren

There is an undocmented approach using 'registry key reading' in SQL Server 2000 version:

xp_regread @.rootkey='HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE',
@.key='SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\SQLServerAgent',
@.value_name='ObjectName'

I'm working onSQL 2005 and will post here once it is successful.