> You should be able to do this through DTS, if the SQL Server 2000 machine
> can connect to the SQL Server 7 machine. If that's not possible, you can
> install both on a single machine by installing a default SQL Server 7
> instance, then installing a named SQL Server 2000 instance.
>
> Dave Watts
> I have a SQL Server 2000 DB that I need to convert to SQL
> Server 7. Can it be done? if so, how?
You should be able to do this through DTS, if the SQL Server 2000 machine
can connect to the SQL Server 7 machine. If that's not possible, you can
install both on a single machine by installing a
I don't think a backup will work for this, but you can try. If that doesn't
work I would create SQL scripts for the structure of the database then use data
transformation services to get the data into the tables.
Bob
~|
Logwa
arch\bin\tquery.dll" /s
pause
This was adapted from a posting ON DBFORUMS.COM
Restart "Microsoft Search" service after running it and voila - It now
indexes like a charm. I think this is definitely a problem with MS
Clusters only.
Martin
http://www.beetrootstreet.com
-Original
7;#form.searchCriteria#'
--
Russ
-Original Message-
From: George Abraham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 October 2005 14:02
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SQL Server 2000 Full-text search issues
Russ,
I am probably a bad SQL coder, but almost all the code that I had to do with
se
red their search query in the form
> as
> uusal.
>
> russ
>
> -Original Message-
> From: George Abraham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 01 October 2005 14:25
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: SQL Server 2000 Full-text search issues
>
> Hi,
> Full-text searc
e
Martin
-Original Message-
From: Burns, John D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 03 October 2005 02:18
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: SQL Server 2000 Full-text search issues
Martin,
That's the weird thing with ours. I assumed the same thing that it was
the install. So, we scheduled dow
John
From: Martin Parry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 10/2/2005 11:08 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: SQL Server 2000 Full-text search issues
I don't have problems on my dev box but when uploading the DB to live
server it never populates the catalogue. I think it's som
arry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 9/30/2005 11:41 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: SQL Server 2000 Full-text search issues
I too get this on my 2003 cluster. I restored the database as a backup
from my dev box (which it works on) and do a full rebuild - It takes but
a second to say its compl
CTED]
Sent: 02 October 2005 15:26
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: SQL Server 2000 Full-text search issues
What sor tof problems.
I have used FULL-TEXT SEARCH many times without problem, even on a
massive
13gb database with millions of records, it certainly never required the
user
to do anything spe
: George Abraham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 October 2005 14:25
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SQL Server 2000 Full-text search issues
Hi,
Full-text search on SQL Server 2K gave me huge problems. Not only was the
code to conduct a full-text search cumbersome, but the user had to learn how
to
; From: George Abraham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, 1 October 2005 11:25 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: SQL Server 2000 Full-text search issues
>
>
> Hi,
> Full-text search on SQL Server 2K gave me huge problems. Not
> only was the code to conduct a full-
Hi,
Full-text search on SQL Server 2K gave me huge problems. Not only was the
code to conduct a full-text search cumbersome, but the user had to learn how
to define searches in ways that were not really fair to the user. That is
why I decided to turn to another appliance for full-text search struct
I too get this on my 2003 cluster. I restored the database as a backup
from my dev box (which it works on) and do a full rebuild - It takes but
a second to say its complete and then gives me absolutely no results.
If I find a solution I'll post it here. IF!
Martin Parry
http://www.beetrootstre
IT Toolbox has a fairly active discussion group about SQL Server that
you might want to try out.
Not that I'm against turning to this list for OT help (I'm one or two
failures away from doing it myself soon, but that's a different kettle
of fish).
http://groups.ittoolbox.com/g/Microsoft/SQL-Serve
> The DataDirect 3.4 drivers for SQL Server 2000 are causing CFMX 6.1
> to
> hang when certain insert triggers are executed. I reverted to the 3.3
> drivers, but those have other problems with them. I just installed
> the
> Microsoft JDBC sp3 driver in hopes that it is better, and I am
> wonderin
Also note that you can install SQL 7 and SQL 2K side by side no problem!
-Original Message-
From: Claude Schneegans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 05 January 2005 21:16
To: CF-Talk
Subject: SQL Server 2000
Hi there,
I'm trying to connect to a remote MSSQL database with Microsoft SQL
>>If you install only the "Client Tools" then they do not time out
Ah ah! Just the info I was looking for.
Thanks.
--
___
REUSE CODE! Use custom tags;
See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm
(Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PR
Make that 100% positive Jim. That's what I do. I have the EM2000 and
other tools, and connect mostly to SQLServer2000 but I have one client
with SQLServer7 and it works just fine with that. Just like a bought
one.
My advice also is to install the client tools, but not the server and
you can con
If you install only the "Client Tools" then they do not time out - only the
server itself times out after the evaluation.
I'm 99% positive that the SQL Server 2000 Client Tools (Enterprise Manager,
Query Analyzer, etc) allow you to attach to both version 7 and 2000
databases (but, I'm pretty sure,
No mention of any sort of concurrent user limit, and no mention of
thread limits. Does anyone know if these restrictions are lifted and
the published performance limits are all there are?
A 4gb database limit is no big deal to me, and the single-processor
limit isn't an issue as I can't afford a
Express is a version of SQL Server 2005. MSDE is a version of SQL Server
2000 or 7. Hence the different requirements.
Sam
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Hastings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 10:27 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: SQL Server
> MSDE is being replaced by SQL Server EXPRESS
cool. thanks for the info. it requires .NET & a bit more resources than old
msde though.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm
For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com
http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=1069
==
- Original Message -
From: Paul Hastings
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: SQL Server
> MSDE is available to anyone who has acopy of MS Office Pro, or any
> other MS product that includes MSDE... for deployment, even. Its a
> chopped down version of the SQL Server engine and contains no
> Enterprise mgr, among other things.
you used to have to get it that way, but ms has been givi
>>Not hard to find at all...
Thanks a lot.
--
___
REUSE CODE! Use custom tags;
See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm
(Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Thanks.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[
>>It's called MSDE (Microsoft Developers Edition).
Thanks a lot.
>>as always it's buried where you'd never think to lookboy I love the MS site
Yeah, quite frustrating to look for information. The most important things, like reference docs are always buried deep into useless general descr
> good to know it's changed (we have the Action Pack so we get all the
> goodies)thanks Matt ;-)
When I was searching for SQL Server solutions for development this is
what I found:
- You can download the trial version of SQL Server. The server
expires after 120 days, the Enterprise Manager a
2004 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: SQL Server 2000 developer edition?
N :-)
MSDE is available to anyone who has acopy of MS Office Pro, or any
other MS product that includes MSDE... for deployment, even. Its a
chopped down version of the SQL Server engine and contains no
Enterprise mgr, among
N :-)
MSDE is available to anyone who has acopy of MS Office Pro, or any
other MS product that includes MSDE... for deployment, even. Its a
chopped down version of the SQL Server engine and contains no
Enterprise mgr, among other things.
The MS SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition is now a sepa
This what you mean?
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=413744d1-a0bc-479f-bafa-e4b278eb9147&displaylang=en
- Original Message -
From: "Bryan Stevenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, Ju
July 13, 2004 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: SQL Server 2000 developer edition?
Yes there isbut getting it is the fun parthave to be part of some MS developer group OR I think you can get it with various MS product licences.
It's called MSDE (Microsoft Developers Edition).Best thing
Claude Schneegans wrote:
> Same question for SQL Server 2000... ;-)
Yes, but it will cost you about US$50. Its license allows you to copy
it anywhere in your office as many times as you like so long as its
use is development/testing only. No production use. I got mine at
cdw.com.
--
--Matt R
Yes there isbut getting it is the fun parthave to be part of some MS developer group OR I think you can get it with various MS product licences.
It's called MSDE (Microsoft Developers Edition).Best thing to do is track down hte SQL Server product comparison page and hunt aroundas a
Calvin,
I use a combination of 2 queries, which are VERY fast.
SELECT t.TicketID
FROM Tickets t
WHERE 1 = 1 AND whateverelse
then
SELECT t.TicketID, etc.
FROM Tickets t
WHERE 1=1 AND same whatever else from above
AND t.TicketID > #ID["TicketID"][Start]# AND
the one we actually ues it for is quite slow, couple of seconds for a 1
record set, but it is doing more than just select * from foo
HTH
-Original Message-
From: Calvin Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 13:55
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SQL Server 2000
Mike,
That looks pretty good, what's the performance like on large recordsets, do you happen to know?
Thanks,
Calvin
- Original Message -
From: Mike Townend
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:33 AM
Subject: RE: SQL Server 2000 and Pagination
i tend to use
inconsistency.
- Calvin
- Original Message -
From: Dave Watts
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:39 AM
Subject: RE: SQL Server 2000 and Pagination
> I'm curious how folks are implementing pagination using SQL
> Server 2000 and avoiding retur
i tend to use this...
CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[spr_PagedItems]
@Page int,
@RecsPerPage int,
@Tournement int
AS
-- We don't want to return the # of rows inserted
-- into our temporary table, so turn NOCOUNT ON
SET NOCOUNT ON
--Create a temporary table
CREATE TABLE #TempItems
(
tempI
> I'm curious how folks are implementing pagination using SQL
> Server 2000 and avoiding returning entire recordsets to CF.
>
> In other words, if I have a search result set of 1,000 rows,
> and the user will be walking through that recordset 25 rows
> at a time usingmethods, how are
> fol
> Ouch... I was hoping I could just run a stored proc :(
Um I don't really know what I'm doing when it comes to SQL Server so bear
that in mind ;-)
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscript
Matthew Walker wrote:
> Can you dimply do a global search and replace any "dbo." In your code
> with "" ?
My code doesn't have "dbo"... My code doesn't have anything except
tablename.field, and that's always worked on three dev servers and at
least three production servers before :) In fact, I've
Can you dimply do a global search and replace any "dbo." In your code with
"" ?
> > Now that I've created the new database and populated it with the data,
> > the local code can only access those tables that are owned by dbo.
> > Trying to access one of Fred's tables results in "Base table not
> >
Kay Smoljak wrote:
> I'm having some weird kind of permissions problem with our dev box SQL
> Server that I've never come across before, which makes me wonder if
> something has changed on the machine to cause it. So either a
> permanent solution or a temporary work around would be fantastic.
> Thi
EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 8:21 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SQL Server 2000 and CFMX
I'm sorry that I don't have an answer for your specific problem but I do
have a comment. Using the ODBC socket is slower than using the JDBC
connector. When I set it up I used the JDBC and
I'm sorry that I don't have an answer for your specific problem but I do have a
comment. Using the ODBC socket is slower than using the JDBC connector. When I set it
up I used the JDBC and set a new user for SQL2k with a specific password and limited
access.
> I've been running into some littl
> > > also why aren't you declare lastid and making your statement
> > >
> > > SELECT @lastid = @@identity
> >
> > If he did that, he wouldn't get lastid back as a query column.
>
> I usually use
>
> SET NOCOUNT ON
> INSERT INTO people (password, username)
> VALUES ('something'
TED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 3:36 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: SQL Server 2000 and @@Identity
> also why aren't you declare lastid and making your statement
>
> SELECT @lastid = @@identity
If he did that, he wouldn't get lastid back as a query column.
Dave Watts, CTO, F
> also why aren't you declare lastid and making your statement
>
> SELECT @lastid = @@identity
If he did that, he wouldn't get lastid back as a query column.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
___
Checking on the MDAC upgrade idea.. @lastid would assume lastid is a
declared variable, it's just part of my select statement. I could have
named it anything. Thanks for the MDAC idea. It's a new server and I
forgot about that.
Good Fortune,
Richard Walters,
Webmaster, Davita Laboratory Servic
try upgrading your mdac. also why aren't you delcare lastid and making your
statement
SELECT @lastid = @@identity
Anthony Petruzzi
Webmaster
954-321-4703
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.sheriff.org
-Original Message-
From: Rick Walters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 11,
Try putting this into a stored proc and trying it.
I am using SQL 2000 and I have no problem doing this.
Clint
-Original Message-
From: Rick Walters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 2:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: SQL Server 2000 and @@Identity
Hi List,
I recent
> OK, so it looks like for what I need (a SQL server on my
> local development machine -- my 120 eval is about to expire,
> and I've really started to dig SQL Server), I need the
> developers edition. This costs $500.
>
> With this, I could, if I wanted -- in addition to my usual
> CF-based
ent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:56 PM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: SQL Server 2000 desktop version.
>
>
>Ahhh... Ooops... I stand corrected. There's a first for everything =)
>
>Here's Microsoft's link to a comparison:
>
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/library
: grumble, grumble: I wish I knew that a year ago. Thanks
At 04:27 PM 10/30/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> > SQL Server 2000 will not install on Windows 9x. You must
> > have either NT or 2000. You can install the client tools,
> > such as Enterprise Manager and Query Analyzer. But, the
> > Server p
OK, so it looks like for what I need (a SQL server on my local development
machine -- my 120 eval is about to expire, and I've really started to dig
SQL Server), I need the developers edition. This costs $500.
With this, I could, if I wanted -- in addition to my usual CF-based
development -- cre
> SQL Server 2000 will not install on Windows 9x. You must
> have either NT or 2000. You can install the client tools,
> such as Enterprise Manager and Query Analyzer. But, the
> Server portion will not work. SQL Server 97 worked great.
> 2000 was a no go.
Au contraire:
http://www.microsoft.co
fry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 7:10 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: SQL Server 2000 desktop version.
I have one more thing to add to all of this. ( It is in-line)
At 12:55 PM 10/30/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>Ahhh... Ooops... I stand corrected. There's a fi
er 30, 2001 12:56 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: SQL Server 2000 desktop version.
Ahhh... Ooops... I stand corrected. There's a first for everything =)
Here's Microsoft's link to a comparison:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_
ar_sa2_9gz
default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_
>ar_sa2_9gz4.asp
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:01 AM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: SQL Server 2000 desktop version.
>
>
> > It's called msde.
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:01 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: SQL Server 2000 desktop version.
> It's called msde. It comes with Office 2000/XP. Not Really a
> desktop edition but rather a scaled down implementation of SQL Server.
>
> As far as I know, if you have an Offi
> Ok...let's say I believe you...where is the developers
> edition? If you try installing 2000 on a Windows 2000
> machine the first thing it tells you is that you cannot
> install it on workstation.
Uh, you have to BUY it. It's a separate product, to the best of my
knowledge. If you're an MSD
ially the
way it works with SQL.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:10 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: SQL Server 2000 desktop version.
> oh...i've seen the msde stuff...not real impressed but a
> good desktop mechanis
> oh...i've seen the msde stuff...not real impressed but a
> good desktop mechanism...I was hoping for a full blown
> version of the database server for a workstation like they
> used to have with 6.5 and 7.0.
Well, they do have that. If you just want to install SQL Server on your
workstation
esday, October 30, 2001 1:50 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: SQL Server 2000 desktop version.
It's called msde. It comes with Office 2000/XP. Not Really a desktop
edition but rather a scaled down implementation of SQL Server.
As far as I know, if you have an Office 2000/XP licence, you have a MSDE
> It's called msde. It comes with Office 2000/XP. Not Really a
> desktop edition but rather a scaled down implementation of SQL Server.
>
> As far as I know, if you have an Office 2000/XP licence, you have
> a MSDE licence as well.
MSDE isn't the same as SQL Server Desktop Edition. With SQL
Yes, it's actually called "Personal Edition". I'm not sure of the
licencing issues. I would guess that there is at least one licence
included since it comes with the server edition.
FWIW,
Kristine C. Hege [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Database & Applications SpecialistPhone: (802)
ECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:39 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: SQL Server 2000 desktop version.
There is a desktop version?
-Original Message-
From: Bosky, Dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:10 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: SQL Server 2000 desktop ve
There is a desktop version?
-Original Message-
From: Bosky, Dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:10 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: SQL Server 2000 desktop version.
Do you need a license to install the desktop version of SQL Server 2000?
Thanks.
Dave
~~~
: +61-2-6271 2256
Fax: +61-2-6271 2278
http://www.anzfa.gov.au
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of William J
Wheatley
Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2001 22:27
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Sql Server 2000
Nope still went into Single User Mode again th
Try disabling any automated maintanace tasks... it may be that it is
putting the db into single user mode to process the task, then not
completeing successfully, so it never gets to removing the single user
mode. Check your error logs for problems relating to automated maintanace
tasks.
At
al Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of William J
Wheatley
Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2001 22:27
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Sql Server 2000
Nope still went into Single User Mode again this morning and its only 1
db this is so damn weird
and even after Sql Server
Nope still went into Single User Mode again this morning and its only 1
db this is so damn weird
and even after Sql Server SP1
Bill Wheatley
Director of Development
Certified Master ColdFusion 5 Developer
AEPS INC
Allaire ColdFusion Consulting Partner
www.aeps.com
www.aeps2000.com
954-472-6684
TED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 9:53 AM
Subject: RE: SQL SERVER 2000 GOING TO Single User Mode
> i recently had this happen on sql7sp2. the fix was to patch it to sp3. i
> think sql2k has a sp1 out. the change log may speak to you
i recently had this happen on sql7sp2. the fix was to patch it to sp3. i
think sql2k has a sp1 out. the change log may speak to your problem.
-alex
-Original Message-
From: William J Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 9:16 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: OT: SQL
Developer
AEPS INC
Allaire ColdFusion Consulting Partner
www.aeps.com
www.aeps2000.com
954-472-6684 X303
ICQ: 417645
- Original Message -
From: "Carlisle, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 9:19 AM
Subje
TED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: SQL SERVER 2000 GOING TO Single User Mode
> when you set it up did you use the right licensing mode? :-)
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "William J W
> Certified Master ColdFusion 5 Developer
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf
when you set it up did you use the right licensing mode? :-)
- Original Message -
From: "William J Wheatley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 9:16 AM
Subject: OT: SQL SERVER 2000 GOING TO Single User Mode
> Sql server 2000 keeps g
I guess my mail server is faster to collect the mails from the list :-)
Massimo
"Brian Hogue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Massimo -
>
> You must be a mind reader. How can your reply's timestamp be 14 minutes
> before my question? :-)
"Brian Hogue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Also, is there a good NG on SQL Server (like this is for CF)?
You can find excellent mailing list at:
http://www.swynk.com/
Massimo
~~
Structure your ColdFusion co
Thanks for all the info. I think I am going to try using Access first since
I have that installed allready. If that doesn't work then I going for the
SQL 2000 client tools.
Art
"Never put your finger where you wouldn't put your nose."
~~
Structur
Yes.. it comes with SQL 2000. It's called "Enterprise Manager". Take a
look at the client tools on the disc.
Lee Fuller
Chief Technical Officer
PrimeDNA Corporation / AAA Web Hosting Corporation
"We ARE the net."
http://www.aaawebhosting.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Art Broussar
You need Enterprise Manager. This should be on the same CD that you used to
install SQL server. Just run that CD on your workstation and choose the
install for the Network Tools.
Dan Phillips
www.cfxhosting.com
-Original Message-
From: Art Broussard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thurs
Be sure to double check your stored procedures. SQL Server 7 was tolerant
of the create procedure name being different from the actual stored
procedure name, but 2000 isn't. Or at least the import routine isn't. It
will just fail, but if it does, then that's probably the problem.
When we port
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 2:56 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: SQL Server 2000
- Original Message -
From: "Derek Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 10:23 PM
>
> I am in the process of planning my upgrade to SQL Server
- Original Message -
From: "Derek Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 10:23 PM
>
> I am in the process of planning my upgrade to SQL Server 2000 from SQL Server
7.0. I was >wondering if anyone has noticed anything odd or difficult in
respect to ColdFusion (4.5 and
Thanks to all who responded. I found the answer in the knowledge base articles.
Jay
At 12:31 PM 5/1/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>** Macromedia Representative **
>Here are a couple of Knowledge Base articles to help you.
>
>http://www.allaire.com/Support/Knowled
** Macromedia Representative **
Here are a couple of Knowledge Base articles to help you.
http://www.allaire.com/Support/KnowledgeBase/SearchForm.cfm
then select article ID's 14709, 14632.
Kind Regards - Mike Brunt
Macromedia Consulting
Tel 562.243.6255
F
The administrator setup is similar to the setup for an ODBC datasource; the
main difference is you must type in "SQLOLEDB" in the provider field...other
than that, setting your server & database names as well as username and
password are the same.
The datasource name used in cfquery is whatever y
Yeah, bizarre coincidence! BTW, sorry if my post was a little strong, just had
clients hassling me about it, and needed to pass it on! ;)
David Cummins
Janine Jakim wrote:
>
> David,
> It's funny how timing works...I had just read this email from another list I
> am on and then came across your
David,
It's funny how timing works...I had just read this email from another list I
am on and then came across yoursso I did an old copy/paste job.
Hi All,
I am the king of OT posts this week, but y'all know yer stuff, so...
Every time I change a SQL Server TABLE, any VIEWS associated w
port : 1433 is the registered port of mssql
Justin
>-Original Message-
>From: Bosky, Dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 5:30 PM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: SQL Server 2000
>
>
>What is the default/common port used for sql server?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Dave
>
>
~
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hey Dave,
SQL Server works on port 1433.
Aaron Johnson, MCSE, MCP+I
Allaire Certified ColdFusion Developer
MINDSEYE, Inc.
617.350.0339
617.350.8884
66172567
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
"Never forget that only dead
2000 8:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: SQL Server 2000 "per CPU" pricing
Then why does M$ say:
"SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition
Server License and five CALs $1,489" ?
best, paul
At 08:06 PM 7/5/00 -0400, you wrote:
>No CALS with SQL Server 2000. They are switching
n
>note, most people will pay more for per CPU licensing in SQL Server
2000
>than SQL Server 7 CALS licensing. It will be easier to administer with
per
>CPU licensing though.
>
> - Steve
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: paul smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent:
or per CPU licensing in SQL Server
2000
>than SQL Server 7 CALS licensing. It will be easier to administer with
per
>CPU licensing though.
>
> - Steve
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: paul smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 7:20 PM
>T
SQL Server 2000
>than SQL Server 7 CALS licensing. It will be easier to administer with per
>CPU licensing though.
>
> - Steve
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: paul smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 7:20 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
&
At 07:44 PM 7/5/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Dumb question.
>
>I wanted to knowwhat is the best thing to do when I am on vacation for this
>list should I unsubscribe while I am away... or is there a temp stop
>feature?
No temp stop feature. If you really don't want the mail (or if you will be
turning o
smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 7:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SQL Server 2000 "per CPU" pricing
Microsoft speak with forked tongue?
One part of the announcement below says no CALs are required for SQL Server
2000, the table following it says
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
