Hi Guys,
I am new in analysis service. I just installed analysis service in my
personal computer that has a sql server enterprise installed. When I opened
analysis manager and try to open the server in the left pane, I got error
that no register sql server or it is not in the olap group(roughly, I cannot
remember clearly), then server icon because red(closed). it seems like I
couldn't connect to database server. But it is same server and of cause I
have already register this server. What is wrong with this? Thanks.
it would help if 'clearly' and not 'roughly' took the time to post the full
error and in return we will 'clearly' answer your question!
It sounds to me the user account you are logged on as isn't in the OlapAdmin
group. Add your logged on account to this group and it should do the trick.
Immy
"Iter" <Iter@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:75B81FA5-1CEC-4815-A597-95BBCA829BDB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Guys,
> I am new in analysis service. I just installed analysis service in my
> personal computer that has a sql server enterprise installed. When I
> opened
> analysis manager and try to open the server in the left pane, I got error
> that no register sql server or it is not in the olap group(roughly, I
> cannot
> remember clearly), then server icon because red(closed). it seems like I
> couldn't connect to database server. But it is same server and of cause I
> have already register this server. What is wrong with this? Thanks.
>
|||You will get this behavior if you are trying to run an earlier version of
Analysis Services 2000 on Win XP Pro. If this is the case, you need to
upgrade both SQL Server 2000 and As 2000 to SP4. Search the MSKB for
details.
John G.
"Iter" <Iter@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:75B81FA5-1CEC-4815-A597-95BBCA829BDB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Guys,
> I am new in analysis service. I just installed analysis service in my
> personal computer that has a sql server enterprise installed. When I
> opened
> analysis manager and try to open the server in the left pane, I got error
> that no register sql server or it is not in the olap group(roughly, I
> cannot
> remember clearly), then server icon because red(closed). it seems like I
> couldn't connect to database server. But it is same server and of cause I
> have already register this server. What is wrong with this? Thanks.
>
Friday, March 30, 2012
Regarding indexes (I think)
I have an issue where i can do the following
Select count(*) from table and it returns 181,000
Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is not null and it returns 174,000
Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is null and it returns 153,000
Now, those numbers should at up to the count of the top one,
I've ran dbcc checkdb, and it returns no errors. I've also tried dbcc
dbreindex with the same problem.
Anyone have any suggestions?Try,
DBCC UPDATEUSAGE ('db_name', 'table_name')
go
select count(*), count(case when ncolumn is not null then 1 end),
count(ncolumn is null then 1 end)
from table
go
AMB
"Gary" wrote:
> I have an issue where i can do the following
> Select count(*) from table and it returns 181,000
> Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is not null and it returns 174,00
0
> Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is null and it returns 153,000
> Now, those numbers should at up to the count of the top one,
> I've ran dbcc checkdb, and it returns no errors. I've also tried dbcc
> dbreindex with the same problem.
> Anyone have any suggestions?
>
>|||Correction,
DBCC UPDATEUSAGE ('db_name', 'table_name')
go
select count(*), count(case when ncolumn is not null then 1 end),
count(case when ncolumn is null then 1 end)
from table
go
AMB
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
> Try,
> DBCC UPDATEUSAGE ('db_name', 'table_name')
> go
> select count(*), count(case when ncolumn is not null then 1 end),
> count(ncolumn is null then 1 end)
> from table
> go
>
> AMB
> "Gary" wrote:
>|||Are there inserts into the table between each select?
"Gary" <clgary@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:unQeCtRGFHA.1188@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I have an issue where i can do the following
> Select count(*) from table and it returns 181,000
> Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is not null and it returns
174,000
> Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is null and it returns 153,000
> Now, those numbers should at up to the count of the top one,
> I've ran dbcc checkdb, and it returns no errors. I've also tried dbcc
> dbreindex with the same problem.
> Anyone have any suggestions?
>|||Thanks for the help, it sort of worked
Select count(*) from table and it returns 181,000
Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is not null and it returns 174,000
Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is null and it returns 153,000
Same results there, however,
select count(*), count(case when ncolumn is not null then 1 end),
count(ncolumn is null then 1 end)
from table
returns
181,000 159,000 22,000
which is correct,.but I'm still not sure whats going on there.
Another poster I saw asked if there were inserts happening during the
selects, and its not.
So, I'm still baffled. Something else to note, even if i run them
individually, instead of all 3 as a batch in QA, it still returns the wrong
count.
"Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:61BE7216-D2F7-435D-B1E4-656E4D683C5E@.microsoft.com...
> Try,
> DBCC UPDATEUSAGE ('db_name', 'table_name')
> go
> select count(*), count(case when ncolumn is not null then 1 end),
> count(ncolumn is null then 1 end)
> from table
> go
>
> AMB
> "Gary" wrote:
>
174,000|||If you are running parallel queries:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/814509/en-us
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/838166 (for getting the 878
build).
S. L.
"Gary" <clgary@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:unQeCtRGFHA.1188@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I have an issue where i can do the following
> Select count(*) from table and it returns 181,000
> Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is not null and it returns
> 174,000
> Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is null and it returns 153,000
> Now, those numbers should at up to the count of the top one,
> I've ran dbcc checkdb, and it returns no errors. I've also tried dbcc
> dbreindex with the same problem.
> Anyone have any suggestions?
>|||Perhaps uncommitted inserts or updates are being held open by other
processes and your current transaction isolation level allows your query to
include "dirty reads". Sometimes a large number of updates (100,000s) can
take 1/2 hour or more to rollback if a batch transaction fails. Try running
the following, it will lock any records as it reads and will not include
"dirty reads".
Run sp_lock to see what other processes may have records locked. Also, if
the queries seems to take longer than usual to run using this locking
method, then you can use sp_who2 to determine if your SPID is blocked by
another process.
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
Select count(*) from table
Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is not null
Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is null
"Gary" <clgary@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uDpR8ISGFHA.4004@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the help, it sort of worked
> Select count(*) from table and it returns 181,000
> Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is not null and it returns
174,000
> Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is null and it returns 153,000
> Same results there, however,
> select count(*), count(case when ncolumn is not null then 1 end),
> count(ncolumn is null then 1 end)
> from table
> returns
> 181,000 159,000 22,000
> which is correct,.but I'm still not sure whats going on there.
> Another poster I saw asked if there were inserts happening during the
> selects, and its not.
> So, I'm still baffled. Something else to note, even if i run them
> individually, instead of all 3 as a batch in QA, it still returns the
wrong
> count.
> "Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> news:61BE7216-D2F7-435D-B1E4-656E4D683C5E@.microsoft.com...
> 174,000
153,000
>|||Thanks,
That seems to do the trick
"Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)>
wrote in message news:OOqE3YSGFHA.2296@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If you are running parallel queries:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/814509/en-us
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/838166 (for getting the 878
> build).
> S. L.
> "Gary" <clgary@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:unQeCtRGFHA.1188@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>sql
Select count(*) from table and it returns 181,000
Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is not null and it returns 174,000
Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is null and it returns 153,000
Now, those numbers should at up to the count of the top one,
I've ran dbcc checkdb, and it returns no errors. I've also tried dbcc
dbreindex with the same problem.
Anyone have any suggestions?Try,
DBCC UPDATEUSAGE ('db_name', 'table_name')
go
select count(*), count(case when ncolumn is not null then 1 end),
count(ncolumn is null then 1 end)
from table
go
AMB
"Gary" wrote:
> I have an issue where i can do the following
> Select count(*) from table and it returns 181,000
> Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is not null and it returns 174,00
0
> Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is null and it returns 153,000
> Now, those numbers should at up to the count of the top one,
> I've ran dbcc checkdb, and it returns no errors. I've also tried dbcc
> dbreindex with the same problem.
> Anyone have any suggestions?
>
>|||Correction,
DBCC UPDATEUSAGE ('db_name', 'table_name')
go
select count(*), count(case when ncolumn is not null then 1 end),
count(case when ncolumn is null then 1 end)
from table
go
AMB
"Alejandro Mesa" wrote:
> Try,
> DBCC UPDATEUSAGE ('db_name', 'table_name')
> go
> select count(*), count(case when ncolumn is not null then 1 end),
> count(ncolumn is null then 1 end)
> from table
> go
>
> AMB
> "Gary" wrote:
>|||Are there inserts into the table between each select?
"Gary" <clgary@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:unQeCtRGFHA.1188@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I have an issue where i can do the following
> Select count(*) from table and it returns 181,000
> Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is not null and it returns
174,000
> Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is null and it returns 153,000
> Now, those numbers should at up to the count of the top one,
> I've ran dbcc checkdb, and it returns no errors. I've also tried dbcc
> dbreindex with the same problem.
> Anyone have any suggestions?
>|||Thanks for the help, it sort of worked
Select count(*) from table and it returns 181,000
Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is not null and it returns 174,000
Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is null and it returns 153,000
Same results there, however,
select count(*), count(case when ncolumn is not null then 1 end),
count(ncolumn is null then 1 end)
from table
returns
181,000 159,000 22,000
which is correct,.but I'm still not sure whats going on there.
Another poster I saw asked if there were inserts happening during the
selects, and its not.
So, I'm still baffled. Something else to note, even if i run them
individually, instead of all 3 as a batch in QA, it still returns the wrong
count.
"Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:61BE7216-D2F7-435D-B1E4-656E4D683C5E@.microsoft.com...
> Try,
> DBCC UPDATEUSAGE ('db_name', 'table_name')
> go
> select count(*), count(case when ncolumn is not null then 1 end),
> count(ncolumn is null then 1 end)
> from table
> go
>
> AMB
> "Gary" wrote:
>
174,000|||If you are running parallel queries:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/814509/en-us
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/838166 (for getting the 878
build).
S. L.
"Gary" <clgary@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:unQeCtRGFHA.1188@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I have an issue where i can do the following
> Select count(*) from table and it returns 181,000
> Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is not null and it returns
> 174,000
> Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is null and it returns 153,000
> Now, those numbers should at up to the count of the top one,
> I've ran dbcc checkdb, and it returns no errors. I've also tried dbcc
> dbreindex with the same problem.
> Anyone have any suggestions?
>|||Perhaps uncommitted inserts or updates are being held open by other
processes and your current transaction isolation level allows your query to
include "dirty reads". Sometimes a large number of updates (100,000s) can
take 1/2 hour or more to rollback if a batch transaction fails. Try running
the following, it will lock any records as it reads and will not include
"dirty reads".
Run sp_lock to see what other processes may have records locked. Also, if
the queries seems to take longer than usual to run using this locking
method, then you can use sp_who2 to determine if your SPID is blocked by
another process.
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
Select count(*) from table
Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is not null
Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is null
"Gary" <clgary@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uDpR8ISGFHA.4004@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the help, it sort of worked
> Select count(*) from table and it returns 181,000
> Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is not null and it returns
174,000
> Select count(*) from table where ncolumn is null and it returns 153,000
> Same results there, however,
> select count(*), count(case when ncolumn is not null then 1 end),
> count(ncolumn is null then 1 end)
> from table
> returns
> 181,000 159,000 22,000
> which is correct,.but I'm still not sure whats going on there.
> Another poster I saw asked if there were inserts happening during the
> selects, and its not.
> So, I'm still baffled. Something else to note, even if i run them
> individually, instead of all 3 as a batch in QA, it still returns the
wrong
> count.
> "Alejandro Mesa" <AlejandroMesa@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> news:61BE7216-D2F7-435D-B1E4-656E4D683C5E@.microsoft.com...
> 174,000
153,000
>|||Thanks,
That seems to do the trick
"Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)>
wrote in message news:OOqE3YSGFHA.2296@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If you are running parallel queries:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/814509/en-us
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/838166 (for getting the 878
> build).
> S. L.
> "Gary" <clgary@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:unQeCtRGFHA.1188@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>sql
Regarding how to compress the data file
Hi Guys,
I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company, the
data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space. Thanks.
Iter,
First: Do NOT try to used compressed drives.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/231347/EN-US/
Use DBCC SHOWCONTIG to determine if your dataspace is badly fragmented or,
in SQL 2005, examine the sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats dynamic management
view. If that is a problem, then reorganizing the database space will help
some. Use:
DBCC DBREINDEX or (SQL 2005) ALTER INDEX ... REBUILD ...
However, the biggest problem is usually retaining more data online than is
actually needed. That would require a policy decision on data retention and
then some development to either archive or delete the expired data. (Of
course, if you keep your archive online, then you have not saved a lot of
disk space, but you may have improved database performance.)
RLF
"Iter" <Iter@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7786B9FF-FE35-44E6-B92F-8158977FFFFB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Guys,
> I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company,
> the
> data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
> database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space.
> Thanks.
>
|||Hi
"Iter" wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company, the
> data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
> database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space. Thanks.
>
I don't think having data files on compressed drives is officially
supported, and compressing the datafile will have a sever impact on
performance.
If you are actually wanting to shrink the database file then, this is not
usually recommended as it can effect performance (see
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp) unless you have an
unusually high amount of free space in the database that you are unlikely to
use (such as the growth rate is a percentage rather than a fixed amount).
Look at sp_spaceused to see the unused space. DBCC SHRINKFILE can be used to
shrink the file.
John
sql
I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company, the
data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space. Thanks.
Iter,
First: Do NOT try to used compressed drives.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/231347/EN-US/
Use DBCC SHOWCONTIG to determine if your dataspace is badly fragmented or,
in SQL 2005, examine the sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats dynamic management
view. If that is a problem, then reorganizing the database space will help
some. Use:
DBCC DBREINDEX or (SQL 2005) ALTER INDEX ... REBUILD ...
However, the biggest problem is usually retaining more data online than is
actually needed. That would require a policy decision on data retention and
then some development to either archive or delete the expired data. (Of
course, if you keep your archive online, then you have not saved a lot of
disk space, but you may have improved database performance.)
RLF
"Iter" <Iter@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7786B9FF-FE35-44E6-B92F-8158977FFFFB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Guys,
> I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company,
> the
> data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
> database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space.
> Thanks.
>
|||Hi
"Iter" wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company, the
> data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
> database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space. Thanks.
>
I don't think having data files on compressed drives is officially
supported, and compressing the datafile will have a sever impact on
performance.
If you are actually wanting to shrink the database file then, this is not
usually recommended as it can effect performance (see
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp) unless you have an
unusually high amount of free space in the database that you are unlikely to
use (such as the growth rate is a percentage rather than a fixed amount).
Look at sp_spaceused to see the unused space. DBCC SHRINKFILE can be used to
shrink the file.
John
sql
Regarding how to compress the data file
Hi Guys,
I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company, the
data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space. Thanks
.Iter,
First: Do NOT try to used compressed drives.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/231347/EN-US/
Use DBCC SHOWCONTIG to determine if your dataspace is badly fragmented or,
in SQL 2005, examine the sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats dynamic management
view. If that is a problem, then reorganizing the database space will help
some. Use:
DBCC DBREINDEX or (SQL 2005) ALTER INDEX ... REBUILD ...
However, the biggest problem is usually retaining more data online than is
actually needed. That would require a policy decision on data retention and
then some development to either archive or delete the expired data. (Of
course, if you keep your archive online, then you have not saved a lot of
disk space, but you may have improved database performance.)
RLF
"Iter" <Iter@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7786B9FF-FE35-44E6-B92F-8158977FFFFB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Guys,
> I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company,
> the
> data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
> database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space.
> Thanks.
>|||Hi
"Iter" wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company, th
e
> data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
> database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space. Than
ks.
>
I don't think having data files on compressed drives is officially
supported, and compressing the datafile will have a sever impact on
performance.
If you are actually wanting to shrink the database file then, this is not
usually recommended as it can effect performance (see
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp) unless you have an
unusually high amount of free space in the database that you are unlikely to
use (such as the growth rate is a percentage rather than a fixed amount).
Look at sp_spaceused to see the unused space. DBCC SHRINKFILE can be used to
shrink the file.
John
I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company, the
data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space. Thanks
.Iter,
First: Do NOT try to used compressed drives.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/231347/EN-US/
Use DBCC SHOWCONTIG to determine if your dataspace is badly fragmented or,
in SQL 2005, examine the sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats dynamic management
view. If that is a problem, then reorganizing the database space will help
some. Use:
DBCC DBREINDEX or (SQL 2005) ALTER INDEX ... REBUILD ...
However, the biggest problem is usually retaining more data online than is
actually needed. That would require a policy decision on data retention and
then some development to either archive or delete the expired data. (Of
course, if you keep your archive online, then you have not saved a lot of
disk space, but you may have improved database performance.)
RLF
"Iter" <Iter@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7786B9FF-FE35-44E6-B92F-8158977FFFFB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Guys,
> I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company,
> the
> data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
> database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space.
> Thanks.
>|||Hi
"Iter" wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company, th
e
> data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
> database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space. Than
ks.
>
I don't think having data files on compressed drives is officially
supported, and compressing the datafile will have a sever impact on
performance.
If you are actually wanting to shrink the database file then, this is not
usually recommended as it can effect performance (see
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp) unless you have an
unusually high amount of free space in the database that you are unlikely to
use (such as the growth rate is a percentage rather than a fixed amount).
Look at sp_spaceused to see the unused space. DBCC SHRINKFILE can be used to
shrink the file.
John
Regarding how to compress the data file
Hi Guys,
I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company, the
data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space. Thanks.Iter,
First: Do NOT try to used compressed drives.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/231347/EN-US/
Use DBCC SHOWCONTIG to determine if your dataspace is badly fragmented or,
in SQL 2005, examine the sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats dynamic management
view. If that is a problem, then reorganizing the database space will help
some. Use:
DBCC DBREINDEX or (SQL 2005) ALTER INDEX ... REBUILD ...
However, the biggest problem is usually retaining more data online than is
actually needed. That would require a policy decision on data retention and
then some development to either archive or delete the expired data. (Of
course, if you keep your archive online, then you have not saved a lot of
disk space, but you may have improved database performance.)
RLF
"Iter" <Iter@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7786B9FF-FE35-44E6-B92F-8158977FFFFB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Guys,
> I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company,
> the
> data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
> database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space.
> Thanks.
>|||Hi
"Iter" wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company, the
> data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
> database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space. Thanks.
>
I don't think having data files on compressed drives is officially
supported, and compressing the datafile will have a sever impact on
performance.
If you are actually wanting to shrink the database file then, this is not
usually recommended as it can effect performance (see
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp) unless you have an
unusually high amount of free space in the database that you are unlikely to
use (such as the growth rate is a percentage rather than a fixed amount).
Look at sp_spaceused to see the unused space. DBCC SHRINKFILE can be used to
shrink the file.
John
I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company, the
data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space. Thanks.Iter,
First: Do NOT try to used compressed drives.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/231347/EN-US/
Use DBCC SHOWCONTIG to determine if your dataspace is badly fragmented or,
in SQL 2005, examine the sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats dynamic management
view. If that is a problem, then reorganizing the database space will help
some. Use:
DBCC DBREINDEX or (SQL 2005) ALTER INDEX ... REBUILD ...
However, the biggest problem is usually retaining more data online than is
actually needed. That would require a policy decision on data retention and
then some development to either archive or delete the expired data. (Of
course, if you keep your archive online, then you have not saved a lot of
disk space, but you may have improved database performance.)
RLF
"Iter" <Iter@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7786B9FF-FE35-44E6-B92F-8158977FFFFB@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Guys,
> I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company,
> the
> data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
> database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space.
> Thanks.
>|||Hi
"Iter" wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> I have question Regarding how to compress the data file. IN my company, the
> data file is getting bigger and bigger. Is that a way to compress the
> database file to make it smaller so that we can save some disk space. Thanks.
>
I don't think having data files on compressed drives is officially
supported, and compressing the datafile will have a sever impact on
performance.
If you are actually wanting to shrink the database file then, this is not
usually recommended as it can effect performance (see
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp) unless you have an
unusually high amount of free space in the database that you are unlikely to
use (such as the growth rate is a percentage rather than a fixed amount).
Look at sp_spaceused to see the unused space. DBCC SHRINKFILE can be used to
shrink the file.
John
Regarding History tables in Replication...
Hi,
How frequently will the history tables get deleted in Merge Replication and Transactional Replication with updatable subscriptions?
When transactional replication with updatable subscriptions is running in the continuous mode, will the history tables get deleted frequently?
Parameters :
Version : SQL Server 2005 SP1
Mode : Continuous running mode
Subscription type : Pull (for transactional)
Regards,
Swapna.B.
There's a history cleanup job that runs and will clean up rows based on your history retention.Regarding Full-Text search
Hello,
we have full-text search service running under local system account and we
removed Builtin/Administrators
from our logins and now our full-text catalogs are not getting populated and
now the only resolution i see is
adding NT Authority/System as a login and granting sysadmin privileges .are
there any pros and cons in doing this ..in terms of security..
Thanks In Advance!
No, basically the reason dba's remove the builtin\admin account is to ensure
that NT admin's are automatically system admins on the SQL Server box. NT
Authority/System merely gives the system account rights to SQL Server which
MSSearch requires to contact SQL Server and vice versa. With NT
Authority/System the NT admin's can no longer automatically administer your
SQL Server.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"msqldba m via droptable.com" <forum@.droptable.com> wrote in message
news:5111AFEC65E20@.droptable.com...
> Hello,
> we have full-text search service running under local system account and we
> removed Builtin/Administrators
> from our logins and now our full-text catalogs are not getting populated
and
> now the only resolution i see is
> adding NT Authority/System as a login and granting sysadmin privileges
..are
> there any pros and cons in doing this ..in terms of security..
>
> Thanks In Advance!
|||Hilary,
So there are no problems in making NT Authority/System a sysadmin(SA) in sql
server
Thanks,
Hilary Cotter wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>No, basically the reason dba's remove the builtin\admin account is to ensure
>that NT admin's are automatically system admins on the SQL Server box. NT
>Authority/System merely gives the system account rights to SQL Server which
>MSSearch requires to contact SQL Server and vice versa. With NT
>Authority/System the NT admin's can no longer automatically administer your
>SQL Server.
>[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...earch/200507/1
|||msqldba,
No there is no problem in making NT Authority/System login have sysadmin
privileges, in fact it is required if you have removed the
BUILTIN\Administrators login as the external MSSearch services needs
sysadmin privileges to access SQL Server. Note, this is by design. You can
implement this via the following T-SQL code:
exec sp_grantlogin N'NT Authority\System'
exec sp_defaultdb N'NT Authority\System', N'master'
exec sp_defaultlanguage N'NT Authority\System','us_english'
exec sp_addsrvrolemember N'NT Authority\System', sysadmin
Additionally, see KB article Q263712 "INF: How To Prevent Windows NT
Administrators From Administering a Clustered SQL Server" at
http://support.microsoft.com/default...;EN-US;q263712 as this KB
article recommends: "If a full-text search will be used on the cluster, you
must add the [NT Authority\System] account to the server's "sysadmin"
group."
Regards,
John
SQL Full Text Search Blog
http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/
"msqldba m via droptable.com" <forum@.droptable.com> wrote in message
news:5116CE83ADBA0@.droptable.com...
> Hilary,
> So there are no problems in making NT Authority/System a sysadmin(SA) in
sql[vbcol=seagreen]
> server
> Thanks,
>
> Hilary Cotter wrote:
ensure[vbcol=seagreen]
which[vbcol=seagreen]
your
>
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...earch/200507/1
we have full-text search service running under local system account and we
removed Builtin/Administrators
from our logins and now our full-text catalogs are not getting populated and
now the only resolution i see is
adding NT Authority/System as a login and granting sysadmin privileges .are
there any pros and cons in doing this ..in terms of security..
Thanks In Advance!
No, basically the reason dba's remove the builtin\admin account is to ensure
that NT admin's are automatically system admins on the SQL Server box. NT
Authority/System merely gives the system account rights to SQL Server which
MSSearch requires to contact SQL Server and vice versa. With NT
Authority/System the NT admin's can no longer automatically administer your
SQL Server.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"msqldba m via droptable.com" <forum@.droptable.com> wrote in message
news:5111AFEC65E20@.droptable.com...
> Hello,
> we have full-text search service running under local system account and we
> removed Builtin/Administrators
> from our logins and now our full-text catalogs are not getting populated
and
> now the only resolution i see is
> adding NT Authority/System as a login and granting sysadmin privileges
..are
> there any pros and cons in doing this ..in terms of security..
>
> Thanks In Advance!
|||Hilary,
So there are no problems in making NT Authority/System a sysadmin(SA) in sql
server
Thanks,
Hilary Cotter wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>No, basically the reason dba's remove the builtin\admin account is to ensure
>that NT admin's are automatically system admins on the SQL Server box. NT
>Authority/System merely gives the system account rights to SQL Server which
>MSSearch requires to contact SQL Server and vice versa. With NT
>Authority/System the NT admin's can no longer automatically administer your
>SQL Server.
>[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
Message posted via droptable.com
http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...earch/200507/1
|||msqldba,
No there is no problem in making NT Authority/System login have sysadmin
privileges, in fact it is required if you have removed the
BUILTIN\Administrators login as the external MSSearch services needs
sysadmin privileges to access SQL Server. Note, this is by design. You can
implement this via the following T-SQL code:
exec sp_grantlogin N'NT Authority\System'
exec sp_defaultdb N'NT Authority\System', N'master'
exec sp_defaultlanguage N'NT Authority\System','us_english'
exec sp_addsrvrolemember N'NT Authority\System', sysadmin
Additionally, see KB article Q263712 "INF: How To Prevent Windows NT
Administrators From Administering a Clustered SQL Server" at
http://support.microsoft.com/default...;EN-US;q263712 as this KB
article recommends: "If a full-text search will be used on the cluster, you
must add the [NT Authority\System] account to the server's "sysadmin"
group."
Regards,
John
SQL Full Text Search Blog
http://spaces.msn.com/members/jtkane/
"msqldba m via droptable.com" <forum@.droptable.com> wrote in message
news:5116CE83ADBA0@.droptable.com...
> Hilary,
> So there are no problems in making NT Authority/System a sysadmin(SA) in
sql[vbcol=seagreen]
> server
> Thanks,
>
> Hilary Cotter wrote:
ensure[vbcol=seagreen]
which[vbcol=seagreen]
your
>
> --
> Message posted via droptable.com
> http://www.droptable.com/Uwe/Forums...earch/200507/1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)