Database

9-Feb-07 4:08

I know this solution is out there somewhere but I have not been able to track it down so here is the situation. I am creating a database and tables dynamically at runtime and I need to verify that the database and table do not already exist on the SqlServer2005 database.

Any takers

_____________________________________________________________________

Our developers never release
code. Rather, it tends to escape, pillaging the countryside all around.

The Enlightenment Project (paraphrased comment)

Visit Me at GISDevCafe

Colin Angus Mackay9-Feb-07 4:28

9-Feb-07 4:28

Connect to the master database (which always exists) and check the sysdatabases table (Actually, that might have changed in 2005)

[ADDITIONAL]

It does exist, but as a backwards compatibility option for SQL Server 2000.

The new way is to use the sys.databases view

[/ADDITIONAL]

Upcoming events:
* Glasgow Geek Dinner (5th March)
* Glasgow: Tell us what you want to see in 2007

My: Website | Blog | Photos

Aaron VanWieren9-Feb-07 5:07

9-Feb-07 5:07

From what I have read connecting to the sysdatabases is bad practice as these can change. After a little more research I discovered that in 2.0 there is a connection.getschema method that will return a datatable of the schema of the server. Furthermore, this takes various parameters and to get the database I just have to pass it a string "Databases" to get a table of database names. Rather nifty, maybe Ill write an article.
Aaron

Blue_Boy9-Feb-07 4:38

Blue_Boy

9-Feb-07 4:38

USE master<br />
SELECT * FROM sysdatabases WHERE name='DatabaseName'

Colin Angus Mackay9-Feb-07 4:50

9-Feb-07 4:50

Except that way is deprecated in SQL Server 2005 and exists for compatibility with SQL Server 2000.

Upcoming events:
* Glasgow Geek Dinner (5th March)
* Glasgow: Tell us what you want to see in 2007

My: Website | Blog | Photos

Aaron VanWieren9-Feb-07 5:04

9-Feb-07 5:04

Figured it out. With 2005 and .net 2.0 there is a nifty little getSchema method that belongs to the connection property. I can pass it in the parameter "Databases" and it will return a list of databases. Actually rather handy as there are all sorts of information that can be converted to a datatable and iterated through.

Thanks

Connection Prob

Kunal P8-Feb-07 5:59

8-Feb-07 5:59

I am developing a web application in c# using visual web developer express.
my database is in SQL server 2000

i created a connection string

<connectionStrings>
<add name="diag" connectionString="Data Source=local;Initial Catalog=diag;Integrated Security=SSPI"/>

</connectionStrings>

then to retrieve in the .cs file i wrote

string connString = System.Web.Configuration.WebConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["diag"].ConnectionString;

SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(connString);

but on compilation i get an error.
An error has occurred while establishing a connection to the server. When connecting to SQL Server 2005, this failure may be caused by the fact that under the default settings SQL Server does not allow remote connections. (provider: Named Pipes Provider, error: 40 - Could not open a connection to SQL Server)

Kunal Piyush

gauthee8-Feb-07 17:53

gauthee

8-Feb-07 17:53

are we not supposed to mention the uid and pwd too i the connection string???

Gautham

Kunal P8-Feb-07 18:48

8-Feb-07 18:48

where shud i incorporate the user id and the password.. i checked the machine.config file and cud not find any parameter for the same

moreover the error it is showing is related to sql server 2005.. i am using sql server 2000

Kunal Piyush

gauthee8-Feb-07 19:33

gauthee

8-Feb-07 19:33

try out by stopping sql 2005 services, may be its because you have both versions installed in your comp??

Gautham

Connection Prob

Kunal P10-Feb-07 2:35

10-Feb-07 2:35

i m dead sure that i do not have sql 2005 on my comp.. i never installed it.. and double checked it with the control panel..

i only have sql server 2000..now how do i configure to use it with sql 2000

Kunal

Aaron VanWieren9-Feb-07 0:18

9-Feb-07 0:18

You do not need a user id and password if you specify a secure logon.

Not Active8-Feb-07 19:01

Not Active

8-Feb-07 19:01

Not if you are using integrated security

only two letters away from being an asset

Mike Dimmick8-Feb-07 23:49

Mike Dimmick

8-Feb-07 23:49

Is the server you're trying to connect to called local? If you want to connect to the local computer (i.e. the one that the client code is running on), you must specify (local), i.e. with the parentheses.

Specifying (local) also causes the shared memory 'network' library to be used, which can be beneficial if the server does not permit remote connections.

Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder

Kunal P10-Feb-07 21:19

10-Feb-07 21:19

thanks a lot..

the thing worked..
thats wat i changed

<add name="LocalSqlServer" connectionstring="Data Source=(local);Initial Catalog=diag;Integrated Security=true;" providername="System.Data.SqlClient">

thanks again.

Kunal

Limitation of DataSet

btsrinath8-Feb-07 4:02

btsrinath

8-Feb-07 4:02

Does any one knows how many records can be inserted/fetched to datatable with in dataset ? I am getting few millions of records from oracle database, and when I use DataAdapter.Fill(dataset) method or Dataset.Tables.Rows.Add(datarow) method i get
"Exception of type System.OutOfMemoryException was thrown." Does any one has idea on this ?

Srinath

Colin Angus Mackay8-Feb-07 4:08

8-Feb-07 4:08

btsrinath wrote:
Does any one knows how many records can be inserted/fetched to datatable with in dataset ?

~2 billion or the limitations of your computer's memory, which ever comes first.

btsrinath wrote:
I am getting few millions of records from oracle database

Do you really need a few million rows? What exactly are you going to do with all that information on the client?

btsrinath wrote:
i get
"Exception of type System.OutOfMemoryException was thrown." Does any one has idea on this ?

Looks like you've run out of memory.

Upcoming events:
* Glasgow Geek Dinner (5th March)
* Glasgow: Tell us what you want to see in 2007

My: Website | Blog | Photos

btsrinath8-Feb-07 4:25

btsrinath

8-Feb-07 4:25

Thank you.

I need to process all these records. Just Imagine for every 50 records from Table1, I need to insert 1 record to Table2. There are calculation to be done on these 50 records first and then I have to insert that into database. For getting 7000 records from DB it takes ~1hr 20mins. So you can just Imagine how many records are there in DB. Instead of processing these on DB using proc, I thought bringing the records on client side and processing them would reduce load on DB.

If I regularly update the dataset and data adapter by methods AcceptChanges and Update methods resepectively would the memory usage would reduce ?

Can please suggest an good way of solving my problem ?

Srinath

Colin Angus Mackay8-Feb-07 4:42

8-Feb-07 4:42

btsrinath wrote:
For getting 7000 records from DB it takes ~1hr 20mins. So you can just Imagine how many records are there in DB.

Or (possibly) how poorly configured the indexes are.

btsrinath wrote:
If I regularly update the dataset and data adapter by methods AcceptChanges and Update methods resepectively would the memory usage would reduce ?

Unlikely. As a general rule I simply don't use DataSets becuase of the memory overheads. I only use them for coding things in a quick and dirty way where speed of coding is preferred.

btsrinath wrote:
Can please suggest an good way of solving my problem ?

If you are doing any complex joins, judicious use of the tempDB can improve performance. Pulling data in to temp tables then performing Joins between these temp tables with a fraction of the rows is much faster than the same join on the original table. A few years ago I speeded up a query that was taking 20+ minutes down to 7 seconds this way. (There were billions of rows in the table, but my calculation only required joining a few thousand of them)

However, without knowing more about what you are doing any advice I give may be completely useless to you.

Upcoming events:
* Glasgow Geek Dinner (5th March)
* Glasgow: Tell us what you want to see in 2007

My: Website | Blog | Photos

Aaron VanWieren9-Feb-07 0:16

9-Feb-07 0:16

You should really look at your data. I would try and find some way to query just a fraction of the data from the database. Often these issues can be solved by looking at your database from another angle. How many records at a time are you processing, can they be processed in smaller batches?
Really look at your data.

Also, you might want to try and right the results back to the main db from time to time, anything to free up resources. It sounds like you are trying to do too much at one time.

I hope this helps.