Multiple Databases on SQL

I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as a
part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
server.
Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I
think.
;-)
How about parallelized?
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query
> can be paralized over several processors.
> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications",
> since each application is different. You can look at resource usage for
> your current app (memory, disk, network, processor) and try to determine
> whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of course
> need to know about resource usage for that other app in order to know
> whether it will fit.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>
|||> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is
To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
"maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as
> a
> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important
> to
> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
> archiving
> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
> SQL
> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
> the
> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
> running
> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> server.
> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
|||I even wrote a blog post about getting this word wrong, whether is
misspelling or misspeaking...
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/kalen_delaney/archive/2007/07/29/geek-city-total-paralysis.aspx
:-)
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:6702E3AB-59D3-46A0-9A31-A0C509659B66@.microsoft.com...
> Yep, that was the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
> This is one of those I never seem to get the right spelling for. My spell
> check found this type, but my finger pressed "Ignore" and it got sent
> before it reached my brain-cells. :-)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:u0hQEVHcIHA.5712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
in news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com:

> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
> query can be paralized over several processors.
I agree with Tibor. My servers are often paralized.
Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.
|||Thanks to all of you who responded. Obviously, I got some bad info. Thanks
for clearing that up.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:

> To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
> to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
> an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>

Multiple Databases on SQL

I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as a
part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
server.
Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query can be paralized over
several processors.
It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications", since each application is
different. You can look at resource usage for your current app (memory, disk, network, processor)
and try to determine whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of course need to
know about resource usage for that other app in order to know whether it will fit.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as a
> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> server.
> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.|||> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I
think.
;-)
How about parallelized?
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
>> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query
> can be paralized over several processors.
> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications",
> since each application is different. You can look at resource usage for
> your current app (memory, disk, network, processor) and try to determine
> whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of course
> need to know about resource usage for that other app in order to know
> whether it will fit.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL
>> as a
>> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very
>> Important to
>> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
>> archiving
>> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
>> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
>> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
>> Xeon
>> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
>> SQL
>> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
>> the
>> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
>> running
>> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own
>> Exchange
>> server.
>> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>|||> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is
To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
"maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as
> a
> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important
> to
> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
> archiving
> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> Xeon
> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
> SQL
> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
> the
> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
> running
> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> server.
> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.|||> How about parallelized?
Yep, that was the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
This is one of those I never seem to get the right spelling for. My spell check found this type, but
my finger pressed "Ignore" and it got sent before it reached my brain-cells. :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:u0hQEVHcIHA.5712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
> Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I think.
> ;-)
> How about parallelized?
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://blog.kalendelaney.com
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
>> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
>> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single query can be paralized over
>> several processors.
>> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two applications", since each application
>> is different. You can look at resource usage for your current app (memory, disk, network,
>> processor) and try to determine whether you have resources left for the other app. You would of
>> course need to know about resource usage for that other app in order to know whether it will fit.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>>
>> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as a
>> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important to
>> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email archiving
>> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
>> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
>> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1 Xeon
>> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can SQL
>> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on the
>> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for running
>> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
>> server.
>> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>|||I even wrote a blog post about getting this word wrong, whether is
misspelling or misspeaking...
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/kalen_delaney/archive/2007/07/29/geek-city-total-paralysis.aspx
:-)
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://blog.kalendelaney.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:6702E3AB-59D3-46A0-9A31-A0C509659B66@.microsoft.com...
>> How about parallelized?
> Yep, that was the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
> This is one of those I never seem to get the right spelling for. My spell
> check found this type, but my finger pressed "Ignore" and it got sent
> before it reached my brain-cells. :-)
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:u0hQEVHcIHA.5712@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> even a single query can be paralized over several processors.
>> Paralized (paralyzed) means the opposite of what you're trying to say, I
>> think.
>> ;-)
>> How about parallelized?
>> --
>> HTH
>> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>> www.InsideSQLServer.com
>> http://blog.kalendelaney.com
>>
>> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
>> in message news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com...
>> I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true?
>> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
>> query can be paralized over several processors.
>> It is impossible to say how much machine you need for "two
>> applications", since each application is different. You can look at
>> resource usage for your current app (memory, disk, network, processor)
>> and try to determine whether you have resources left for the other app.
>> You would of course need to know about resource usage for that other app
>> in order to know whether it will fit.
>> --
>> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
>> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
>> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
>>
>> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
>> I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL
>> as a
>> part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very
>> Important to
>> the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
>> archiving
>> solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
>> performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
>> It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
>> Xeon
>> 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so
>> adding
>> processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load
>> can SQL
>> stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
>> the
>> server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
>> running
>> the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own
>> Exchange
>> server.
>> Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>>
>|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
in news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com:
> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
> query can be paralized over several processors.
I agree with Tibor. My servers are often paralized.
Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.|||> Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.
I don't mind. Glad I've been of some help.
:-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"David Henson" <dhenson@.certifiednetworks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A465E020FBBCdhensoncertifiednetw@.64.74.227.2...
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote
> in news:5E7AC07B-52B5-4354-9066-1AF25AB6023E@.microsoft.com:
>> No, that is not true. SQL Server has many threads, and even a single
>> query can be paralized over several processors.
> I agree with Tibor. My servers are often paralized.
>
> Thanks for all your input over the years Tibor, but I couldn't resist.|||Thanks to all of you who responded. Obviously, I got some bad info. Thanks
for clearing that up.
"Dan Guzman" wrote:
> > It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> > Xeon
> > 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> > processors wouldn't improve performance. Is
> To add on the other responses, SQL Server can also use multiple processors
> to process multiple queries concurrently. This is especially important in
> an environment with many concurrent users and/or long- running queries.
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dang/
> "maitakeboy" <maitakeboy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:229F4810-47CD-4155-8C84-E45A3579C7BC@.microsoft.com...
> > I'm a SQL newbie, so please be kind. I have just recently installed SQL as
> > a
> > part of a new accounting/project management/CRM app that is Very Important
> > to
> > the company. It's performance is vital. I want to install an email
> > archiving
> > solution which uses SQL as the backend, but I'm wondering what sort of
> > performance hit SQL takes when you start loading databases on it.
> > It is SQL 2005 on a Server 2003 (32-bit) machine (Proliant DL380 G4, 1
> > Xeon
> > 3Ghz proc, 4 GB RAM. I was told that SQL is not multi threaded, so adding
> > processors wouldn't improve performance. Is that true? How much load can
> > SQL
> > stand before showing performance degradation? What should I look for on
> > the
> > server? Processor cycles, disk reads? IS this an adequate machine for
> > running
> > the two apps I describe? We are a 125 person company with our own Exchange
> > server.
> > Thanks for any info that's forthcoming.
>

multiple database publications

I'm using merge replication with sql2000 and sqlserverce. All is working
well for now.
My customer now wants my ppc app to utilize data from multiple databases. Is
it possible for a single publication to contain data from multiple databases
and if so will it merge correctly?
This is probably a stupid question, but it would be nice if it works
I'd have to try this out, but I don't think so. You replicate to SQL CE
using an ActiveX control on the PPC which will pull the subscription to the
PPC.
One option you may have is to use RDA to do parts of your sync, and a merge
publication to do other tables.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
Now available for purchase at:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"mgarner1980" <mgarner@.kbsi.com> wrote in message
news:OOYLbvPzEHA.804@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I'm using merge replication with sql2000 and sqlserverce. All is working
> well for now.
> My customer now wants my ppc app to utilize data from multiple databases.
> Is
> it possible for a single publication to contain data from multiple
> databases
> and if so will it merge correctly?
> This is probably a stupid question, but it would be nice if it works
>

multiple connection sql server express

HI
I have a win app (always running 24x7) (.net 2 c#) that uses sql server
express 2005.
I use the following connection string to attach it in the app.config
<connectionStrings>
<add name="Browser.Properties.Settings.DataConnectionSt ring"
connectionString="Data
Source=.\SQLEXPRESS;AttachDbFilename=C:\data\Data. mdf;Integrated
Security=True;Connect Timeout=60;Database=papdata;User Instance=False;"
providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" />
</connectionStrings>
Every day a win service, using the same MDB updates/imports the data from
another source. This all works as expected. when the windows service has
completed its update, the win app is notified to refresh its data and show
the updates.
My issue, is that though the data has been refreshed and the win app
reconnects to the database to collect the updates (new datasets) it does not
reflect the updates, simply the older version. I think it is the way I have
attached the database (the win app starts first on sys reboot) is there a
better way of 2 apps using the same database without having to attach it.
Thanks
Richard
It doesn't work that way. You are either both using the same mdf or you are
not. If you are using the same one then any committed changes one user makes
are immediately available to the other user. Your app may require refreshing
if it caches the data but SQL Server only has 1 copy of the committed data.
The exception is if you are using one of the snapshot isolation levels. In
that case depending on the level and what you are doing you may see the
original versions. But you have had to explicitly turn this on and I don't
even think Express edition has this capability available in the first place.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Richard Steele" <RichardSteele@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48E10FFE-E1A2-4318-BFE0-F1E07E077D17@.microsoft.com...
> HI
> I have a win app (always running 24x7) (.net 2 c#) that uses sql server
> express 2005.
> I use the following connection string to attach it in the app.config
> <connectionStrings>
> <add name="Browser.Properties.Settings.DataConnectionSt ring"
> connectionString="Data
> Source=.\SQLEXPRESS;AttachDbFilename=C:\data\Data. mdf;Integrated
> Security=True;Connect Timeout=60;Database=papdata;User Instance=False;"
> providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" />
> </connectionStrings>
> Every day a win service, using the same MDB updates/imports the data from
> another source. This all works as expected. when the windows service has
> completed its update, the win app is notified to refresh its data and show
> the updates.
> My issue, is that though the data has been refreshed and the win app
> reconnects to the database to collect the updates (new datasets) it does
> not
> reflect the updates, simply the older version. I think it is the way I
> have
> attached the database (the win app starts first on sys reboot) is there a
> better way of 2 apps using the same database without having to attach it.
> --
> Thanks
> Richard

multiple connection sql server express

HI
I have a win app (always running 24x7) (.net 2 c#) that uses sql server
express 2005.
I use the following connection string to attach it in the app.config
<connectionStrings>
<add name="Browser.Properties.Settings.DataConnectionString"
connectionString="Data
Source=.\SQLEXPRESS;AttachDbFilename=C:\data\Data.mdf;Integrated
Security=True;Connect Timeout=60;Database=papdata;User Instance=False;"
providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" />
</connectionStrings>
Every day a win service, using the same MDB updates/imports the data from
another source. This all works as expected. when the windows service has
completed its update, the win app is notified to refresh its data and show
the updates.
My issue, is that though the data has been refreshed and the win app
reconnects to the database to collect the updates (new datasets) it does not
reflect the updates, simply the older version. I think it is the way I have
attached the database (the win app starts first on sys reboot) is there a
better way of 2 apps using the same database without having to attach it.
--
Thanks
RichardIt doesn't work that way. You are either both using the same mdf or you are
not. If you are using the same one then any committed changes one user makes
are immediately available to the other user. Your app may require refreshing
if it caches the data but SQL Server only has 1 copy of the committed data.
The exception is if you are using one of the snapshot isolation levels. In
that case depending on the level and what you are doing you may see the
original versions. But you have had to explicitly turn this on and I don't
even think Express edition has this capability available in the first place.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Richard Steele" <RichardSteele@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48E10FFE-E1A2-4318-BFE0-F1E07E077D17@.microsoft.com...
> HI
> I have a win app (always running 24x7) (.net 2 c#) that uses sql server
> express 2005.
> I use the following connection string to attach it in the app.config
> <connectionStrings>
> <add name="Browser.Properties.Settings.DataConnectionString"
> connectionString="Data
> Source=.\SQLEXPRESS;AttachDbFilename=C:\data\Data.mdf;Integrated
> Security=True;Connect Timeout=60;Database=papdata;User Instance=False;"
> providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" />
> </connectionStrings>
> Every day a win service, using the same MDB updates/imports the data from
> another source. This all works as expected. when the windows service has
> completed its update, the win app is notified to refresh its data and show
> the updates.
> My issue, is that though the data has been refreshed and the win app
> reconnects to the database to collect the updates (new datasets) it does
> not
> reflect the updates, simply the older version. I think it is the way I
> have
> attached the database (the win app starts first on sys reboot) is there a
> better way of 2 apps using the same database without having to attach it.
> --
> Thanks
> Richard

Multiple applications Accessing the BDE

Hi,
There are multiple applications accessing BDE on the same machine.
Both work fine independently but when they access BDE concurrently..One
app stops working when i.e the app that is installed 2nd stops
working.It freezes..
Any Ideas'
AndzHi
Are these using the same BDE entry? If so have you tried using a different
one per application?
John
"andz" wrote:
> Hi,
> There are multiple applications accessing BDE on the same machine.
> Both work fine independently but when they access BDE concurrently..One
> app stops working when i.e the app that is installed 2nd stops
> working.It freezes..
>
> Any Ideas'
> Andz
>|||Hi John,
Many thanks for ur reply.
Did you mean different entries for Borland in the registry or different
install locations?
The same setup works on another workstation.
We have tried two seperate installs of BDE in different locations- but
just one entry in the registry.
Andz
John Bell wrote:
> Hi
> Are these using the same BDE entry? If so have you tried using a different
> one per application?
> John
> "andz" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > There are multiple applications accessing BDE on the same machine.
> > Both work fine independently but when they access BDE concurrently..One
> >
> > app stops working when i.e the app that is installed 2nd stops
> > working.It freezes..
> >
> >
> > Any Ideas'
> >
> > Andz
> >
> >|||Hi
I was meaning as different databases in the same installation of BDE, you
can use the save as option to save the same settings under a different name.
I assume that you have checked each entry setting against a version you know
will work and that the versions of BDE are the same? The openmode should be
read/write and you are using the Native SQL Server driver?
John
"andz" wrote:
> Hi John,
> Many thanks for ur reply.
> Did you mean different entries for Borland in the registry or different
> install locations?
> The same setup works on another workstation.
> We have tried two seperate installs of BDE in different locations- but
> just one entry in the registry.
> Andz
> John Bell wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Are these using the same BDE entry? If so have you tried using a different
> > one per application?
> >
> > John
> >
> > "andz" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > There are multiple applications accessing BDE on the same machine.
> > > Both work fine independently but when they access BDE concurrently..One
> > >
> > > app stops working when i.e the app that is installed 2nd stops
> > > working.It freezes..
> > >
> > >
> > > Any Ideas'
> > >
> > > Andz
> > >
> > >
>