adding user-defined data type to existing publication/subscription

Hello, I am not a sql server programmer.
I have a database which already has a publication set up, which sends a
bunch of tables to subscribers. Everything was okay, but now I need to
publish two more tables. These tables contain columns which are user
defined types, which means my subscribers do not have them defined on
their side.
When I try to start synchronizing I get an error: Column or parameter
#1: Cannot find data type u_Blah. (error number 2715)
which is I guess, fair enough since the tables is trying to call
something that doesn't exist for the subscribers yet. If I understand
MSDN correctly (I tried reading so many articles...) in the Publication
--> Properties --> Articles tab; then, when I go into the properties
of the new articles, I can specify "Convert User Defined To base data
types", and then the subscribers will be able to pick up the user
defined types just fine. However (PLEASE tell me I understood this
wrong) that only works when publication is being set up the very first
time. That, in my situation, because I'm only adding articles, I cannot
do that.
The solution in MSDN seems to be to "manually copy the type (and the
associated assembly for a user-defined type) to each subscriber".
(msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms152559.aspx) I have no idea what
this means. Can anyone shed some light on what must be done now?
Thank you
-Dorothy
This is definable at the article level, and if you select to use the base
types for your new articles, there should be no requirement to have them
exist on the subscriber. If you want to continue to use user-defined data
types, you can create a script to add them (using sp_addtype and operating
in the correct database ie a 'USE' statement at the top) and then run this
script on the subscriber. How to do this? There are several options:
(a) manually open up Query Analyser and connect to the subscriber and then
run there
(b) use a pre-snapshot script on the publication - not for you as you are
just adding articles to an initialized publication
(c) use sp_addscriptexec, which will run the script on the subscriber the
next time it synchronizes
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
|||Just to clarify the current situation:
1) SQL2005 snapshot processing can handle column dependencies on
user-defined data types (both TSQL and CLR) by including the necessary
type\assembly definitions as part of the snapshot. There should be no need
to manually create the necessary types at the subscriber ahead of time using
a pre-snapshot script anymore as folks typically need to do on SQL2000.
2) SQL2005 DDL replication currently lacks capability to figure out new data
type dependencies introduced by a DDL action (such as adding a new column
depending on a UDT that doesn't exist at the subscriber as you attempted
below) As such, you would need to implement some other mechanisms
(sp_addexecscript being one) to bring the necessary data type (+assembly)
definition over to the subscriber before the DDL action is replicated.
-Raymond
<dorothyy@.eyi.us> wrote in message
news:1159311634.662309.166020@.d34g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
> Hello, I am not a sql server programmer.
> I have a database which already has a publication set up, which sends a
> bunch of tables to subscribers. Everything was okay, but now I need to
> publish two more tables. These tables contain columns which are user
> defined types, which means my subscribers do not have them defined on
> their side.
> When I try to start synchronizing I get an error: Column or parameter
> #1: Cannot find data type u_Blah. (error number 2715)
> which is I guess, fair enough since the tables is trying to call
> something that doesn't exist for the subscribers yet. If I understand
> MSDN correctly (I tried reading so many articles...) in the Publication
> --> Properties --> Articles tab; then, when I go into the properties
> of the new articles, I can specify "Convert User Defined To base data
> types", and then the subscribers will be able to pick up the user
> defined types just fine. However (PLEASE tell me I understood this
> wrong) that only works when publication is being set up the very first
> time. That, in my situation, because I'm only adding articles, I cannot
> do that.
> The solution in MSDN seems to be to "manually copy the type (and the
> associated assembly for a user-defined type) to each subscriber".
> (msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms152559.aspx) I have no idea what
> this means. Can anyone shed some light on what must be done now?
> Thank you
> -Dorothy
>
|||Hello,
thread has been moved to here mysteriously.
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...65417554cc611c
thank you
Raymond Mak [MSFT] wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Just to clarify the current situation:
> 1) SQL2005 snapshot processing can handle column dependencies on
> user-defined data types (both TSQL and CLR) by including the necessary
> type\assembly definitions as part of the snapshot. There should be no need
> to manually create the necessary types at the subscriber ahead of time using
> a pre-snapshot script anymore as folks typically need to do on SQL2000.
> 2) SQL2005 DDL replication currently lacks capability to figure out new data
> type dependencies introduced by a DDL action (such as adding a new column
> depending on a UDT that doesn't exist at the subscriber as you attempted
> below) As such, you would need to implement some other mechanisms
> (sp_addexecscript being one) to bring the necessary data type (+assembly)
> definition over to the subscriber before the DDL action is replicated.
> -Raymond
> <dorothyy@.eyi.us> wrote in message
> news:1159311634.662309.166020@.d34g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...

adding UNIQUE Constraint to existing column

Hello,
I am having trouble adding a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT to an existing column with
duplicate key using WITH NOCHECK in SQL Server 2000.
Here is my SQL syntax:
ALTER TABLE user_email WITH NOCHECK
ADD CONSTRAINT unq_user_email_email UNIQUE (email)
Query Analyzer keeps giving me the error message that duplicate key was foun
d:
Server: Msg 1505, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX terminated because a duplicate key was found for index
ID 4. Most significant primary key is 'user1@.abc.com'.
Server: Msg 1750, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Could not create constraint. See previous errors.
The statement has been terminated.
I learned from Books Online that "WITH NOCHECK" allows to add an unverified
constraint and prevents the validation against existing rows.
I tried using SQLServer Enterprise Manager, Manage Indexes and got the same
error message even though that I had checked the "Ignore Duplicate Values"
checkbox.
Can someone please tell me how i can add a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT without
removing the duplicate keys.
Thank you so much for your help!
--
MitraSQL-Server uses a unique index to enforce a UNIQUE constraint. A unique
index does not allow duplicates, under no circumstances.
The following text is also part of the BOL article:
"The WITH CHECK and WITH NOCHECK clauses cannot be used for PRIMARY KEY
and UNIQUE constraints."
HTH,
Gert-Jan
mitra wrote:
> Hello,
> I am having trouble adding a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT to an existing column with
> duplicate key using WITH NOCHECK in SQL Server 2000.
> Here is my SQL syntax:
> ALTER TABLE user_email WITH NOCHECK
> ADD CONSTRAINT unq_user_email_email UNIQUE (email)
> Query Analyzer keeps giving me the error message that duplicate key was fo
und:
> Server: Msg 1505, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX terminated because a duplicate key was found for index
> ID 4. Most significant primary key is 'user1@.abc.com'.
> Server: Msg 1750, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Could not create constraint. See previous errors.
> The statement has been terminated.
> I learned from Books Online that "WITH NOCHECK" allows to add an unverifie
d
> constraint and prevents the validation against existing rows.
> I tried using SQLServer Enterprise Manager, Manage Indexes and got the sam
e
> error message even though that I had checked the "Ignore Duplicate Values"
> checkbox.
> Can someone please tell me how i can add a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT without
> removing the duplicate keys.
> Thank you so much for your help!
> --
> Mitra|||> Can someone please tell me how i can add a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT without
> removing the duplicate keys.
Thankfully you can't. From BOL:
"IGNORE_DUP_KEY
Controls what happens when an attempt is made to insert a duplicate key
value into a column that is part of a unique clustered index. If
IGNORE_DUP_KEY was specified for the index and an INSERT statement that
creates a duplicate key is executed, SQL Server issues a warning and ignores
the duplicate row."
When it says ignores the duplicate row, it means it doesn't insert it.
If you want to do what you are suggesting you will need to build a trigger.
Then just join to the parent table to see if the values already exist (make
sure to take care of the case where duplicate values are inserted via the
INSERT statement. If you want more information about how to do this, I
could help for out (as could others here :).
----
Louis Davidson - drsql@.hotmail.com
SQL Server MVP
Compass Technology Management - www.compass.net
Pro SQL Server 2000 Database Design -
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=266
Note: Please reply to the newsgroups only unless you are interested in
consulting services. All other replies may be ignored :)
"mitra" <mitra@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3BB0328C-8FC1-40A8-A614-D8E2C0B43859@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> I am having trouble adding a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT to an existing column with
> duplicate key using WITH NOCHECK in SQL Server 2000.
> Here is my SQL syntax:
> ALTER TABLE user_email WITH NOCHECK
> ADD CONSTRAINT unq_user_email_email UNIQUE (email)
>
> Query Analyzer keeps giving me the error message that duplicate key was
> found:
> Server: Msg 1505, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX terminated because a duplicate key was found for index
> ID 4. Most significant primary key is 'user1@.abc.com'.
> Server: Msg 1750, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> Could not create constraint. See previous errors.
> The statement has been terminated.
>
> I learned from Books Online that "WITH NOCHECK" allows to add an
> unverified
> constraint and prevents the validation against existing rows.
> I tried using SQLServer Enterprise Manager, Manage Indexes and got the
> same
> error message even though that I had checked the "Ignore Duplicate Values"
> checkbox.
> Can someone please tell me how i can add a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT without
> removing the duplicate keys.
> Thank you so much for your help!
> --
> Mitra|||On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 21:18:09 +0100, Gert-Jan Strik wrote:

> SQL-Server uses a unique index to enforce a UNIQUE constraint. A unique
> index does not allow duplicates, under no circumstances.
> The following text is also part of the BOL article:
> "The WITH CHECK and WITH NOCHECK clauses cannot be used for PRIMARY KEY
> and UNIQUE constraints."
I guess to achieve the effect you want, you could use a trigger:
create table user_email (email varchar(20) not null)
insert into user_email values ('rpresser@.nowhere.com')
insert into user_email values ('rpresser@.nowhere.com')
insert into user_email values ('rpresser@.nowhere.com')
go
select * from user_email
go
CREATE TRIGGER user_email_add
ON user_email
FOR INSERT
AS
IF EXISTS (select * FROM user_email U, inserted WHERE U.email =
inserted.email)
BEGIN
RAISERROR ('Email must be unique',16,1)
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
END
go
insert into user_email values ('rpresser@.nowhere.com')
Results in this output:
(1 row(s) affected)
(1 row(s) affected)
(1 row(s) affected)
email
--
rpresser@.imtek.com
rpresser@.imtek.com
rpresser@.imtek.com
(3 row(s) affected)
Server: Msg 50000, Level 16, State 1, Procedure user_email_add, Line 7
Email must be unique|||Not quite. Two problems. First, the trigger fires after the insert. No
matter what you insert it will fail because whatever is in the inserted
table will already be in the table. Second, you are forgetting the case
where the user inserts duplicates in the insert statement:
insert into user_email
select 'bob@.bob.com'
union
select 'bob@.bob.com'
Here you have to consider the uniqueness of the values in the inserted
table.
Using his table, this code will work:
CREATE TRIGGER user_email_add
ON user_email
FOR INSERT, UPDATE
AS
IF EXISTS ( select user_email.email
FROM inserted
join user_email
on user_email.email = inserted.email
group by user_email.email
having count(*) > 1 )
begin
RAISERROR ('Email must be unique.',16,1)
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
return
end
go
Note that I changed it to an UPDATE trigger also, since otherwise:
UPDATE user_email
SET email = 'fred@.server.com'
would work just fine. I would still suggest against this approach. Clean
up the data and life will be peachy :)
----
Louis Davidson - drsql@.hotmail.com
SQL Server MVP
Compass Technology Management - www.compass.net
Pro SQL Server 2000 Database Design -
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=266
Note: Please reply to the newsgroups only unless you are interested in
consulting services. All other replies may be ignored :)
"Ross Presser" <rpresser@.imtek.com> wrote in message
news:l5jr9dfyygw7$.dlg@.rpresser.invalid...
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 21:18:09 +0100, Gert-Jan Strik wrote:
>
> I guess to achieve the effect you want, you could use a trigger:
> create table user_email (email varchar(20) not null)
> insert into user_email values ('rpresser@.nowhere.com')
> insert into user_email values ('rpresser@.nowhere.com')
> insert into user_email values ('rpresser@.nowhere.com')
> go
> select * from user_email
> go
> CREATE TRIGGER user_email_add
> ON user_email
> FOR INSERT
> AS
> IF EXISTS (select * FROM user_email U, inserted WHERE U.email =
> inserted.email)
> BEGIN
> RAISERROR ('Email must be unique',16,1)
> ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
> END
> go
> insert into user_email values ('rpresser@.nowhere.com')
>
> Results in this output:
> (1 row(s) affected)
>
> (1 row(s) affected)
>
> (1 row(s) affected)
> email
> --
> rpresser@.imtek.com
> rpresser@.imtek.com
> rpresser@.imtek.com
> (3 row(s) affected)
> Server: Msg 50000, Level 16, State 1, Procedure user_email_add, Line 7
> Email must be unique

Adding table to merge replication - What is result of Snapshot?

I would like to add a table to an existing merge replication. The DB is
approximately 11GB in size. When I proceed through the steps to add the
table using Enterprise Manager, SQL Server 2000 responds as follows:
"After adding a new merge article, you must generate a new snapshot before
changes from any subscription can be merged."
"Although a snapshot of all articles must be generated, only the snapshot of
the new article will be used to synchronize existing subscriptions."
I remember generating an new snapshot for this DB... it took a Loooonnnnggg
time. When SQL2000 says it must generate a snapshot, does it mean for the
entire DB or just the new article?
I thought one of the features of SQL Server 2000 was the ability to add
articles "on the fly" without disturbing what exists.? It is NOT good if I
have to, first, generate a snapshot of the ENTIRE DB... AGAIN! This is not
the way I understand the documentation.
Someone please clarify.?
Brent
brent.erb@.philips.com
IIRC, just a snapshot for the new article will be generated, and distributed
along with metadata for this article.
"Berb" <berb1969@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:826193B1-ED96-4D11-B66D-81C4E17D80CF@.microsoft.com...
>I would like to add a table to an existing merge replication. The DB is
> approximately 11GB in size. When I proceed through the steps to add the
> table using Enterprise Manager, SQL Server 2000 responds as follows:
> "After adding a new merge article, you must generate a new snapshot before
> changes from any subscription can be merged."
> "Although a snapshot of all articles must be generated, only the snapshot
> of
> the new article will be used to synchronize existing subscriptions."
> I remember generating an new snapshot for this DB... it took a
> Loooonnnnggg
> time. When SQL2000 says it must generate a snapshot, does it mean for the
> entire DB or just the new article?
> I thought one of the features of SQL Server 2000 was the ability to add
> articles "on the fly" without disturbing what exists.? It is NOT good if
> I
> have to, first, generate a snapshot of the ENTIRE DB... AGAIN! This is
> not
> the way I understand the documentation.
> Someone please clarify.?
>
> Brent
> brent.erb@.philips.com
>

adding SQL Server licenses to existing system

I've got SQL 2000 Server with 5 CALs and have recently
bought an extra 5 CALs for it. How do I apply the new
CALs to the existing SQL Server?
The only reference to licensing I can find is in Control
Panel->SQL Server 2000 Licensing Setup. This opens the
Choose Licensing Mode form where you can change the number
of devices. This is all well and good, but after changing
this value to 10, I don't have to enter the license number
for the new CALs. Surely this isn't the proper method for
this as the system has no proof that I have more then 5
CALs.
Thanks,
Merle
Perhaps this article would help --
870617 How to add or modify licenses in SQL Server 2000
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=870617
Vikram Jayaram
Microsoft, SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.

adding SQL Server licenses to existing system

I've got SQL 2000 Server with 5 CALs and have recently
bought an extra 5 CALs for it. How do I apply the new
CALs to the existing SQL Server?
The only reference to licensing I can find is in Control
Panel->SQL Server 2000 Licensing Setup. This opens the
Choose Licensing Mode form where you can change the number
of devices. This is all well and good, but after changing
this value to 10, I don't have to enter the license number
for the new CALs. Surely this isn't the proper method for
this as the system has no proof that I have more then 5
CALs.
Thanks,
MerlePerhaps this article would help --
870617 How to add or modify licenses in SQL Server 2000
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=870617
Vikram Jayaram
Microsoft, SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.

adding SQL Server licenses to existing system

I've got SQL 2000 Server with 5 CALs and have recently
bought an extra 5 CALs for it. How do I apply the new
CALs to the existing SQL Server?
The only reference to licensing I can find is in Control
Panel->SQL Server 2000 Licensing Setup. This opens the
Choose Licensing Mode form where you can change the number
of devices. This is all well and good, but after changing
this value to 10, I don't have to enter the license number
for the new CALs. Surely this isn't the proper method for
this as the system has no proof that I have more then 5
CALs.
Thanks,
MerlePerhaps this article would help --
870617 How to add or modify licenses in SQL Server 2000
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=870617
Vikram Jayaram
Microsoft, SQL Server
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to MSDN & use http://msdn.microsoft.com/newsgroups.

Adding sql datafile

My existing database size is 90GB. Due to this backup,restore and quering
take more time to execute. So I want to know have any chance to
split the existing database into two (or)
how to add one more datafile with existing datafile.
By adding datafile, is the performence will improve?Hi Durai,
You can try the following as the first step towards improving the database
performance...
(a) Place transaction logs on a drive different from datafiles, especially
if your database transaction includes lots of DML operations.
(b) Make use of FILEGROUP, and put files in different drive.
(c) If possible, Tempdb drive should be separated from datafile drive.
With filegroups in place, your backup management (especially backup time)
will be efficient. Try to read more on filegroups and how to create them.
I assume that you haven't placed your files in the RAID environment where a
physical disk is split into logical drive. Then place the files in different
logical drive will not give much of the performance boost.
--
- - - - - - - - -
Thanks
Yogish
"durai" wrote:
> My existing database size is 90GB. Due to this backup,restore and quering
> take more time to execute. So I want to know have any chance to
> split the existing database into two (or)
> how to add one more datafile with existing datafile.
> By adding datafile, is the performence will improve?
>|||Hi,
If you have 2 disk controllers, then placing new file in a different
controller will reduce the disk I/O and will increase the performance.
As well as when you backup you could in to multiple files... This will speed
up your backup timings.
BACKUP DATABASE xyz to DISK='F:\...', DISK = 'G:\...' etc.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"durai" <durai@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:55588715-1EE5-4593-A592-10E881A1A78A@.microsoft.com...
> My existing database size is 90GB. Due to this backup,restore and quering
> take more time to execute. So I want to know have any chance to
> split the existing database into two (or)
> how to add one more datafile with existing datafile.
> By adding datafile, is the performence will improve?
>

Adding sql datafile

My existing database size is 90GB. Due to this backup,restore and quering
take more time to execute. So I want to know have any chance to
split the existing database into two (or)
how to add one more datafile with existing datafile.
By adding datafile, is the performence will improve?Hi Durai,
You can try the following as the first step towards improving the database
performance...
(a) Place transaction logs on a drive different from datafiles, especially
if your database transaction includes lots of DML operations.
(b) Make use of FILEGROUP, and put files in different drive.
(c) If possible, Tempdb drive should be separated from datafile drive.
With filegroups in place, your backup management (especially backup time)
will be efficient. Try to read more on filegroups and how to create them.
I assume that you haven't placed your files in the RAID environment where a
physical disk is split into logical drive. Then place the files in different
logical drive will not give much of the performance boost.
- - - - - - - - -
Thanks
Yogish
"durai" wrote:

> My existing database size is 90GB. Due to this backup,restore and quering
> take more time to execute. So I want to know have any chance to
> split the existing database into two (or)
> how to add one more datafile with existing datafile.
> By adding datafile, is the performence will improve?
>|||Hi,
If you have 2 disk controllers, then placing new file in a different
controller will reduce the disk I/O and will increase the performance.
As well as when you backup you could in to multiple files... This will speed
up your backup timings.
BACKUP DATABASE xyz to DISK='F:\...', DISK = 'G:\...' etc.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"durai" <durai@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:55588715-1EE5-4593-A592-10E881A1A78A@.microsoft.com...
> My existing database size is 90GB. Due to this backup,restore and quering
> take more time to execute. So I want to know have any chance to
> split the existing database into two (or)
> how to add one more datafile with existing datafile.
> By adding datafile, is the performence will improve?
>

Adding sql datafile

My existing database size is 90GB. Due to this backup,restore and quering
take more time to execute. So I want to know have any chance to
split the existing database into two (or)
how to add one more datafile with existing datafile.
By adding datafile, is the performence will improve?
Hi Durai,
You can try the following as the first step towards improving the database
performance...
(a) Place transaction logs on a drive different from datafiles, especially
if your database transaction includes lots of DML operations.
(b) Make use of FILEGROUP, and put files in different drive.
(c) If possible, Tempdb drive should be separated from datafile drive.
With filegroups in place, your backup management (especially backup time)
will be efficient. Try to read more on filegroups and how to create them.
I assume that you haven't placed your files in the RAID environment where a
physical disk is split into logical drive. Then place the files in different
logical drive will not give much of the performance boost.
- - - - - - - - -
Thanks
Yogish
"durai" wrote:

> My existing database size is 90GB. Due to this backup,restore and quering
> take more time to execute. So I want to know have any chance to
> split the existing database into two (or)
> how to add one more datafile with existing datafile.
> By adding datafile, is the performence will improve?
>
|||Hi,
If you have 2 disk controllers, then placing new file in a different
controller will reduce the disk I/O and will increase the performance.
As well as when you backup you could in to multiple files... This will speed
up your backup timings.
BACKUP DATABASE xyz to DISK='F:\...', DISK = 'G:\...' etc.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"durai" <durai@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:55588715-1EE5-4593-A592-10E881A1A78A@.microsoft.com...
> My existing database size is 90GB. Due to this backup,restore and quering
> take more time to execute. So I want to know have any chance to
> split the existing database into two (or)
> how to add one more datafile with existing datafile.
> By adding datafile, is the performence will improve?
>

adding secondary database file

Question: When you add secondary files to an already
existing database does SQL automatically stripe existing
data across the new files or only when new data is created?I believe only if you add new data, or do things like rebuild a clustered
index (assuming both files, and the table, are in the same filegroup).
--
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
"John Gossett" <jgossett@.nwedge.com> wrote in message
news:008e01c3c666$b3fbe6e0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Question: When you add secondary files to an already
> existing database does SQL automatically stripe existing
> data across the new files or only when new data is created?|||SQL uses a process called proportional fill. It tries to keep each of the
data file the same percentage full. It does this by writing all new data to
the new file until it is as full as the existing data file..
It does NOT re-balance the existing data. You must do this by drop/re-create
the clustered index or export/import the data..
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.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
"John Gossett" <jgossett@.nwedge.com> wrote in message
news:008e01c3c666$b3fbe6e0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Question: When you add secondary files to an already
> existing database does SQL automatically stripe existing
> data across the new files or only when new data is created?

Adding role to roles?

Hello,
Is it possible to add a dbrole as a member or another dbrole? When I try
and add members to an existing role all I see are dbusers, but I've looked a
t
some other sample dbs and noticed what appeared to be dbroles as members of
other dbroles.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance.A couple of the limitations are that you can't add a fixed
database role to other roles - which is probably what you
are seeing. And the other would be that you can't create
circular roles - you can't add role1 to role2 if role2 is
already a member of role1.
You can create your own user defined roles and can add these
to fixed database roles. You can also add user defined roles
to other user defined roles.
-Sue
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:17:08 -0800, "Mark"
<Mark@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hello,
>Is it possible to add a dbrole as a member or another dbrole? When I try
>and add members to an existing role all I see are dbusers, but I've looked
at
>some other sample dbs and noticed what appeared to be dbroles as members of
>other dbroles.
>Any help would be greatly appreciated!
>Thanks in advance.
>

Adding Reporting Services to an existing SP1 install

HI,

Is there an easy way to install reporting services on a machine that is already running sp1? When I initially isntalled Sql Server I did not install ssrs. Now, SP1 is installed and when I run the setup tool to install ssrs, it warns me regarding a "version change", presumablly because my media is not sp1, but RTM. Any ideas?

1. Install RS from RTM media

2. Apply SP1 on RS.

adding primary key to an existing table

Hi all,

I there a way to check if the column is set to NOT NULL is equal to true, if not set to true i have to set it to true before adding my primary key or else i'll get an error message.

in my SP i have a ALTER TABLE table1 ADD PRIMARY KEY (colum1)

My question is, how can i check if the column is set to not null is false and how can i update to set it true?

Thanks.

Teo,

You can use the DMVs sys.tables and sys.columns to determine if a column is nullable.

select t.name, c.name, c.is_nullable
from sys.tables t join sys.columns c
on t.object_id = c.object_id
where t.name = 'fact'

Secondly, to change a column to NOT NULL if it is, use ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN.

ALTER TABLE dbo.fact ALTER COLUMN dim1_id INT NOT NULL

Regards,

Galex

|||

Why you want to check for NULL. without checking it just set it to not null

ALTER TABLE table1 alter column col1 int not null

ALTER TABLE table1 ADD PRIMARY KEY (col1)

it will not retun any errors even it is already set to not null

Adding Not Null with Default column to large Table

I am running an upgrade to an existing system which I have found is using the
Alter Table statement to add a Not Null with Default column to huge table
(100 million records). Not surprisingly it is taking rather a long time!
Can anyone give me any other options to perform this operation ?
I'm currently thinking about
1) Adding the column Nullable
2) Running multiple updates to the table
3) Altering the column to make it Not-Nullable.I don't think there's any way to get a performance boost, if that's what
you're after... Perhaps you could re-index the clustered index for the table
first with a large fillfactor. The ALTER may be going slowly because your
index pages are very full and adding the new column is forcing a lot of page
splits. But re-indexing the table may take just as long.
"Neil K" <Neil K@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6037A939-4461-427E-8869-69B3171FA96F@.microsoft.com...
> I am running an upgrade to an existing system which I have found is using
the
> Alter Table statement to add a Not Null with Default column to huge table
> (100 million records). Not surprisingly it is taking rather a long time!
> Can anyone give me any other options to perform this operation ?
> I'm currently thinking about
> 1) Adding the column Nullable
> 2) Running multiple updates to the table
> 3) Altering the column to make it Not-Nullable.
>|||Not sure if you can set the constrainsts to nocheck, alter the column then
set the contraints to check
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:O2fPinbkEHA.1048@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I don't think there's any way to get a performance boost, if that's what
> you're after... Perhaps you could re-index the clustered index for the
> table
> first with a large fillfactor. The ALTER may be going slowly because your
> index pages are very full and adding the new column is forcing a lot of
> page
> splits. But re-indexing the table may take just as long.
>
> "Neil K" <Neil K@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6037A939-4461-427E-8869-69B3171FA96F@.microsoft.com...
>> I am running an upgrade to an existing system which I have found is using
> the
>> Alter Table statement to add a Not Null with Default column to huge table
>> (100 million records). Not surprisingly it is taking rather a long time!
>> Can anyone give me any other options to perform this operation ?
>> I'm currently thinking about
>> 1) Adding the column Nullable
>> 2) Running multiple updates to the table
>> 3) Altering the column to make it Not-Nullable.
>|||"Gene Black" <geblack@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uN%23TUvdkEHA.1348@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Not sure if you can set the constrainsts to nocheck, alter the column then
> set the contraints to check
Not a bad idea, but apparently constraints aren't checked when you do an
ALTER:
create table #a (id int)
insert #a values (2)
alter table #a with nocheck add constraint b check (id = 1)
alter table #a add b varchar(20) not null default('abc')|||Interesting suggestions ... thanks guys.
If I attempt my original plan of
1) Add column Nullable.
2) Run Batch updates for new column to Non-Null Value
3) Alter column to make non-null with default
Will the last step still take a long time to run , even though no data is
being added or amended, or will the Add Constraint Check be ignored ?|||"Neil K" <NeilK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3B4AF7FB-6138-4144-8B80-B014FCC18633@.microsoft.com...
> If I attempt my original plan of
> 1) Add column Nullable.
> 2) Run Batch updates for new column to Non-Null Value
> 3) Alter column to make non-null with default
> Will the last step still take a long time to run , even though no data is
> being added or amended, or will the Add Constraint Check be ignored ?
It should only take as long as a full table scan.
To simulate it, you could try:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM YourTable
WHERE SomeNonIndexedCol = SomeNonIndexedCol --Same column name
This will force a full table scan. You can add a NOLOCK hint or run it
with a READ UNCOMMITTED isolation level to make sure it doesn't interfere
with other processes.

Adding Not Null with Default column to large Table

I am running an upgrade to an existing system which I have found is using the
Alter Table statement to add a Not Null with Default column to huge table
(100 million records). Not surprisingly it is taking rather a long time!
Can anyone give me any other options to perform this operation ?
I'm currently thinking about
1) Adding the column Nullable
2) Running multiple updates to the table
3) Altering the column to make it Not-Nullable.
I don't think there's any way to get a performance boost, if that's what
you're after... Perhaps you could re-index the clustered index for the table
first with a large fillfactor. The ALTER may be going slowly because your
index pages are very full and adding the new column is forcing a lot of page
splits. But re-indexing the table may take just as long.
"Neil K" <Neil K@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6037A939-4461-427E-8869-69B3171FA96F@.microsoft.com...
> I am running an upgrade to an existing system which I have found is using
the
> Alter Table statement to add a Not Null with Default column to huge table
> (100 million records). Not surprisingly it is taking rather a long time!
> Can anyone give me any other options to perform this operation ?
> I'm currently thinking about
> 1) Adding the column Nullable
> 2) Running multiple updates to the table
> 3) Altering the column to make it Not-Nullable.
>
|||Not sure if you can set the constrainsts to nocheck, alter the column then
set the contraints to check
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:O2fPinbkEHA.1048@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I don't think there's any way to get a performance boost, if that's what
> you're after... Perhaps you could re-index the clustered index for the
> table
> first with a large fillfactor. The ALTER may be going slowly because your
> index pages are very full and adding the new column is forcing a lot of
> page
> splits. But re-indexing the table may take just as long.
>
> "Neil K" <Neil K@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6037A939-4461-427E-8869-69B3171FA96F@.microsoft.com...
> the
>
|||"Gene Black" <geblack@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uN%23TUvdkEHA.1348@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Not sure if you can set the constrainsts to nocheck, alter the column then
> set the contraints to check
Not a bad idea, but apparently constraints aren't checked when you do an
ALTER:
create table #a (id int)
insert #a values (2)
alter table #a with nocheck add constraint b check (id = 1)
alter table #a add b varchar(20) not null default('abc')
|||Interesting suggestions ... thanks guys.
If I attempt my original plan of
1) Add column Nullable.
2) Run Batch updates for new column to Non-Null Value
3) Alter column to make non-null with default
Will the last step still take a long time to run , even though no data is
being added or amended, or will the Add Constraint Check be ignored ?
|||"Neil K" <NeilK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3B4AF7FB-6138-4144-8B80-B014FCC18633@.microsoft.com...
> If I attempt my original plan of
> 1) Add column Nullable.
> 2) Run Batch updates for new column to Non-Null Value
> 3) Alter column to make non-null with default
> Will the last step still take a long time to run , even though no data is
> being added or amended, or will the Add Constraint Check be ignored ?
It should only take as long as a full table scan.
To simulate it, you could try:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM YourTable
WHERE SomeNonIndexedCol = SomeNonIndexedCol --Same column name
This will force a full table scan. You can add a NOLOCK hint or run it
with a READ UNCOMMITTED isolation level to make sure it doesn't interfere
with other processes.

Adding Not Null with Default column to large Table

I am running an upgrade to an existing system which I have found is using th
e
Alter Table statement to add a Not Null with Default column to huge table
(100 million records). Not surprisingly it is taking rather a long time!
Can anyone give me any other options to perform this operation ?
I'm currently thinking about
1) Adding the column Nullable
2) Running multiple updates to the table
3) Altering the column to make it Not-Nullable.I don't think there's any way to get a performance boost, if that's what
you're after... Perhaps you could re-index the clustered index for the table
first with a large fillfactor. The ALTER may be going slowly because your
index pages are very full and adding the new column is forcing a lot of page
splits. But re-indexing the table may take just as long.
"Neil K" <Neil K@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6037A939-4461-427E-8869-69B3171FA96F@.microsoft.com...
> I am running an upgrade to an existing system which I have found is using
the
> Alter Table statement to add a Not Null with Default column to huge table
> (100 million records). Not surprisingly it is taking rather a long time!
> Can anyone give me any other options to perform this operation ?
> I'm currently thinking about
> 1) Adding the column Nullable
> 2) Running multiple updates to the table
> 3) Altering the column to make it Not-Nullable.
>|||Not sure if you can set the constrainsts to nocheck, alter the column then
set the contraints to check
"Adam Machanic" <amachanic@.hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message
news:O2fPinbkEHA.1048@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I don't think there's any way to get a performance boost, if that's what
> you're after... Perhaps you could re-index the clustered index for the
> table
> first with a large fillfactor. The ALTER may be going slowly because your
> index pages are very full and adding the new column is forcing a lot of
> page
> splits. But re-indexing the table may take just as long.
>
> "Neil K" <Neil K@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6037A939-4461-427E-8869-69B3171FA96F@.microsoft.com...
> the
>|||"Gene Black" <geblack@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uN%23TUvdkEHA.1348@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Not sure if you can set the constrainsts to nocheck, alter the column then
> set the contraints to check
Not a bad idea, but apparently constraints aren't checked when you do an
ALTER:
create table #a (id int)
insert #a values (2)
alter table #a with nocheck add constraint b check (id = 1)
alter table #a add b varchar(20) not null default('abc')|||Interesting suggestions ... thanks guys.
If I attempt my original plan of
1) Add column Nullable.
2) Run Batch updates for new column to Non-Null Value
3) Alter column to make non-null with default
Will the last step still take a long time to run , even though no data is
being added or amended, or will the Add Constraint Check be ignored ?|||"Neil K" <NeilK@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3B4AF7FB-6138-4144-8B80-B014FCC18633@.microsoft.com...
> If I attempt my original plan of
> 1) Add column Nullable.
> 2) Run Batch updates for new column to Non-Null Value
> 3) Alter column to make non-null with default
> Will the last step still take a long time to run , even though no data is
> being added or amended, or will the Add Constraint Check be ignored ?
It should only take as long as a full table scan.
To simulate it, you could try:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM YourTable
WHERE SomeNonIndexedCol = SomeNonIndexedCol --Same column name
This will force a full table scan. You can add a NOLOCK hint or run it
with a READ UNCOMMITTED isolation level to make sure it doesn't interfere
with other processes.

Adding new step to SQL Agent Job

I am attempting to add a new step to an existing sql server 2000 job. The
existing job starts upon SQL Server Agent startup. The steps consist of
running a stored procedure on several databases. The last step (4) is
simply a 'wait delay', then the steps begin again. When I insert a new step,
I receive a warning indicating that a circular reference is detected. I've
added steps to the same job in other databases, but did not receive the
warning. Is this something to be concerned about? Thanks in advance for any
suggestions.
For example,
Step 1: Process1
Step 2: Process2
Step 3: Process3
Step 4: Wait30seconds
If I attempt to insert a step between 1 and 2, the warning states:
"WARNING: Circular reference detected: Step [1] 'Process1 flows to Step[4]
'Wait30Seconds', and Step [4] 'Wait30Seconds' flows back to
Step[1]'Process1'. Are you sure that is what you want?
Thank you, Will.
"Will Alber" wrote:

> It sounds like this is exactly what you're wanting - as you want the steps
> to repeat (thus a circular reference is fine).
> This job will run forever, that's what it's warning you about.
> "danid12" <danid12@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:15E030EF-B183-42B7-BCCA-53F0C456EBCB@.microsoft.com...
>
>

Adding new index to existing table in Merge Replication

I see from other posts that sp_addscriptexec is recommended for
updating/creating indexes. It isn't clear to me if I can use Enterprise
Manager to go into the table on the publisher and add additional indexes on
a table and then have the added indexes automatically populate to the
subscribers.
Additionally, BOL says that an index can contain upto 16 fields but they
recommend upto three. Does that mean I should create many indexes with only
upto three fields in each index? Help or references on this matter would
be greatly appreciated.
WB
The index can be added at the publisher as per usual. It won't get
automatically propagated to the subscribers and that is what
sp_addscriptexec is for. If I just have one or two subscribers then I tend
to create the index by hand, but if you have lots, then it is a way or being
sure they all receive the changes, especially if they are pull
subscriptions.
As for the size, this seems a general question to do with indexes. Have a
look for clustered, nonclustered and covering in BOL. Indexes are sorthed on
the first column, then for duplicates of the first column they are sorted on
the second and so on, so 2 indexes with 3 columns is not the same as one
index with 6 columns. An index with 6 columns will be 'wide' and therefore
slow, but on the other hand it might have been created as a covering index
for a particluar long-running query. This is a really big subject and I'm
sure there are loads of resources on it apart from BOL.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com/default.asp
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)

Adding new columns with check constraints using same batch

I'm using a stored procedure to add fields to an existing table.

These fields must have check constraints and I need to use one T-SQL batch.

In Sql2000 Ok. In Sql2005, if table exists, I get error "invalid column xxxxx" in Add Constraint statement before new column creation.

the code is

Declare @.Setup bit

Set @.Setup = 1

if @.Setup = 1 Begin

--Alter Table MyTable Add MyField Numeric(1, 0) Not Null Default 3

Exec mySp_Add_Column 'MyTable', 'MyField', 'Numeric (1, 0) Not Null', '3'

If IsNull(ObjectProperty(Object_Id('xCK_MyTable_MyField'), 'IsConstraint'), 0) = 0

Alter Table MyTable Add Constraint xCK_MyTable_MyField Check (MyField >= 1 And MyField <= 3)

End Else Begin

-- drop column

End

GO

If MyTable does not exist and, naturally, I add it before of check constraints (using another Sp which add tables) ok.

If I add FK to new fields, ok.

Now I have to split batch in two parts as workaround...

Can anyone tell me if this is a bug or a "fix" for previous versions?

Many thanks,

Giulio

Interesting, it probably is an undocumented "fix" that exists pretty much because it is illogical to add a check constraint when something doesn't exist, so when they parse it (before they execute it) it fails.

I would personally just add the check constraint creation to the ADD column proc, if I were you. It would just require a parameter, and it would be easy enough. The parameter I would add would be @.checkCriteria. Then pass in 'MyField >= 1 and MyField <= 3)'

Then you can formulate the name (or at worst add another parameter as override) and build the statement in the proc. You can add the constraint when you are adding the column too:

create table test
(
testId int primary key
)
go
alter table test
add newColumn varchar(2000) not null
constraint ckTestNewColumn check (newColumn = 1)

|||Another workaround might be this:

If IsNull(ObjectProperty(Object_Id('xCK_MyTable_MyField'), 'IsConstraint'), 0) = 0
exec('
Alter Table MyTable Add Constraint xCK_MyTable_MyField Check (MyField >= 1 And MyField <= 3)')

Steve Kass
Drew University
www.stevekass.com

|||

Thanks Louis and Steve.

I've just resolved problem. Since in Sql 2000 this problem did not exist (using same T-Sql code) I'd like to know if it's a bug...

Really, if I use Alter Table, instead of mySp_Add_Column to add new columns, I get error too... So if I can understand parser can't know what SP wants to do, why doesn't parser understand I'll add new column before of check constraints? Why can I add FKs on new fields while I can't add CKs?

It seems a parser bug...

Bye,

Giulio

|||

Really? When I execute:

create table test
(
testId int primary key
)
alter table test
add newColumn varchar(2000) not null
constraint ckTestNewColumn check (newColumn = 1)

in a single batch, it works just fine. What error are you getting?

|||

ok, in this way it works...

Only when I add a column to an existing table and, after, I add a check constraint, all in one batch, I get error...

And only after I installed SqlSrv 2k5... on SqlSrv 2k it works fine...

Adding new column fields into a big table issue

I have an existing table which has about 70 columns with 3 million rows in it. I was asked to add additional 50 new columns into the table. I have tried to add them in through the Enterprise manager design table but experiencing some problems. The adding process seemed never going to be end. Is there any good efficient way to do it? I appreciate the help!

J8You're trying to add 150 million pieces of data (3 million rows times 50 columns) to your table, which now has 210 million pieces (3 million rows times 70 columns). That is significant growth (about 70%), so it will probably take quite a while.

If the columns are all NULL-able, then I'd create a second "child" table that had the primary key from the first table and all of the new columns in it. That would allow you to populate them much more gracefully, possibly in stages.

If you really need to add these columns to the existing table because of Referential Integrity issues or due to other reasons, then I'd strongly recommend declaring downtime (so you can force the users off of the system), then making the changes from Query Analyzer using the ALTER TABLE command. It still won't be fast, but it will be faster than any other method for doing this kind of job.

-PatP|||Pat,

For whatever reason, I have to stick those new columns into this big table. You can consider this table as kind of 'feed' table.

Thanks for the tips.

J8|||You should not have problems adding 50 columns providing they all allow NULL. If not then they must have a default, and you may bring your database down very easily (which what I suspect has happened) because every row must be updated with default value for that column or columns.|||You can script the addition of columns and run it from query analyzer

alter table mytable add col71 int null, col72 int null, ...

as long as all of the columns are nullable this should happen instantly. I would expect EM to add them instantly too unless there is some difference between the default ANSI settings of the DB, Table, and your EM Session.