Database Structure

Hi Everyone
I Have a Question Concerning DataBase Structure,
If i have a database that contains All Master Tables [user acount,user
detail &...] & i have to make another module for the same system that will
use the same master tables
Is it Preferred To Construct A New Database for this module & any any other
new module or make it all in the same database because they all shared the
same master Data?
Any Help Will Be Appreciated
Hi
Size tends to be one of the drivers as to whether you should partition, if
it is a reasonable size then keep them together. If you used views to access
the data then it would be quite easy to partition it at a later point.
John
"Mariame" <mariame_waguih@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uPlhibieFHA.2128@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi Everyone
> I Have a Question Concerning DataBase Structure,
> If i have a database that contains All Master Tables [user acount,user
> detail &...] & i have to make another module for the same system that
> will use the same master tables
> Is it Preferred To Construct A New Database for this module & any any
> other new module or make it all in the same database because they all
> shared the same master Data?
> Any Help Will Be Appreciated
>
|||As John Suggests, Absolutely, positively use views so you can move things if
you wish..
I prefer ( if size permits) to have everything in a single database...
However you may wish to place different modules in different filegroups IF
you think you may wish to backup/restore a module independently of the
others..
If you put things in different databases, remember things can get out of
sync, unless you shut everything down for backups... Also there can be no
cross-database referential integrity...
Try to put them together in the db, but separate if you must.
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Mariame" <mariame_waguih@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uPlhibieFHA.2128@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi Everyone
> I Have a Question Concerning DataBase Structure,
> If i have a database that contains All Master Tables [user acount,user
> detail &...] & i have to make another module for the same system that
> will use the same master tables
> Is it Preferred To Construct A New Database for this module & any any
> other new module or make it all in the same database because they all
> shared the same master Data?
> Any Help Will Be Appreciated
>
|||"Wayne Snyder" <wayne.nospam.snyder@.mariner-usa.com> wrote in message
news:eXcEc7keFHA.2736@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> As John Suggests, Absolutely, positively use views so you can move things
> if you wish..
> I prefer ( if size permits) to have everything in a single database...
> However you may wish to place different modules in different filegroups IF
> you think you may wish to backup/restore a module independently of the
> others..
> If you put things in different databases, remember things can get out of
> sync, unless you shut everything down for backups... Also there can be no
> cross-database referential integrity...
> Try to put them together in the db, but separate if you must.
>
I agree. But I would go further and say that when you are designing a
system from the ground-up, you never "must". If you think you must seperate
related objects into different databases, think again. Schemas, FileGroups,
views, permissions, etc will usually let you keep the objects in one
database.
David
|||If you place your master data in several databases, then you may end up with
lots of duplicate for indexes, views, triggers, procedures etc, it probably
does not worth unless your table will be really big.
"Mariame" <mariame_waguih@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uPlhibieFHA.2128@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi Everyone
> I Have a Question Concerning DataBase Structure,
> If i have a database that contains All Master Tables [user acount,user
> detail &...] & i have to make another module for the same system that
> will use the same master tables
> Is it Preferred To Construct A New Database for this module & any any
> other new module or make it all in the same database because they all
> shared the same master Data?
> Any Help Will Be Appreciated
>

Database Structure

Hi,
Is there a way to automate a process that export the database strucuture once a day !
All the objects - Tables, Indexes, Procedures, Views Etc..
Any Help I apreciate !
Thank's
You could run a sql agent job that uses SQL-DMO to script your database.
Here is an article that I wrote that might help:
http://www.dbazine.com/larsen4.shtml
----
Need SQL Server Examples check out my website at
http://www.geocities.com/sqlserverexamples
"Carrasco" <Carrasco@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5964A3E3-E149-4E4D-812D-B6B62FE9C878@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Is there a way to automate a process that export the database strucuture
once a day !
> All the objects - Tables, Indexes, Procedures, Views Etc..
> Any Help I apreciate !
> Thank's
>
sql

Database Structure

Hi Everyone
I Have a Question Concerning DataBase Structure,
If i have a database that contains All Master Tables [user acount,user
detail &...] & i have to make another module for the same system that will
use the same master tables
Is it Preferred To Construct A New Database for this module & any any other
new module or make it all in the same database because they all shared the
same master Data'
Any Help Will Be AppreciatedHi
Size tends to be one of the drivers as to whether you should partition, if
it is a reasonable size then keep them together. If you used views to access
the data then it would be quite easy to partition it at a later point.
John
"Mariame" <mariame_waguih@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uPlhibieFHA.2128@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi Everyone
> I Have a Question Concerning DataBase Structure,
> If i have a database that contains All Master Tables [user acount,user
> detail &...] & i have to make another module for the same system that
> will use the same master tables
> Is it Preferred To Construct A New Database for this module & any any
> other new module or make it all in the same database because they all
> shared the same master Data'
> Any Help Will Be Appreciated
>|||As John Suggests, Absolutely, positively use views so you can move things if
you wish..
I prefer ( if size permits) to have everything in a single database...
However you may wish to place different modules in different filegroups IF
you think you may wish to backup/restore a module independently of the
others..
If you put things in different databases, remember things can get out of
sync, unless you shut everything down for backups... Also there can be no
cross-database referential integrity...
Try to put them together in the db, but separate if you must.
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Mariame" <mariame_waguih@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uPlhibieFHA.2128@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi Everyone
> I Have a Question Concerning DataBase Structure,
> If i have a database that contains All Master Tables [user acount,user
> detail &...] & i have to make another module for the same system that
> will use the same master tables
> Is it Preferred To Construct A New Database for this module & any any
> other new module or make it all in the same database because they all
> shared the same master Data'
> Any Help Will Be Appreciated
>|||"Wayne Snyder" <wayne.nospam.snyder@.mariner-usa.com> wrote in message
news:eXcEc7keFHA.2736@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> As John Suggests, Absolutely, positively use views so you can move things
> if you wish..
> I prefer ( if size permits) to have everything in a single database...
> However you may wish to place different modules in different filegroups IF
> you think you may wish to backup/restore a module independently of the
> others..
> If you put things in different databases, remember things can get out of
> sync, unless you shut everything down for backups... Also there can be no
> cross-database referential integrity...
> Try to put them together in the db, but separate if you must.
>
I agree. But I would go further and say that when you are designing a
system from the ground-up, you never "must". If you think you must seperate
related objects into different databases, think again. Schemas, FileGroups,
views, permissions, etc will usually let you keep the objects in one
database.
David|||If you place your master data in several databases, then you may end up with
lots of duplicate for indexes, views, triggers, procedures etc, it probably
does not worth unless your table will be really big.
"Mariame" <mariame_waguih@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uPlhibieFHA.2128@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi Everyone
> I Have a Question Concerning DataBase Structure,
> If i have a database that contains All Master Tables [user acount,user
> detail &...] & i have to make another module for the same system that
> will use the same master tables
> Is it Preferred To Construct A New Database for this module & any any
> other new module or make it all in the same database because they all
> shared the same master Data'
> Any Help Will Be Appreciated
>

Database stress tester

Hello

Are there any database stress testing tools like database hammer bundled with any editions of 2005?

Or is there a resource kit somewhere that has one?

Thanks

this is the closest thing from MSFT http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/teamsystem/products/dbpro/ .|||

third-party tool...

http://www.idera.com/Products/SQLscaler/?s=GW

|||

The original DBHammer tool works with SQL 2005, I've used it several times on it, have you tried it?

|||

Thanks for the replies

I had heard of the database hammer, but I have never used it. I will try it as, as soon as I can find a copy of it somewhere! Is it available to download?

Database Stored on NaS

Can anyone tell me if it is possible to save SQL 2000 Database files on a
NAS. I am running out of Disk Space on our SQL Server and thought a NAS
would be the easiest option for expanding the capacity.
Thanks
Possible? yes.
Advisable? definitely NOT.
Supported? No.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Sarah Kingswell" <skingswell@.xonitek.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23AOymtT4EHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone tell me if it is possible to save SQL 2000 Database files on a
> NAS. I am running out of Disk Space on our SQL Server and thought a NAS
> would be the easiest option for expanding the capacity.
> Thanks
>
|||Yes, you can store database files on a NaS device, but this will often be a
substantial tradeoff in terms of performance (while you didn't really give
us any details about your specific NaS architecture, typically this is used
for low $-per-GB storage, and not for high performance).
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Sarah Kingswell" <skingswell@.xonitek.co.uk> wrote in message
news:#AOymtT4EHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone tell me if it is possible to save SQL 2000 Database files on a
> NAS. I am running out of Disk Space on our SQL Server and thought a NAS
> would be the easiest option for expanding the capacity.
> Thanks
>
|||check kb below
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;304261
You might want to look at iSCSI as an alternative
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;833770
Andy.
"Sarah Kingswell" <skingswell@.xonitek.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23AOymtT4EHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone tell me if it is possible to save SQL 2000 Database files on a
> NAS. I am running out of Disk Space on our SQL Server and thought a NAS
> would be the easiest option for expanding the capacity.
> Thanks
>
|||You will pay a disk I/O performance hit not just because NAS is IP connected
but because Windows will not be able to issue Scatter Gather I/O requests
against it.
SQL Server uses these APIs to enhance its file maintenance and usage.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Sarah Kingswell" <skingswell@.xonitek.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23AOymtT4EHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Can anyone tell me if it is possible to save SQL 2000 Database files on a
NAS. I am running out of Disk Space on our SQL Server and thought a NAS
would be the easiest option for expanding the capacity.
Thanks
|||Thanks for everyone's input. The performance is not really an issue. We
have several customers that we support and for every customer we have a copy
of their SQL Data. We do periodically need to run some transactions through
the customers database but that doesn't really happen very often. All of
the data is currently sitting on our SQL box and I need to shift it
somewhere else. I thought the NAS would be the easiest option but I am now
just tempted to buy another SQL box just for the supported DB's.
"Sarah Kingswell" <skingswell@.xonitek.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23AOymtT4EHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone tell me if it is possible to save SQL 2000 Database files on a
> NAS. I am running out of Disk Space on our SQL Server and thought a NAS
> would be the easiest option for expanding the capacity.
> Thanks
>

Database Stored on NaS

Can anyone tell me if it is possible to save SQL 2000 Database files on a
NAS. I am running out of Disk Space on our SQL Server and thought a NAS
would be the easiest option for expanding the capacity.
ThanksPossible? yes.
Advisable? definitely NOT.
Supported? No.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Sarah Kingswell" <skingswell@.xonitek.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23AOymtT4EHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone tell me if it is possible to save SQL 2000 Database files on a
> NAS. I am running out of Disk Space on our SQL Server and thought a NAS
> would be the easiest option for expanding the capacity.
> Thanks
>|||Yes, you can store database files on a NaS device, but this will often be a
substantial tradeoff in terms of performance (while you didn't really give
us any details about your specific NaS architecture, typically this is used
for low $-per-GB storage, and not for high performance).
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Sarah Kingswell" <skingswell@.xonitek.co.uk> wrote in message
news:#AOymtT4EHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone tell me if it is possible to save SQL 2000 Database files on a
> NAS. I am running out of Disk Space on our SQL Server and thought a NAS
> would be the easiest option for expanding the capacity.
> Thanks
>|||check kb below
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304261
You might want to look at iSCSI as an alternative
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;833770
Andy.
"Sarah Kingswell" <skingswell@.xonitek.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23AOymtT4EHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone tell me if it is possible to save SQL 2000 Database files on a
> NAS. I am running out of Disk Space on our SQL Server and thought a NAS
> would be the easiest option for expanding the capacity.
> Thanks
>|||You will pay a disk I/O performance hit not just because NAS is IP connected
but because Windows will not be able to issue Scatter Gather I/O requests
against it.
SQL Server uses these APIs to enhance its file maintenance and usage.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Sarah Kingswell" <skingswell@.xonitek.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23AOymtT4EHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Can anyone tell me if it is possible to save SQL 2000 Database files on a
NAS. I am running out of Disk Space on our SQL Server and thought a NAS
would be the easiest option for expanding the capacity.
Thanks|||Thanks for everyone's input. The performance is not really an issue. We
have several customers that we support and for every customer we have a copy
of their SQL Data. We do periodically need to run some transactions through
the customers database but that doesn't really happen very often. All of
the data is currently sitting on our SQL box and I need to shift it
somewhere else. I thought the NAS would be the easiest option but I am now
just tempted to buy another SQL box just for the supported DB's.
"Sarah Kingswell" <skingswell@.xonitek.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23AOymtT4EHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Can anyone tell me if it is possible to save SQL 2000 Database files on a
> NAS. I am running out of Disk Space on our SQL Server and thought a NAS
> would be the easiest option for expanding the capacity.
> Thanks
>

Database stored in .ldf file

Problem:
Contractor migrated Great Plains databases to new server (Win2000, SQL2000).
Databases are set up in reverse. Data is stored in .ldf, and log files are
stored in .mdf. Log file(.mdf) out of control and needs to be shrunk. (Kno
w
how to do this)
Can I shrink the logs even though they're in .mdf named files?
Is it ok to leave them alone in the reversed naming convention state?
Can I detach the databases, create a new .mdf, restore the database(.ldf)
from backup to the new .mdf file? If so, do I need to restore the log file
also, or can I start a new one from scratch?
Thanks for the help.Name is totally irrelevant to SQL Server, as well as extension. If you feel
it is OK, you can keep
the names. One option is to backup, detach (for safety - keep the files some
where else), and with
restore use the MOVE option to specify new file names. Or possibly only deta
ch, rename files and
attach specifying new correct file names (do this from QA not EM - QA gives
you full control over
the parameters used to sp_attach_db procedure).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Rick A" <Rick A@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:326AE016-3AAE-47B0-B216-E8EA16549B6A@.microsoft.com...
> Problem:
> Contractor migrated Great Plains databases to new server (Win2000, SQL2000
).
> Databases are set up in reverse. Data is stored in .ldf, and log files ar
e
> stored in .mdf. Log file(.mdf) out of control and needs to be shrunk. (K
now
> how to do this)
> Can I shrink the logs even though they're in .mdf named files?
> Is it ok to leave them alone in the reversed naming convention state?
> Can I detach the databases, create a new .mdf, restore the database(.ldf)
> from backup to the new .mdf file? If so, do I need to restore the log fil
e
> also, or can I start a new one from scratch?
> Thanks for the help.
>
>
>
>sql