Duplicate row

hi all,
IF i had one table. in that table three records are there.all there have
same datas.there is no primary key.how i can delete the second row in that
table
regards
balaHi,
How can u say which is the second row?
U want to delete duplicate and want only one row?
Reply
--
Herbert
"balakarthik" wrote:

> hi all,
> IF i had one table. in that table three records are there.all there have
> same datas.there is no primary key.how i can delete the second row in that
> table
> regards
> bala|||hello there
try this
use northwind
select p.supplierid, p.unitprice,p.productid from products p
join
(
select supplierid, min(unitprice)as unitprice from products
group by supplierid
) as p2
on p.supplierid=p2.supplierid
and p.unitprice=p2.unitprice
hope it helps
thanks,
Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
Data Architect
Sykes Asia (Manila philippines)
MCP #2324787
"balakarthik" wrote:

> hi all,
> IF i had one table. in that table three records are there.all there have
> same datas.there is no primary key.how i can delete the second row in that
> table
> regards
> bala|||sorry wrong post
--
thanks,
Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
Data Architect
Sykes Asia (Manila philippines)
MCP #2324787
"balakarthik" wrote:

> hi all,
> IF i had one table. in that table three records are there.all there have
> same datas.there is no primary key.how i can delete the second row in that
> table
> regards
> bala|||bala
what do you mean by second row? rows not stored in an order in RDBMS.
CELKO is not going to leave you !!!!!
post ddl/sample data.
Regards
R.D
"Jose G. de Jesus Jr MCP, MCDBA" wrote:
> sorry wrong post
> --
> thanks,
> --
> Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
> Data Architect
> Sykes Asia (Manila philippines)
> MCP #2324787
>
> "balakarthik" wrote:
>|||You've haven't seen the rath of Hurricane Celko!
"balakarthik" <balakarthik@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F742D9A8-CAC8-4501-B4C3-1374E68FCD83@.microsoft.com...
> hi all,
> IF i had one table. in that table three records are there.all there have
> same datas.there is no primary key.how i can delete the second row in that
> table
> regards
> bala|||the best way is to create the table again - correctly [with primary key]
- and insert the distinct values into it from the old table. The new
table will of course have to have a different name.
balakarthik wrote:

>hi all,
>IF i had one table. in that table three records are there.all there have
>same datas.there is no primary key.how i can delete the second row in that
>table
>regards
>bala
>|||>> You've haven't seen the wrath of Hurricane Celko! <<
LOL!!

Duplicate instances

On one box Enterprise Manager is indicating a second instance â' . (Windows
NT)â' , in addition to the default instance, â' (local) (Windows NT)â'. This
second instance was not installed, It just appeared. The MSSQL directory
indicates the presence of only one instance. Databases, and security
configurations are identical in structure and information between the two
instances. Has any one seen this happen? Would you recommend deleting the
â'Ghostâ' instance. Any ideas welcome. Thanks to everyone for being there to
help. SQL 2000 SP4.coenzyme wrote:
> On one box Enterprise Manager is indicating a second instance â' . (Windows
> NT)â' , in addition to the default instance, â' (local) (Windows NT)â'. This
> second instance was not installed, It just appeared. The MSSQL directory
> indicates the presence of only one instance. Databases, and security
> configurations are identical in structure and information between the two
> instances. Has any one seen this happen? Would you recommend deleting the
> â'Ghostâ' instance. Any ideas welcome. Thanks to everyone for being there to
> help. SQL 2000 SP4.
>
You can safely delete either one - registrations in EM have no effect on
the actual instances that are running.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Thanks Tracy. It's a real comfort to know there's experienced people like you
who are willing to help.
"Tracy McKibben" wrote:
> coenzyme wrote:
> > On one box Enterprise Manager is indicating a second instance â' . (Windows
> > NT)â' , in addition to the default instance, â' (local) (Windows NT)â'. This
> > second instance was not installed, It just appeared. The MSSQL directory
> > indicates the presence of only one instance. Databases, and security
> > configurations are identical in structure and information between the two
> > instances. Has any one seen this happen? Would you recommend deleting the
> > â'Ghostâ' instance. Any ideas welcome. Thanks to everyone for being there to
> > help. SQL 2000 SP4.
> >
> >
> You can safely delete either one - registrations in EM have no effect on
> the actual instances that are running.
>
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com
>

Duplicate instances

On one box Enterprise Manager is indicating a second instance “ . (Window
s
NT)” , in addition to the default instance, “ (local) (Windows NT)”.
This
second instance was not installed, It just appeared. The MSSQL directory
indicates the presence of only one instance. Databases, and security
configurations are identical in structure and information between the two
instances. Has any one seen this happen? Would you recommend deleting the
“Ghost” instance. Any ideas welcome. Thanks to everyone for being there
to
help. SQL 2000 SP4.coenzyme wrote:
> On one box Enterprise Manager is indicating a second instance “ . (Wind
ows
> NT)” , in addition to the default instance, “ (local) (Windows NT)”
. This
> second instance was not installed, It just appeared. The MSSQL directory
> indicates the presence of only one instance. Databases, and security
> configurations are identical in structure and information between the two
> instances. Has any one seen this happen? Would you recommend deleting the
> “Ghost” instance. Any ideas welcome. Thanks to everyone for being ther
e to
> help. SQL 2000 SP4.
>
You can safely delete either one - registrations in EM have no effect on
the actual instances that are running.
Tracy McKibben
MCDBA
http://www.realsqlguy.com|||Thanks Tracy. It's a real comfort to know there's experienced people like yo
u
who are willing to help.
"Tracy McKibben" wrote:

> coenzyme wrote:
> You can safely delete either one - registrations in EM have no effect on
> the actual instances that are running.
>
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com
>

Dual processors?

One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server 2000
running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging in a
second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that machine?
I'm not sure its that simple.
Any insight would be appreciated.
BobSQL will use the second processor, provided the OS accepts and uses it.
Whether that speeds up SQL depends on what resource is limiting SQL
performance. If the system was running over 80% CPU usage, he will likely
see some noticable speed improvement. As has been said before in this
forum, you first have to identify the performance limiting factor(s) I.E.
the bottlenecks, in your system before you can determine whether adding
resource X will make it faster. This applies whether X is memory, RAM, disk
capacity/speed, CPU speed/count, or network bandwidth.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Bob" <bdufour@.sgiims.com> wrote in message
news:OASJaP0BGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server
> 2000 running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging
> in a second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that
> machine? I'm not sure its that simple.
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> Bob
>|||On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:05:40 -0500, "Bob" <bdufour@.sgiims.com> wrote:
>One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server 2000
>running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging in a
>second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that machine?
>I'm not sure its that simple.
Did you say on the other thread that you are running Windows 2000?
Windows Server 2003 supports threads better and is probably better
overall for multiprocessor systems.
Josh|||Bob wrote:
> One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql
> server 2000 running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact
> of plugging in a second processor increase the speed of sql server
> standard on that machine? I'm not sure its that simple.
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> Bob
Not only should it increase speed, but it will require you puchase
another CPU license if you are using the CPU licensing model.
To be sure, check to make sure SQL Server is using both processors. You
can do this from the server properties in SQL EM.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com

Dual processors?

One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server 2000
running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging in a
second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that machine?
I'm not sure its that simple.
Any insight would be appreciated.
Bob
SQL will use the second processor, provided the OS accepts and uses it.
Whether that speeds up SQL depends on what resource is limiting SQL
performance. If the system was running over 80% CPU usage, he will likely
see some noticable speed improvement. As has been said before in this
forum, you first have to identify the performance limiting factor(s) I.E.
the bottlenecks, in your system before you can determine whether adding
resource X will make it faster. This applies whether X is memory, RAM, disk
capacity/speed, CPU speed/count, or network bandwidth.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Bob" <bdufour@.sgiims.com> wrote in message
news:OASJaP0BGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server
> 2000 running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging
> in a second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that
> machine? I'm not sure its that simple.
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> Bob
>
|||On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:05:40 -0500, "Bob" <bdufour@.sgiims.com> wrote:
>One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server 2000
>running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging in a
>second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that machine?
>I'm not sure its that simple.
Did you say on the other thread that you are running Windows 2000?
Windows Server 2003 supports threads better and is probably better
overall for multiprocessor systems.
Josh
|||Bob wrote:
> One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql
> server 2000 running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact
> of plugging in a second processor increase the speed of sql server
> standard on that machine? I'm not sure its that simple.
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> Bob
Not only should it increase speed, but it will require you puchase
another CPU license if you are using the CPU licensing model.
To be sure, check to make sure SQL Server is using both processors. You
can do this from the server properties in SQL EM.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com

Dual processors?

One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server 2000
running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging in a
second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that machine?
I'm not sure its that simple.
Any insight would be appreciated.
BobSQL will use the second processor, provided the OS accepts and uses it.
Whether that speeds up SQL depends on what resource is limiting SQL
performance. If the system was running over 80% CPU usage, he will likely
see some noticable speed improvement. As has been said before in this
forum, you first have to identify the performance limiting factor(s) I.E.
the bottlenecks, in your system before you can determine whether adding
resource X will make it faster. This applies whether X is memory, RAM, disk
capacity/speed, CPU speed/count, or network bandwidth.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Bob" <bdufour@.sgiims.com> wrote in message
news:OASJaP0BGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server
> 2000 running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging
> in a second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that
> machine? I'm not sure its that simple.
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> Bob
>|||On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:05:40 -0500, "Bob" <bdufour@.sgiims.com> wrote:
>One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server 2000
>running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging in a
>second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that machine?
>I'm not sure its that simple.
Did you say on the other thread that you are running Windows 2000?
Windows Server 2003 supports threads better and is probably better
overall for multiprocessor systems.
Josh|||Bob wrote:
> One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql
> server 2000 running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact
> of plugging in a second processor increase the speed of sql server
> standard on that machine? I'm not sure its that simple.
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> Bob
Not only should it increase speed, but it will require you puchase
another CPU license if you are using the CPU licensing model.
To be sure, check to make sure SQL Server is using both processors. You
can do this from the server properties in SQL EM.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com

Dual Processor

Is it possible to at a second processor on a W2K OR W2K3
server with SQL installed without re-install everything.
ThanksFor Win2k have a look at
HOW TO: Add Support for Multiple Processors in Windows 2000
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;234558
If the OS can see the new processor, SQL will pick it up automatically
following a restart. Not sure about the details for Win2003
--
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Rob Zw." <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0c2701c3b8f2$00fec980$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
Is it possible to at a second processor on a W2K OR W2K3
server with SQL installed without re-install everything.
Thanks

DTS to .net

You know how the DTS wizard will allow one to save as VB...is there some
sort of upgrade that will generate .net code (heaven forbid, c#)?
Second question. Does one generated this code and, assumedly, compiled
it in order to batch file or otherwise script it and is there a
performance degradation by going outside the SQL Server engine?
thx
md
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> You know how the DTS wizard will allow one to save as VB...is there some
> sort of upgrade that will generate .net code (heaven forbid, c#)?
AFAIK not. VS.NET uprades VB6 code to VB.NET, but you won't like the code.
You can check this guide how to use DTS in .NET:
http://sqldev.net/dts/DotNETCookBook.htm.

> Second question. Does one generated this code and, assumedly, compiled
> it in order to batch file or otherwise script it and is there a
> performance degradation by going outside the SQL Server engine?
>
DTS uses own objects, the execution is independent of SQL engine, so it
really does not matter where you execute it.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com