1. Copy old data from each table in LiveDB to same table in ArchiveDB.
2. Delete the data from each table in LiveDB which is in ArchiveDB
Both DBs SIMPLE recovery mode.
Each table has a clustered PK on a single int value. In both DBs
The tables with varchar(max) columns are taking a v.long time to copy over.
IS there anything I can change in the ArchiveDB to make it run faster.
It is the insert that is taking the time. I've tried dropping the clustered PKs in ArchiveDB tables and then rebuilding afterwards but it has not made any difference. After all I am adding data to the ArchiveDB in clustered index order, so wouldn't have expected it to.
How I can change the Archive DB but cannot touch the schema/settings of Live DB.
I have a query that is taking 6 mintues on my db so i copied the 2 relevant tables to a new db for testing and then tested the query and it took only 30 seconds.
why would this be? tables are the same size - i copied to the new by creating the table and then inserting from the old to then new. these are very big tables.
the first db does have many other tables but why should that make a difference?
What are some good strategic approaches to using freeform text fields fordata that needs to be queried? We have a product whose tables we can'tchange, and I need to count on a "description" field for storing a value.Two, actually. I'm thinking of adopting this convention:InvoiceNumber@VendorAcronymThere'd be a lot of vendors.Additional issue: sometimes these values would be referred to in thedescription field, and I'd need to distinguish them as referrals ratherthan as original recorded instances of the values. For that, I imaginedeither:InvoiceNumber@@VendorAcronymorInvoiceNumber&VendorAcronymInvoiceNumber//VendorAcronymetc. -- something like that.I'm just wondering if there's best practice for doing anything this stupid(hey, I'm stuck with this as our only option just now; hopefully it's onlytemporary). How to parse out whatever I end up implementing -- well, itneeds to be tractable.Thoughts?--Scott
I am setting up a database that will receive a lot of data from twoseparate telephone centers, the log table will in a short time haveover 1 million lines, and I was wondering if I should use 1 identifyfield or two:case 1:[Id] [int] IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL[ServerId] [int] NOT NULLcase 2:[Id] [varchar(20)] IDENTITY NOT NULLWhere in case 1 I would just use a combination of Id and ServerId toidentify the line, where in case 2 I would have the Id field a varcharthat would look something like A-000001, A-000002 for server 1 andB-000001, B-000002 for server 2Which solution will be faster when searching for a record when thewill have over 1 million lines?
I have a varchar field which holds IDs like (1, 3, 5, 19, 23) when I order it, i get it ordered in ASCII order like (1, 19, 23, 3, 5) rather than (1, 3, 5, 19, 23) Even if I convert it to int, I won't be able to order it.
is there any way I can order a varchar field numerically?
Hi, I'm starting a new application in java using JTDS jdbc driver(http://jtds.sourceforge.net) and SQLServer 2005 Express.I have to design the database from scratch and my doubt is if I have to usevarchar or nvarchar fields to store string data.Any experience about performance issues using nvarchar instead of varchar(considering that Java internally works in unicode too)?Thanks in advance,Davide.
HiWe have a SQL server 2000 SP4 on a windows 2003 2x3Ghz XEON 4 GB ram.We have a table looking like this with currently 6 rows. Total data is aprox10 kb i all row all together.CREATE TABLE [dbo].[BIOMETRICPROFILE] ([BIOMETRICPROFILEID] [bigint] IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE1] [image] NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE2] [image] NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE3] [image] NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE4] [image] NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE5] [image] NOT NULL ,[FINGERPRINTTEMPLATE6] [image] NOT NULL ,[TYPE] [nvarchar] (50) COLLATE Danish_Norwegian_CI_AS NOT NULL) ON [PRIMARY] TEXTIMAGE_ON [PRIMARY]GOselect * from BIOMETRICPROFILE takes ~4 seconds (!) to execute thourgh Queryanalyzer. Alle other tables has no performance problems.We have a SQL 2005 express instalation on the same server. If we restore abackup from the sql 2000 database the query takes aprox ~ 15 ms.What isgoing on here?Has SQL 2000 problems with image fields? or how can we find the problem?RegardsAnders
I've two tables that I've made from some query subsets. Each table has a varchar field with notes/memos and I want to concatenate the fields into one long field.
The problem I'm running into is that when I run the query to check the concatenation, the field is truncated maybe 256 chars in.
I tried converting and casting the field as nvarchar 4000, and I've also done the same for the fields in the two tables, but that doesn't seem to help.
I can query for the fields from each table and none of them are truncated by themselves. It only happens after I concatenate them.
I've created a new table and inserted the results into it, but the field in it is also truncated.
I'm using SSIS to import data from a table (SQL) containing varchar fields. The problem is, that those varchar fields are changing over time (sometimes shrinking and sometimes expanding). I.e. from varchar(16) to varchar(20).
When I create my SSIS package, the package seem to store information about the length of each source-field. At runtime, if the field-length is larger then what the package expects an error is thown.
Is there anyway around this problem?
Oh, yeah... My destination fields are a lot wider then the source fields, so the problem is not that the varchar values doesn't fit in my destination table, but that the package expects the source to be smaller...
I have 2 varchar fields on MS 2005 table First field is date and format is 080118(YYMMDD) and second is salary field like 00002000(positive) and 00002000- (negative) how can I move them to date and numeric fields on another table....
I am asked to compare the address fields (three columns of nvarchar(100) ) of a customer database (around 10,000 records) and find any duplicates. If it is a character by character match, I could have just GROUPed and get the result.
But, I am expected to produce a list with similar addresses which the guys who entered may have use slightly different spelling or more or less characters, or a "." here and there.
Hi, I'm trying to improve performance for a db that stores messages. The message is currently stored in an ntext field, but when I look at all the records from the past 3 months, I found that 88% are less than 1000 characters, and 97% are less than 3000 characters. I don't want to actually limit the message size, but it seems like I might get much better performance using a varchar(3000) field to hold most of the messages, and a separate text field just used for those 3% that really are long. Is this a good idea? If so, is it better to put the Message and LongMessage fields in the same table; or, have a separate table to hold the long messages? If it is in a separate table, it would need to be left joined with the message table each time messages are retrieved.Also -- I am getting about 700 new messages daily, and right now have over 150,000 messages stored. The vast majority of activity involves new messages. Is this a good situation to look at using horizontal partitioning?Thanks for any help, I don't really have anyone to discuss this with and it is really helpful to get some other views!!
I've got a fairly standard query that does a group by a type column, and then sums the lengths of a VARCHAR column. I'd like to add into that a concatenated version of the string always concatenating in primary key order. Is that possible?
Hi, i'm new to SSIS and trying to import some csv files (comma delimited) into SQL Server. A NULL value for a CHAR column is correctly regonized as NULl in SQL Server, but a NULL value for of a mapping to a VARCHAR column in SQL Server is not recognized correctly and i get the value "'NULL'" in SQL Server (including the single comma.
Sample:
CSV file contains columns A and B. A and B contains the Text NULL. Column A is mapped to a CHAR field, and column B is mapped to a VARCHAR field in SQL Server. After the import, SQL has the following value: A = NULL as NULL, B 'NULL' as text.
Hi all. I have been going round and round for the past 2 days on this and would appreciate any help. In a view select statement, I need to concat 2 varchar fields with a text field. If I CONVERT the TEXT field to VARCHAR, only the first 30 characters of the field appear in the result set. If I convert the VARCHAR fields to TEXT, I get an error that I cannot CONCAT TEXT fields. I'm not sure what to do. Can someone please offer some assistance? Thanks in advance! Steve
There are a few databases I work with that have been designed where varchar columns are used to store what actually displays on the front end as Ints, Decimals, Varchars, Datetimes, checkboxes.
I often have to write integrations with these databases bringing data in and prefer to validate the data whilst loading from the staging tables.
I have seen allsorts of values being passed into the staging tables that will load into the target database because the columns are all varchars but the values don't display on the front end because the app actively filters bad values out.
What I would like to do is for my validation scripts to warn up front of potentially invalid datatypes. My problem is that forexample the ISNUMERIC() function return 1 for the value ',1234' but a CONVERT(NUMERIC, ',1234') or CAST(',1234' AS NUMERIC) will fail with a "Error converting data type varchar to numeric).
I've been trying to locate a set of reliable datatype testing functions that will reliably determine if a varchar can be converted to a given data type or not.
I am putting a SELECT statement together where I need to evaluate a results field, to determine how the color indicator will show on a SSRS report. I am running into a problem when I try to filter out any non-numeric values from a varchar field, using a nested CASE statement.
For example, this results field may contain values of '<1', '>=1', '1', '100', '500', '5000', etc. For one type of test, I need a value of 500 or less to be shown as a green indicator in a report, and any value over that would be flagged as a red. Another test might only allow a value of 10 or less before being flagged with a red.
This is why I setup a CASE statement for an IndicatorValue that will pass over to the report to determine the indicator color. Using CASE statements for this is easier to work with, and less taxing on the report server, if done in SQL Server instead of nested SSRS expressions, especially since a variety of tests have different result values that would be flagged as green or red.
I have a separate nested CASE statement that will handle any of the values that contain ">" or "<", so I am using the following to filter those out, and then convert it to an int value, to determine what the indicator value should be. Here is the line of the script that is erring out"
case when (RESULT not like '%<%') or (RESULT not like '%>%') then CASE WHEN (CONVERT(int, RESULT) between 0 and 500) THEN '2' ELSE '0'
The message I am getting is: Conversion failed when converting the varchar value '<1' to data type int.
I thought a "not like" statement would not include those values for converting to an int, but that does not seem to be working correctly. I did also try moving the not to show as "not RESULT like", and that did not change the message.
How I can filter out non-numeric values before converting the rest of the varchar field (RESULT) to int, so that it is only converting actual numbers?
I am currently working on a PHP based website that needs to be able to drawfrom Oracle, MS SQL Server, MySQL and given time and demand other RDBMS. Itook a lot of time and care creating a flexible and solid wrapper and amdeep into coding. The only problem is a noticed VARCHAR fields being drawnfrom SQL Server 2000 are being truncated to 255 characters.I searched around php.net and found the following :Note to Win32 Users: Due to a limitation in the underlying API used by PHP(MS DbLib C API), the length of VARCHAR fields is limited to 255. If youneed to store more data, use a TEXT field instead.(http://www.php.net/manual/en/functi...ield-length.php)The only problem with this advice is Text fields seem to be limited to 16characters in length, and I am having similar results in terms of truncationwith other character based fields that can store more than 255 characters.I am using PHP 4.3.3 running on IIS using the php_mssql.dll extensions andthe functions referenced here http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.mssql.php.What are my options here? Has anybody worked around this or am I missingsomething obvious?James
create table #myfirst (id int, city varchar(20)) insert into #myfirst values (500,'Newyork') insert into #myfirst values (100,'Ediosn') insert into #myfirst values (200,'Atlanta') insert into #myfirst values (300,'Greenwoods') insert into #myfirst values (400,'Hitchcok') insert into #myfirst values (700,'Walmart') insert into #myfirst values (800,'Madida')
-- My Second Data
create table #mySecond (id int, city varchar(20),Sector varchar(2)) insert into #mySecond values (1500,'Newyork','MK') insert into #mySecond values (5500,'Ediosn','HH') insert into #mySecond values (5060,'The Atlanta','JK') insert into #mySecond values (7500,'The Greenwoods','DF') insert into #mySecond values (9500,'Metro','KK') insert into #mySecond values (3300,'Kilapr','MK') insert into #mySecond values (9500,'Metro','NH')
--Third Second Data
create table #myThird (id int, city varchar(20),Sector varchar(2)) insert into #myThird values (33,'Walmart','PP') insert into #myThird values (20,'Ediosn','DD') select f.*,s.Sector from #myfirst f join #mySecond s on f.city = s.city /* idcitySector 500NewyorkMK 100EdiosnHH */
i have doubt on two things
1) How Can i compare the City names, by eliminating 'The ' at the beginning (if there is any in second tale city) between first and second
2) after comparing first and second if there is no match found in second them want to compare with third table values for those not found
--i tried below to solve first doubt, it is working but want to know any other wasys to do it
select f.*,s.Sector from #myfirst f join #mySecond s on replace (f.city, 'THE ','')= replace (s.city, 'THE ','')
--Expected results wull be
create table #ExpectResults (id int, city varchar(20),Sector varchar(2)) insert into #ExpectResults values (200,'Atlanta','JK') insert into #ExpectResults values (100,'Ediosn','HH') insert into #ExpectResults values (300,'Greenwoods','DF') insert into #ExpectResults values (500,'Newyork','MK') insert into #ExpectResults values (700, 'Walmart','PP') insert into #ExpectResults values (800, 'Madidar','')
I need to extract specific text elements from a varchar column. There are three keywords in any given string: "wfTask," "wfStatus" and "displayReportFromWorkflow." "wfTask" and "wfStatus" can appear multiple times, but always as a pair and will each be followed by by "==" (with or without surrounding spaces). "displayReportFromWorkflow" is always followed by "(" and there can be spaces on either side. The text elements will be between a pair of double quotes, and following one of keywords. For each row, I need to return the task, status and report name.
Output: rowID, Task, Status, ReportName ----- --------- ------- ------------------------ 1, Issuance, Issued, General Permit 2, Issuance, Issued, Capacity Letter Type III 2, Review, Denied, Capacity Letter Type III
I started with a string splitter using the double quote character, referencing elements "i" and "i+1" where the text like '%wfTask%' or '%wfStatus%' or '%displayReportFromWorkflow%', but the case of multiple task/status in a row has confounded me so far.
I need to build an update query for all my article beginning with '0.%' for my varchar field refkey, but depending on some conditions.
For example. Case st.base <> '' and st.qttbase <> 0 Theo refkey = B Case st.cos <>'' and st.qttcos <> 0 Then refkey = C Case st.refo <> '' and st.qttrefo <> 0 Then refkey = R
But my problem are That i can have Many combination on refkey, for example:
B,BC,BCR,C,CB,CBR,R...and so on.
Also i need to separate the letters with comma, like:
