Microsoft doesnt really support anything over 32 Databases(?)

Hi NG,
I've read the following statement on
http://www.sharepointu.com/forums/m_12060/tm.htm:
"Microsoft doesnt really support anything over 32 Databases". (This
statement was uttered concerning the creation of a large amount (ca. 200)
sharepoint-websites with stsadm -o CreateSiteInNewDb)
Can anyone confirm this or would you guys say, that there shouldn't be any
problems with about 200 databases in an MSSQL-Server (with each database
containing about 10MB upto 1GB).
I'd appreciate any help!
Cheers, Jens
P.S. I am doing exactly the same thing like the guy in the posting stated
above therefore it'd be interesting if anybody has infos about this special
case.
No problem. I have close to 190 most at or over 100MB with a couple topping
2GB.
Robert Burks
burksr@.bcsd.com
"Jens Mertens" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:uWbynURHGHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi NG,
> I've read the following statement on
> http://www.sharepointu.com/forums/m_12060/tm.htm:
> "Microsoft doesnt really support anything over 32 Databases". (This
> statement was uttered concerning the creation of a large amount (ca. 200)
> sharepoint-websites with stsadm -o CreateSiteInNewDb)
> Can anyone confirm this or would you guys say, that there shouldn't be any
> problems with about 200 databases in an MSSQL-Server (with each database
> containing about 10MB upto 1GB).
> I'd appreciate any help!
> Cheers, Jens
> P.S. I am doing exactly the same thing like the guy in the posting stated
> above therefore it'd be interesting if anybody has infos about this
> special case.
>
|||The real limit is on the number of concurrently open databases, and if I
remember correctly it is actually a Windows handle limit that is hit. You
can use AutoClose to support a large number of databases that are not all in
use simultaneously. And, I suspect the handle limit isn't an issue at all
on 64-bit Windows. But I haven't looked into it.
Hal Berenson, President
PredictableIT, LLC
http://www.predictableit.com
"Jens Mertens" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:uWbynURHGHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi NG,
> I've read the following statement on
> http://www.sharepointu.com/forums/m_12060/tm.htm:
> "Microsoft doesnt really support anything over 32 Databases". (This
> statement was uttered concerning the creation of a large amount (ca. 200)
> sharepoint-websites with stsadm -o CreateSiteInNewDb)
> Can anyone confirm this or would you guys say, that there shouldn't be any
> problems with about 200 databases in an MSSQL-Server (with each database
> containing about 10MB upto 1GB).
> I'd appreciate any help!
> Cheers, Jens
> P.S. I am doing exactly the same thing like the guy in the posting stated
> above therefore it'd be interesting if anybody has infos about this
> special case.
>
|||It's a handle limit from Windows. I've never hit it though.
Mike
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
or entity either by inference or direct reference.
"Hal Berenson" <hberenson@.predictableit.com> wrote in message
news:uqec9ISHGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> The real limit is on the number of concurrently open databases, and if I
> remember correctly it is actually a Windows handle limit that is hit. You
> can use AutoClose to support a large number of databases that are not all
> in use simultaneously. And, I suspect the handle limit isn't an issue at
> all on 64-bit Windows. But I haven't looked into it.
> --
> Hal Berenson, President
> PredictableIT, LLC
> http://www.predictableit.com
>
> "Jens Mertens" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:uWbynURHGHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>

Microsoft doesnt really support anything over 32 Databases(?)

Hi NG,
I've read the following statement on
http://www.sharepointu.com/forums/m_12060/tm.htm:
"Microsoft doesnt really support anything over 32 Databases". (This
statement was uttered concerning the creation of a large amount (ca. 200)
sharepoint-websites with stsadm -o CreateSiteInNewDb)
Can anyone confirm this or would you guys say, that there shouldn't be any
problems with about 200 databases in an MSSQL-Server (with each database
containing about 10MB upto 1GB).
I'd appreciate any help!
Cheers, Jens
P.S. I am doing exactly the same thing like the guy in the posting stated
above therefore it'd be interesting if anybody has infos about this special
case.No problem. I have close to 190 most at or over 100MB with a couple topping
2GB.
Robert Burks
burksr@.bcsd.com
"Jens Mertens" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:uWbynURHGHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi NG,
> I've read the following statement on
> http://www.sharepointu.com/forums/m_12060/tm.htm:
> "Microsoft doesnt really support anything over 32 Databases". (This
> statement was uttered concerning the creation of a large amount (ca. 200)
> sharepoint-websites with stsadm -o CreateSiteInNewDb)
> Can anyone confirm this or would you guys say, that there shouldn't be any
> problems with about 200 databases in an MSSQL-Server (with each database
> containing about 10MB upto 1GB).
> I'd appreciate any help!
> Cheers, Jens
> P.S. I am doing exactly the same thing like the guy in the posting stated
> above therefore it'd be interesting if anybody has infos about this
> special case.
>|||The real limit is on the number of concurrently open databases, and if I
remember correctly it is actually a Windows handle limit that is hit. You
can use AutoClose to support a large number of databases that are not all in
use simultaneously. And, I suspect the handle limit isn't an issue at all
on 64-bit Windows. But I haven't looked into it.
Hal Berenson, President
PredictableIT, LLC
http://www.predictableit.com
"Jens Mertens" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:uWbynURHGHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi NG,
> I've read the following statement on
> http://www.sharepointu.com/forums/m_12060/tm.htm:
> "Microsoft doesnt really support anything over 32 Databases". (This
> statement was uttered concerning the creation of a large amount (ca. 200)
> sharepoint-websites with stsadm -o CreateSiteInNewDb)
> Can anyone confirm this or would you guys say, that there shouldn't be any
> problems with about 200 databases in an MSSQL-Server (with each database
> containing about 10MB upto 1GB).
> I'd appreciate any help!
> Cheers, Jens
> P.S. I am doing exactly the same thing like the guy in the posting stated
> above therefore it'd be interesting if anybody has infos about this
> special case.
>|||It's a handle limit from Windows. I've never hit it though.
Mike
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
or entity either by inference or direct reference.
"Hal Berenson" <hberenson@.predictableit.com> wrote in message
news:uqec9ISHGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> The real limit is on the number of concurrently open databases, and if I
> remember correctly it is actually a Windows handle limit that is hit. You
> can use AutoClose to support a large number of databases that are not all
> in use simultaneously. And, I suspect the handle limit isn't an issue at
> all on 64-bit Windows. But I haven't looked into it.
> --
> Hal Berenson, President
> PredictableIT, LLC
> http://www.predictableit.com
>
> "Jens Mertens" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:uWbynURHGHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>

Microsoft doesnt really support anything over 32 Databases(?)

Hi NG,
I've read the following statement on
http://www.sharepointu.com/forums/m_12060/tm.htm:
"Microsoft doesnt really support anything over 32 Databases". (This
statement was uttered concerning the creation of a large amount (ca. 200)
sharepoint-websites with stsadm -o CreateSiteInNewDb)
Can anyone confirm this or would you guys say, that there shouldn't be any
problems with about 200 databases in an MSSQL-Server (with each database
containing about 10MB upto 1GB).
I'd appreciate any help!
Cheers, Jens
P.S. I am doing exactly the same thing like the guy in the posting stated
above therefore it'd be interesting if anybody has infos about this special
case.No problem. I have close to 190 most at or over 100MB with a couple topping
2GB.
--
Robert Burks
burksr@.bcsd.com
"Jens Mertens" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:uWbynURHGHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi NG,
> I've read the following statement on
> http://www.sharepointu.com/forums/m_12060/tm.htm:
> "Microsoft doesnt really support anything over 32 Databases". (This
> statement was uttered concerning the creation of a large amount (ca. 200)
> sharepoint-websites with stsadm -o CreateSiteInNewDb)
> Can anyone confirm this or would you guys say, that there shouldn't be any
> problems with about 200 databases in an MSSQL-Server (with each database
> containing about 10MB upto 1GB).
> I'd appreciate any help!
> Cheers, Jens
> P.S. I am doing exactly the same thing like the guy in the posting stated
> above therefore it'd be interesting if anybody has infos about this
> special case.
>|||The real limit is on the number of concurrently open databases, and if I
remember correctly it is actually a Windows handle limit that is hit. You
can use AutoClose to support a large number of databases that are not all in
use simultaneously. And, I suspect the handle limit isn't an issue at all
on 64-bit Windows. But I haven't looked into it.
--
Hal Berenson, President
PredictableIT, LLC
http://www.predictableit.com
"Jens Mertens" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
news:uWbynURHGHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi NG,
> I've read the following statement on
> http://www.sharepointu.com/forums/m_12060/tm.htm:
> "Microsoft doesnt really support anything over 32 Databases". (This
> statement was uttered concerning the creation of a large amount (ca. 200)
> sharepoint-websites with stsadm -o CreateSiteInNewDb)
> Can anyone confirm this or would you guys say, that there shouldn't be any
> problems with about 200 databases in an MSSQL-Server (with each database
> containing about 10MB upto 1GB).
> I'd appreciate any help!
> Cheers, Jens
> P.S. I am doing exactly the same thing like the guy in the posting stated
> above therefore it'd be interesting if anybody has infos about this
> special case.
>|||It's a handle limit from Windows. I've never hit it though.
--
Mike
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
or entity either by inference or direct reference.
"Hal Berenson" <hberenson@.predictableit.com> wrote in message
news:uqec9ISHGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> The real limit is on the number of concurrently open databases, and if I
> remember correctly it is actually a Windows handle limit that is hit. You
> can use AutoClose to support a large number of databases that are not all
> in use simultaneously. And, I suspect the handle limit isn't an issue at
> all on 64-bit Windows. But I haven't looked into it.
> --
> Hal Berenson, President
> PredictableIT, LLC
> http://www.predictableit.com
>
> "Jens Mertens" <no@.no.com> wrote in message
> news:uWbynURHGHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Hi NG,
>> I've read the following statement on
>> http://www.sharepointu.com/forums/m_12060/tm.htm:
>> "Microsoft doesnt really support anything over 32 Databases". (This
>> statement was uttered concerning the creation of a large amount (ca. 200)
>> sharepoint-websites with stsadm -o CreateSiteInNewDb)
>> Can anyone confirm this or would you guys say, that there shouldn't be
>> any problems with about 200 databases in an MSSQL-Server (with each
>> database containing about 10MB upto 1GB).
>> I'd appreciate any help!
>> Cheers, Jens
>> P.S. I am doing exactly the same thing like the guy in the posting stated
>> above therefore it'd be interesting if anybody has infos about this
>> special case.
>sql

Metadata - Order by Information

Hey there,
Im wondering if there is a way to determine which views in my database use the "order by" statement.

The reason I need this is because we need to migrate over to MS SQL 2005 where the order by statements are ignored within the views themselves. Now(in mssql 2005) you need to explicityly state the order by now when calling a view

ie. select * from [viewname] order by column x, y desc, z
instead of

ie. select * from [viewname]
where the view already had the applicable sorting done within the view.

If those order by statements are ignored, some production software which rely on the ordered data will corrupt.

Please let me know if there's a way to query the actual database and determine which views have 'order by' statements in them.

thxi dont think you can have order by clause in VIEW.|||you can in MS SQL 2000 but not in MS SQL 2005|||My SQL2K did complain order by in view, it seems strange. Anyway you can try to search for "order by" in syscomments if your views are not encrypted.|||you can use this script to list the view names having order by clause

select name from dbo.sysobjects where objectproperty(id, N'IsView') = 1 and
id in (select id from dbo.syscomments where text like '%order by%')|||you can use this script to list the view names having order by clauseYou need to put a BIG caveat on this idea... While it works for views with nicely formatted source code, it can generate both false positives (for any view with either a commented ORDER BY clause, or the text ORDER BY), and false negatives (where the words order and by have something other than a space between them, such as a line-end, tab, multiple spaces, comments, etc).

The only way to be truly certain is to actually parse the view and check the tokenized output for an ORDER BY. This is beyond the reach of simple Transact-SQL, although I'm thinking about a couple of ways that could let you work around this limitation.

-PatP|||Thx for all the responses. I will try the following:

select name from dbo.sysobjects where objectproperty(id, N'IsView') = 1 and
id in (select id from dbo.syscomments where text like '%order by%')
as suggested by kadapa22. Although it may result in both false postives and negatives, I think it's worth a try. Better than manually looking through over 800 views manually. I will let you know how it goes.

thx again.|||Thx for all your advice. I decided to take a different approach to make sure I get the proper results. I exported all my views to a text file and will search through that instead.

thx again for all your help.