Duplicate record question

In order to check that a new users ID does not already exist in the database I thought it would be a good idea to put the Insert into a Try Catch statement so that I can test for the duplicate record exception and inform the user accordingly. I was also trying to avoid querying the data base before executing the Insert.

The problem is what to actually test for. When the code throws the exception it is a big long string . .

"Violation of PRIMARY KEY constraint 'PK_Users_2__51'. Cannot insert duplicate key in object 'Users'"

I just thought that there has to be something simplar to test for than comparing the exception to the above string.

Can anyone tell me of a better way of doing this ?

(by the way I am only using Web Matrix and MSDE in case it matters)

MarkI would use a stored procedure, check for dups in the SP, and then return a code indicating success or failure.|||Isn't the error code that you'd compare against?

Dual Quad Core vs 4 Dual Core Performance

We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips. Am
I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
Thanks
Regarding to the licensing, you pay for license for each physical CPU
socket. You don't need separate licenses for each core.
Ekrem nsoy
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> Thanks
>
>
|||Dear Hassan,
Your reasoning appears to be correct. You want to cram as many cores/cpu
power per socket if you are going with a per processor based licensing
scheme. A quad core or better CPU is what you would want to fully exploit
SQL Server licensing!
Regards,
James Simpson
Straightway Technologies Inc.
|||At the high-end of the performance spectrum you should get better
performance (especially for large-data-volume queries) with a quad dual core
arrangement. This does assume that you have sufficiently capable I/O
subsystem bolted up to the server.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
kgboles a earthlink dt net
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> Thanks
>
>
|||If you are saying that four dual-core sockets would give you better
performance than two quad-core sockets, I doubt it. I understand your
reasoning. But the technology progres is such that you generally get better
overall system configurations with newer processors. In other words, you may
find quad-core-socket servers come with better chipsets and PCI-E slots, and
so on.
Linchi
"TheSQLGuru" wrote:

> At the high-end of the performance spectrum you should get better
> performance (especially for large-data-volume queries) with a quad dual core
> arrangement. This does assume that you have sufficiently capable I/O
> subsystem bolted up to the server.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> kgboles a earthlink dt net
>
> "Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
> news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>

Dual Quad Core vs 4 Dual Core Performance

We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips. Am
I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
ThanksRegarding to the licensing, you pay for license for each physical CPU
socket. You don't need separate licenses for each core.
Ekrem nsoy
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> Thanks
>
>|||Dear Hassan,
Your reasoning appears to be correct. You want to cram as many cores/cpu
power per socket if you are going with a per processor based licensing
scheme. A quad core or better CPU is what you would want to fully exploit
SQL Server licensing!
Regards,
James Simpson
Straightway Technologies Inc.|||At the high-end of the performance spectrum you should get better
performance (especially for large-data-volume queries) with a quad dual core
arrangement. This does assume that you have sufficiently capable I/O
subsystem bolted up to the server.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
kgboles a earthlink dt net
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> Thanks
>
>|||If you are saying that four dual-core sockets would give you better
performance than two quad-core sockets, I doubt it. I understand your
reasoning. But the technology progres is such that you generally get better
overall system configurations with newer processors. In other words, you may
find quad-core-socket servers come with better chipsets and PCI-E slots, and
so on.
Linchi
"TheSQLGuru" wrote:

> At the high-end of the performance spectrum you should get better
> performance (especially for large-data-volume queries) with a quad dual co
re
> arrangement. This does assume that you have sufficiently capable I/O
> subsystem bolted up to the server.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> kgboles a earthlink dt net
>
> "Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
> news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>

Dual Quad Core vs 4 Dual Core Performance

We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips. Am
I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
ThanksRegarding to the licensing, you pay for license for each physical CPU
socket. You don't need separate licenses for each core.
--
Ekrem Önsoy
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> Thanks
>
>|||Dear Hassan,
Your reasoning appears to be correct. You want to cram as many cores/cpu
power per socket if you are going with a per processor based licensing
scheme. A quad core or better CPU is what you would want to fully exploit
SQL Server licensing!
Regards,
James Simpson
Straightway Technologies Inc.|||At the high-end of the performance spectrum you should get better
performance (especially for large-data-volume queries) with a quad dual core
arrangement. This does assume that you have sufficiently capable I/O
subsystem bolted up to the server.
--
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
kgboles a earthlink dt net
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> Thanks
>
>|||If you are saying that four dual-core sockets would give you better
performance than two quad-core sockets, I doubt it. I understand your
reasoning. But the technology progres is such that you generally get better
overall system configurations with newer processors. In other words, you may
find quad-core-socket servers come with better chipsets and PCI-E slots, and
so on.
Linchi
"TheSQLGuru" wrote:
> At the high-end of the performance spectrum you should get better
> performance (especially for large-data-volume queries) with a quad dual core
> arrangement. This does assume that you have sufficiently capable I/O
> subsystem bolted up to the server.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> kgboles a earthlink dt net
>
> "Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
> news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> > physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> > Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> >
> > Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> > performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
>
>