Question regarding size of varchar field

Hi,
I am using MSDE together with Enterprise Manager.
I have a table with a field nameddescription.
This field will be filled by a web forms's textbox web control.
The textbox'smaxsize attribute is set to "3000" characters.
What size do I have to adjust for my DB fielddescription?
Is the size of3000 in Enterpise Manager equal to3000 characters for the textbox?
I am just trying to avoid errors if MSDE cuts off the string that comes from the textbox webcontrol.Yes, you should set the width of your varchar column to 3000. This unit of measurement is actually bytes, but each character takes 1byte to store, so in effect the column can hold 3000 characters..
|||

I'm answering a question you didn't ask, but maxsize doesn't work if your textbox is multi-line. I just assumed it would be if you allowed that much in it. If you want to limit a multi-line textbox, you need to use a regular expression validator to do it.

|||Thanks for letting me know - and you are right... the texbox is indeed multi-line.
Maybe you can answer my question I have asked in another thread addressing a regular expression issue I am currently faced with - I am still waiting for some helpers there ...
This is the thread:
http://forums.asp.net/937464/ShowPost.aspx|||One more point is if you will use unicode (nvarchar or nchar data type), then physical size for a character will be doubled which means 2 bytes for a character.
If you run
sp_help TableName
you will see "Length" column which keeps physical length of column in bytes

Question regarding Licencing and Pricing

Can someone please explain me how much does it cost for Per CPU license and how much /Server for an enterprise edition
ThanksDepends on what your needs are

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/technologies.asp

Question re SQL Server Enterprise Manager

Hi folks
Maybe my memory is wrong, but I sem to recall that it was possible to
configure Enterprise Manager to automatically open to the last DB that I was
using. Also, I seem to recall that this was done via Tools...Options.
Just recently I flattened my PC and did a new install of Windows XP SP2,
Office, VS.Net & SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition. However, since then that
option just isn't there.
The only tabs that appear under Tools...Options are General & Advanced.
Neither of these tabs talk about the above.
Any clues?
Kind regards & Thanks in advance.
Ross Petersen
Tools, Options, Advanced, Startup Options, "Open the console tree to the last active node".
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Ross" <Ross@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5455461A-519D-4716-B6F8-C9D17E2B7D4E@.microsoft.com...
> Hi folks
> Maybe my memory is wrong, but I sem to recall that it was possible to
> configure Enterprise Manager to automatically open to the last DB that I was
> using. Also, I seem to recall that this was done via Tools...Options.
> Just recently I flattened my PC and did a new install of Windows XP SP2,
> Office, VS.Net & SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition. However, since then that
> option just isn't there.
> The only tabs that appear under Tools...Options are General & Advanced.
> Neither of these tabs talk about the above.
> Any clues?
> Kind regards & Thanks in advance.
> Ross Petersen
|||Thanks Tibor
I must be blind!!!
Kind regards
Ross Petersen
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:

> Tools, Options, Advanced, Startup Options, "Open the console tree to the last active node".
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Ross" <Ross@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5455461A-519D-4716-B6F8-C9D17E2B7D4E@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Question RE /PAE In Active-Active Cluster

I have a 2003 Enterprise Ed 2 node cluster with each node having 8 gig of
memory.
On each active node, I am running a single named instance of sql server 2000
enterprise wiath latest svc packs.
The boot ini on the servers is currently configured with the /PAE switch only.
Each SQL named instance is defined to manage memory dynmaciclly. There are
no plans to add addtl memory to the servers.
I need to account for defined memory within each node to accomodate a
failover of either node to the other and run the resepctive SQL Server
instances.
What impact does the /PAE switch have on this particular configuration and
would it be better instead to use the /3GB switch? I believe that would
provide 3 gigs of memory to each sql server if running on the same node with
1 gig left for the O/S.
Would the /PAE switch not be necessary then?
thanks
Tom
/3GB, /PAE, and /AWE plus sp_configing your memory in SQL are great ideas,
but they all have to be monitored and test with your application, hardware,
and exact configuration. Have you called the hardware vendor to find out
what they suggest from a hardware stand point?
I am sure a true SQL DBA/MVP like Geoff will follow with a detailed SQL
explanation of the switches above for you
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
"Tom Frost" <TomFrost@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:269FF0A2-3F04-4767-8D67-15C9DC20AA95@.microsoft.com...
>I have a 2003 Enterprise Ed 2 node cluster with each node having 8 gig of
> memory.
> On each active node, I am running a single named instance of sql server
> 2000
> enterprise wiath latest svc packs.
> The boot ini on the servers is currently configured with the /PAE switch
> only.
> Each SQL named instance is defined to manage memory dynmaciclly. There are
> no plans to add addtl memory to the servers.
> I need to account for defined memory within each node to accomodate a
> failover of either node to the other and run the resepctive SQL Server
> instances.
> What impact does the /PAE switch have on this particular configuration and
> would it be better instead to use the /3GB switch? I believe that would
> provide 3 gigs of memory to each sql server if running on the same node
> with
> 1 gig left for the O/S.
> Would the /PAE switch not be necessary then?
> thanks
> Tom
>
|||Right now, your SQL Instances get about 1.6GB of physical RAM each. They
should increase memory usage until they get to that level then stay there
long term.
/PAE lets the Operating System see all the physical memory in the servers.
It is necessary anytime a 32-bit OS has more than 4 GB of physical RAM.
I might enable AWE memory in SQL. If you do, you must set a maximum memory
value for SQL on a multi-instance cluster. Two SQL behaviors combine to
make this a necessity. First, AWE kills dynamic memory allocation. Memory
is allocated at service startup and never shrinks. Second, the maximum
memory value is set to the actual physical memory amount. SQL grabs
everything. You will need to set the actual memory values on both instances
so they can "stack" on the same server without overcommitting memory. Be
sure and leave some for the OS. I would recommend 3GB or so, but you can
watch the Memory | Available MBytes counter to check.
As for the /3GB switch, you could go that route. You won't replace the /PAE
switch, you will add this switch to the boot.ini startup options.
One option I have used in this situation was to set up the two instances
with asymmetrical memory allocation. If you know one server is under higher
load, you can allocate more memory to that instance. I ran a similar system
to yours with 4GB on one instance, 2GB on the other instance, and 2GB left
for the OS. The perfmon counter SQLServer:Buffer manager | Page Life
Expectancy will let you know relative memory pressure. Be sure to use a
fairly long observation time with the server under normal workload to
determine true memory pressure.
Any way you go, you will need to manually set memory levels and monitor to
see of you have overcommitted memory. However, SQL loves memory so you may
see some performance gains. Use the Page Life Expectancy counter to see the
difference before and after.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Tom Frost" <TomFrost@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:269FF0A2-3F04-4767-8D67-15C9DC20AA95@.microsoft.com...
>I have a 2003 Enterprise Ed 2 node cluster with each node having 8 gig of
> memory.
> On each active node, I am running a single named instance of sql server
> 2000
> enterprise wiath latest svc packs.
> The boot ini on the servers is currently configured with the /PAE switch
> only.
> Each SQL named instance is defined to manage memory dynmaciclly. There are
> no plans to add addtl memory to the servers.
> I need to account for defined memory within each node to accomodate a
> failover of either node to the other and run the resepctive SQL Server
> instances.
> What impact does the /PAE switch have on this particular configuration and
> would it be better instead to use the /3GB switch? I believe that would
> provide 3 gigs of memory to each sql server if running on the same node
> with
> 1 gig left for the O/S.
> Would the /PAE switch not be necessary then?
> thanks
> Tom
>
|||The /3GB switch simply restricts the OS to 1GB of RAM, which allows
applications to address up to 3GB of RAM. The /PAE switch simply loads a
different NT kernel which contains the code to address RAM > 4GB.
The AWE setting in SQL Server works with the /PAE switch. If you enable
AWE, but don't turn on the /PAE switch, then you can not address the
extended memory space. So, in order to allow AWE to utilize the RAM above
4GB, you need to turn on the /PAE switch as well.
In terms of running multiple instances on a single machine, you need to
balance the RAM. (If your business requirements will allow performance
degradation in the event of a failover, then you don't necessarily need to
do this.) You control the maximum amount of RAM that SQL Server will
address by setting the max server memory config option.
Mike
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
or entity either by inference or direct reference.
"Tom Frost" <TomFrost@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:269FF0A2-3F04-4767-8D67-15C9DC20AA95@.microsoft.com...
>I have a 2003 Enterprise Ed 2 node cluster with each node having 8 gig of
> memory.
> On each active node, I am running a single named instance of sql server
> 2000
> enterprise wiath latest svc packs.
> The boot ini on the servers is currently configured with the /PAE switch
> only.
> Each SQL named instance is defined to manage memory dynmaciclly. There are
> no plans to add addtl memory to the servers.
> I need to account for defined memory within each node to accomodate a
> failover of either node to the other and run the resepctive SQL Server
> instances.
> What impact does the /PAE switch have on this particular configuration and
> would it be better instead to use the /3GB switch? I believe that would
> provide 3 gigs of memory to each sql server if running on the same node
> with
> 1 gig left for the O/S.
> Would the /PAE switch not be necessary then?
> thanks
> Tom
>
sql

question on memory

Win2K Advanced Server
SQL2K Enterprise
I need to set up 1 big fat Disaster Recovery box for my 6 production boxes.
I will do this by putting 6 instances of SQL on the DR box. I know that
there is an 8 gig max (using AWE) limit. But what I don't know is can each
instance have its own 8 gigs, or do all 6 instances need to share the same 8
gigs? Also, would switching to Win2K3 help me to be able to use more RAM?
Basically, I dont want to tell anyone to order 48 gigs or RAM (6 instances
with 8 gigs each) when Im only going to be able to use 8.
TIA, ChrisRChris,
Each instance can use it's own block of memory but I don't think Win2K Adv
server can use more than 8GB. I believe you need Data Center for more than
8GB. Certainly for 48GB. Do you need 8GB for each instance? Do each of
the 6 Prod boxes have 8GB now? Does your DR plan say you need to run all 6
instances on the one box at the same time? Seems kind of silly to have 6
individual boxes in prod and expect to run all 6 instances at once on one
box. In any case Win2K3 will not allow you to use any more ram but it does
have certain performance enhancements over 2K that you should take advantage
of.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:euDyuWiYFHA.2380@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Win2K Advanced Server
> SQL2K Enterprise
> I need to set up 1 big fat Disaster Recovery box for my 6 production
> boxes. I will do this by putting 6 instances of SQL on the DR box. I know
> that there is an 8 gig max (using AWE) limit. But what I don't know is can
> each instance have its own 8 gigs, or do all 6 instances need to share the
> same 8 gigs? Also, would switching to Win2K3 help me to be able to use
> more RAM? Basically, I dont want to tell anyone to order 48 gigs or RAM (6
> instances with 8 gigs each) when Im only going to be able to use 8.
>
> TIA, ChrisR
>|||I typed out a reply yesterday but I guess I forgot to hit the reply button.
No I don't need 8 gigs per instance, but 6 boxes sharing 8 gigs wont do
either. Yes, all of them may need to be on at once.
Thanks Andrew.
CR
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23MHGH$jYFHA.1152@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Chris,
> Each instance can use it's own block of memory but I don't think Win2K Adv
> server can use more than 8GB. I believe you need Data Center for more
> than 8GB. Certainly for 48GB. Do you need 8GB for each instance? Do
> each of the 6 Prod boxes have 8GB now? Does your DR plan say you need to
> run all 6 instances on the one box at the same time? Seems kind of silly
> to have 6 individual boxes in prod and expect to run all 6 instances at
> once on one box. In any case Win2K3 will not allow you to use any more
> ram but it does have certain performance enhancements over 2K that you
> should take advantage of.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:euDyuWiYFHA.2380@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Win2K Advanced Server
>> SQL2K Enterprise
>> I need to set up 1 big fat Disaster Recovery box for my 6 production
>> boxes. I will do this by putting 6 instances of SQL on the DR box. I know
>> that there is an 8 gig max (using AWE) limit. But what I don't know is
>> can each instance have its own 8 gigs, or do all 6 instances need to
>> share the same 8 gigs? Also, would switching to Win2K3 help me to be able
>> to use more RAM? Basically, I dont want to tell anyone to order 48 gigs
>> or RAM (6 instances with 8 gigs each) when Im only going to be able to
>> use 8.
>>
>> TIA, ChrisR
>

Question on Job history

Please could someone enlight me.
In enterprise manager -> management-> jobs -> view history
I could normally see the historic runs of the jobs.
I have a server, for some reason, only hold one historic
record of each job. Each time a job is run the history is
then refreshed and delete with only the latest job remain.
Where can I set in Enterprise Manager so I could adjust
the amount of the history held for the jobs?
Thanks
AlexAlex Au wrote:

> Please could someone enlight me.
> In enterprise manager -> management-> jobs -> view history
> I could normally see the historic runs of the jobs.
> I have a server, for some reason, only hold one historic
> record of each job. Each time a job is run the history is
> then refreshed and delete with only the latest job remain.
See How to resize the job history log (Enterprise Manager)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...>
aem_8xpj.asp
Why not create Your Own SQL Server Job Management System?
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/rd_jobs.asp
sincerely,
--
Sebastian K. Zaklada
Skilled Software
http://www.skilledsoftware.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Sebastian
Thanks for this. I have checked and found that the Job
agent setting no different from other servers. I think the
real issue seem to be in the time the job history are
kept.. All the jobs that have only one history are only
run once a month, and I have jobs that run daily - they
have all the job history up to a month.
Alex
>--Original Message--
>Alex Au wrote:
>
history
is
remain.
>
>See How to resize the job history log (Enterprise Manager)
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
url=/library/en-us/howtosql/ht_automaem_8xpj.asp
>Why not create Your Own SQL Server Job Management System?
>http://www.sql-server-performance.com/rd_jobs.asp
>sincerely,
>--
>Sebastian K. Zaklada
>Skilled Software
>http://www.skilledsoftware.com
>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
>
>.
>|||The trouble is that if you have a job that runs very often e.g once every
minute, it can quickly eat up the 1000 rows that is the default job history
log size. This setting applies to the server so even if the job history rows
per job is 100, it will not honour this if the max history log size >1000.
Thus it might be worth lowering the rows per job and increasing the max log
size to find the balance that works for you.
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2d9401c40075$21391820$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Sebastian
> Thanks for this. I have checked and found that the Job
> agent setting no different from other servers. I think the
> real issue seem to be in the time the job history are
> kept.. All the jobs that have only one history are only
> run once a month, and I have jobs that run daily - they
> have all the job history up to a month.
> Alex
> history
> is
> remain.
> url=/library/en-us/howtosql/ht_automaem_8xpj.asp
> confers no rights.|||Thanks Jasper. This is exactly the problem, and your
suggested solution is spot on.
Alex
>--Original Message--
>The trouble is that if you have a job that runs very
often e.g once every
>minute, it can quickly eat up the 1000 rows that is the
default job history
>log size. This setting applies to the server so even if
the job history rows
>per job is 100, it will not honour this if the max
history log size >1000.
>Thus it might be worth lowering the rows per job and
increasing the max log
>size to find the balance that works for you.
>--
>HTH
>Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
>I support PASS - the definitive, global
>community for SQL Server professionals -
>http://www.sqlpass.org
>
><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:2d9401c40075$21391820$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
the
historic
history
Manager)
System?
and
>
>.
>

Question on Job history

Please could someone enlight me.
In enterprise manager -> management-> jobs -> view history
I could normally see the historic runs of the jobs.
I have a server, for some reason, only hold one historic
record of each job. Each time a job is run the history is
then refreshed and delete with only the latest job remain.
Where can I set in Enterprise Manager so I could adjust
the amount of the history held for the jobs?
Thanks
AlexAlex Au wrote:
> Please could someone enlight me.
> In enterprise manager -> management-> jobs -> view history
> I could normally see the historic runs of the jobs.
> I have a server, for some reason, only hold one historic
> record of each job. Each time a job is run the history is
> then refreshed and delete with only the latest job remain.
See How to resize the job history log (Enterprise Manager)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/howtosql/ht_automaem_8xpj.asp
Why not create Your Own SQL Server Job Management System?
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/rd_jobs.asp
sincerely,
--
Sebastian K. Zaklada
Skilled Software
http://www.skilledsoftware.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Sebastian
Thanks for this. I have checked and found that the Job
agent setting no different from other servers. I think the
real issue seem to be in the time the job history are
kept.. All the jobs that have only one history are only
run once a month, and I have jobs that run daily - they
have all the job history up to a month.
Alex
>--Original Message--
>Alex Au wrote:
>> Please could someone enlight me.
>> In enterprise manager -> management-> jobs -> view
history
>> I could normally see the historic runs of the jobs.
>> I have a server, for some reason, only hold one historic
>> record of each job. Each time a job is run the history
is
>> then refreshed and delete with only the latest job
remain.
>
>See How to resize the job history log (Enterprise Manager)
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
url=/library/en-us/howtosql/ht_automaem_8xpj.asp
>Why not create Your Own SQL Server Job Management System?
>http://www.sql-server-performance.com/rd_jobs.asp
>sincerely,
>--
>Sebastian K. Zaklada
>Skilled Software
>http://www.skilledsoftware.com
>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
>
>.
>|||The trouble is that if you have a job that runs very often e.g once every
minute, it can quickly eat up the 1000 rows that is the default job history
log size. This setting applies to the server so even if the job history rows
per job is 100, it will not honour this if the max history log size >1000.
Thus it might be worth lowering the rows per job and increasing the max log
size to find the balance that works for you.
--
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2d9401c40075$21391820$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Sebastian
> Thanks for this. I have checked and found that the Job
> agent setting no different from other servers. I think the
> real issue seem to be in the time the job history are
> kept.. All the jobs that have only one history are only
> run once a month, and I have jobs that run daily - they
> have all the job history up to a month.
> Alex
> >--Original Message--
> >Alex Au wrote:
> >
> >> Please could someone enlight me.
> >>
> >> In enterprise manager -> management-> jobs -> view
> history
> >> I could normally see the historic runs of the jobs.
> >>
> >> I have a server, for some reason, only hold one historic
> >> record of each job. Each time a job is run the history
> is
> >> then refreshed and delete with only the latest job
> remain.
> >
> >
> >See How to resize the job history log (Enterprise Manager)
> >http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
> url=/library/en-us/howtosql/ht_automaem_8xpj.asp
> >
> >Why not create Your Own SQL Server Job Management System?
> >http://www.sql-server-performance.com/rd_jobs.asp
> >
> >sincerely,
> >--
> >Sebastian K. Zaklada
> >Skilled Software
> >http://www.skilledsoftware.com
> >This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers no rights.
> >
> >
> >.
> >|||Thanks Jasper. This is exactly the problem, and your
suggested solution is spot on.
Alex
>--Original Message--
>The trouble is that if you have a job that runs very
often e.g once every
>minute, it can quickly eat up the 1000 rows that is the
default job history
>log size. This setting applies to the server so even if
the job history rows
>per job is 100, it will not honour this if the max
history log size >1000.
>Thus it might be worth lowering the rows per job and
increasing the max log
>size to find the balance that works for you.
>--
>HTH
>Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
>I support PASS - the definitive, global
>community for SQL Server professionals -
>http://www.sqlpass.org
>
><anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:2d9401c40075$21391820$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
>> Sebastian
>> Thanks for this. I have checked and found that the Job
>> agent setting no different from other servers. I think
the
>> real issue seem to be in the time the job history are
>> kept.. All the jobs that have only one history are only
>> run once a month, and I have jobs that run daily - they
>> have all the job history up to a month.
>> Alex
>> >--Original Message--
>> >Alex Au wrote:
>> >
>> >> Please could someone enlight me.
>> >>
>> >> In enterprise manager -> management-> jobs -> view
>> history
>> >> I could normally see the historic runs of the jobs.
>> >>
>> >> I have a server, for some reason, only hold one
historic
>> >> record of each job. Each time a job is run the
history
>> is
>> >> then refreshed and delete with only the latest job
>> remain.
>> >
>> >
>> >See How to resize the job history log (Enterprise
Manager)
>> >http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
>> url=/library/en-us/howtosql/ht_automaem_8xpj.asp
>> >
>> >Why not create Your Own SQL Server Job Management
System?
>> >http://www.sql-server-performance.com/rd_jobs.asp
>> >
>> >sincerely,
>> >--
>> >Sebastian K. Zaklada
>> >Skilled Software
>> >http://www.skilledsoftware.com
>> >This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
and
>> confers no rights.
>> >
>> >
>> >.
>> >
>
>.
>

Question on generating SQL scripts using Enterprise Manager

Hi,

I was using enterprise manager to generate a script for my DB. I
scripted only my tables and views and in Options I picked all the
options EXCEPT "script Primary Keys, Foreign Keys and Constraits " (
which I was going to script seperately ). I noticed that the the
generated file still had all FKs and PKs scripted. When I additionally
unchecked the "script Full-Text indexes" option, it worked as expected.
Any idea why the full-text option causes all constraints to be
scripted. Using SQL server 2000.

Thanksdrdeadpan (vkat01-nospam@.yahoo.com) writes:
> I was using enterprise manager to generate a script for my DB. I
> scripted only my tables and views and in Options I picked all the
> options EXCEPT "script Primary Keys, Foreign Keys and Constraits " (
> which I was going to script seperately ). I noticed that the the
> generated file still had all FKs and PKs scripted. When I additionally
> unchecked the "script Full-Text indexes" option, it worked as expected.
> Any idea why the full-text option causes all constraints to be
> scripted. Using SQL server 2000.

Sounds like a bug.

It would be interesting to see a repro. That is a complete database script
with at most three tables with all these features, and when scripted in
EM displays all these problems. I doubt that the bug will ever be fixed
in Enterprise Manager, but since I'm on the SQL 2005 beta, I would like
to test if the problem is there as well.

By the way, did your tables actually have any full-text indexes?

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||Thanks Erland for your response.

No, we have NO full text indexes defined. Our tables have a rather
large number of columns so rather than pasting the script here ,I
tested it again. This time I picked 3 tables to be scripted with the
following options.

Script Database
Script database users and database roles
Script object-level permissions
Script indexes
Script full-text indexes.

The above options once again scripted all PKs and FKs even though it
was not requested.

I reran the script without the full-text scripting option and it works
fine i.e no Pks and FKs. SO, I guess it is prefectly reproducable on
Sql Server 2000. I just wanted to make sure I was'nt seeing things.
Great website BTW.

DrD|||drdeadpan (vkat01-nospam@.yahoo.com) writes:
> No, we have NO full text indexes defined. Our tables have a rather
> large number of columns so rather than pasting the script here ,I
> tested it again. This time I picked 3 tables to be scripted with the
> following options.
> Script Database
> Script database users and database roles
> Script object-level permissions
> Script indexes
> Script full-text indexes.
> The above options once again scripted all PKs and FKs even though it
> was not requested.

You don't have to post your actual tables. It's enough to post a few
tables for which the problem appears.

Anyway, I was able to reproduce the problem in SQL 2000, but when I did
a quick test in SQL 2005, no constraints were brought it.

As I mentioned earlier, the likelyhood that this will be fixed in SQL2000
is about nil.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

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

Question on generating SQL scripts using Enterprise Manager

Hi,

I was using enterprise manager to generate a script for my DB. I
scripted selected my tables and views and in Options I picked all the
options. I noticed that the
generated file does not include FKs, EXTs or PKs scripted.
Any idea why the full-text options are not scripting the constraints?
Using SQL server 2000.

Thanks(chawes40@.yahoo.com) writes:
> I was using enterprise manager to generate a script for my DB. I
> scripted selected my tables and views and in Options I picked all the
> options. I noticed that the
> generated file does not include FKs, EXTs or PKs scripted.
> Any idea why the full-text options are not scripting the constraints?
> Using SQL server 2000.

Did the database actually have any full-text indexes? I tried to reproduce
the problem according your description, and my script included PKs and
FKs. But I don't even have full-text installed on my machine.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

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

Question on Enterprise Mgr & Muyltiple Web SQL2000 DB

I have 5 DB that I want to access from EM on a semishare server with same IP.

Once I add the IP & also the Logon/password then a new one can not be added as a message shows that IP already exists.

Is the only solution to not add the Logon/password and enter them every time?

Any link to other threads that explain would be helpful.I'm a bit confused. Are all 5 databasese on the same server? Once you register that server in EM all of the databases on that server will be accessible. So you should be able to drill down and find your 5 databases.

Terri|||each database has a different Logon and password. I can see all of them and the others on the semi dedicated svr but if I check the box to save ID/pw then I am restricted to only 1 db.