Search Results

Search found 34 results on 2 pages for 'filegroups'.

Page 1/2 | 1 2  | Next Page >

  • How to use filegroups for DB split?

    - by Robin Jain
    In my project I have one DB used for everything. I want it to break into two databases. Static tables having look up values are to be stored in one DB and another DB would be having tables with dynamic data. My problem is that how would I use foreign key constraint in between those two DBs. Can someone help me out and suggest a way to proceed, better if I'm provided an example for the same. I thought of using synonyms for tables and then constraints on synonyms. but later I came to know that synonyms couldn't be used for constraints. I need to maintain relationships among the tables from both DB as the issue is with update, with a new release I just want to update look up tables and for the same I want to split my DB. I want to know how FileGroups could be used for this.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2005 standard filegroups / files for performance on SAN

    - by Blootac
    I submitted this to stack overflow (here) but realised it should really be on serverfault. so apologies for the incorrect and duplicate posting: Ok so I've just been on a SQL Server course and we discussed the usage scenarios of multiple filegroups and files when in use over local RAID and local disks but we didn't touch SAN scenarios so my question is as follows; I currently have a 250 gig database running on SQL Server 2005 where some tables have a huge number of writes and others are fairly static. The database and all objects reside in a single file group with a single data file. The log file is also on the same volume. My interpretation is that separate data files should be used across different disks to lessen disk contention and that file groups should be used for partitioning of data. However, with a SAN you obviously don't really have the same issue of disk contention that you do with a small RAID setup (or at least we don't at the moment), and standard edition doesn't support partitioning. So in order to improve parallelism what should I do? My understanding of various Microsoft publications is that if I increase the number of data files, separate threads can act across each file separately. Which leads me to the question how many files should I have. One per core? Should I be putting tables and indexes with high levels of activity in separate file groups, each with the same number of data files as we have cores? Thank you

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2005 standard filegroups / files for performance on SAN

    - by Blootac
    Ok so I've just been on a SQL Server course and we discussed the usage scenarios of multiple filegroups and files when in use over local RAID and local disks but we didn't touch SAN scenarios so my question is as follows; I currently have a 250 gig database running on SQL Server 2005 where some tables have a huge number of writes and others are fairly static. The database and all objects reside in a single file group with a single data file. The log file is also on the same volume. My interpretation is that separate data files should be used across different disks to lessen disk contention and that file groups should be used for partitioning of data. However, with a SAN you obviously don't really have the same issue of disk contention that you do with a small RAID setup (or at least we don't at the moment), and standard edition doesn't support partitioning. So in order to improve parallelism what should I do? My understanding of various Microsoft publications is that if I increase the number of data files, separate threads can act across each file separately. Which leads me to the question how many files should I have. One per core? Should I be putting tables and indexes with high levels of activity in separate file groups, each with the same number of data files as we have cores? Thank you

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2005 standard filegroups / files for performance on SAN

    - by Blootac
    Ok so I've just been on a SQL Server course and we discussed the usage scenarios of multiple filegroups and files when in use over local RAID and local disks but we didn't touch SAN scenarios so my question is as follows; I currently have a 250 gig database running on SQL Server 2005 where some tables have a huge number of writes and others are fairly static. The database and all objects reside in a single file group with a single data file. The log file is also on the same volume. My interpretation is that separate data files should be used across different disks to lessen disk contention and that file groups should be used for partitioning of data. However, with a SAN you obviously don't really have the same issue of disk contention that you do with a small RAID setup (or at least we don't at the moment), and standard edition doesn't support partitioning. So in order to improve parallelism what should I do? My understanding of various Microsoft publications is that if I increase the number of data files, separate threads can act across each file separately. Which leads me to the question how many files should I have. One per core? Should I be putting tables and indexes with high levels of activity in separate file groups, each with the same number of data files as we have cores? Thank you

    Read the article

  • Run database checks but omit large tables or filegroups - New option in Ola Hallengren's Scripts

    - by Greg Low
    One of the things I've always wanted in DBCC CHECKDB is the option to omit particular tables from the check. The situation that I often see is that companies with large databases often have only one or two very large tables. They want to run a DBCC CHECKDB on the database to check everything except those couple of tables due to time constraints. I posted a request on the Connect site about time some time ago: https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/611164/dbcc-checkdb-omit-tables-option The workaround from the product team was that you could script out the checks that you did want to carry out, rather than omitting the ones that you didn't. I didn't overly like this as a workaround as clients often had a very large number of objects that they did want to check and only one or two that they didn't. I've always been impressed with the work that our buddy Ola Hallengren has done on his maintenance scripts. He pinged me recently about my old Connect item and said he was going to implement something similar. The good news is that it's available now. Here are some examples he provided of the newly-supported syntax: EXECUTE dbo.DatabaseIntegrityCheck @Databases = 'AdventureWorks', @CheckCommands = 'CHECKDB' EXECUTE dbo.DatabaseIntegrityCheck @Databases = 'AdventureWorks', @CheckCommands = 'CHECKALLOC,CHECKTABLE,CHECKCATALOG', @Objects = 'AdventureWorks.Person.Address' EXECUTE dbo.DatabaseIntegrityCheck @Databases = 'AdventureWorks', @CheckCommands = 'CHECKALLOC,CHECKTABLE,CHECKCATALOG', @Objects = 'ALL_OBJECTS,-AdventureWorks.Person.Address' EXECUTE dbo.DatabaseIntegrityCheck @Databases = 'AdventureWorks', @CheckCommands = 'CHECKFILEGROUP,CHECKCATALOG', @FileGroups = 'AdventureWorks.PRIMARY' EXECUTE dbo.DatabaseIntegrityCheck @Databases = 'AdventureWorks', @CheckCommands = 'CHECKFILEGROUP,CHECKCATALOG', @FileGroups = 'ALL_FILEGROUPS,-AdventureWorks.PRIMARY' Note the syntax to omit an object from the list of objects and the option to omit one filegroup. Nice! Thanks Ola! You'll find details here: http://ola.hallengren.com/  

    Read the article

  • Run database checks but omit large tables or filegroups - New option in Ola Hallengren's Scripts

    - by Greg Low
    One of the things I've always wanted in DBCC CHECKDB is the option to omit particular tables from the check. The situation that I often see is that companies with large databases often have only one or two very large tables. They want to run a DBCC CHECKDB on the database to check everything except those couple of tables due to time constraints. I posted a request on the Connect site about time some time ago: https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/611164/dbcc-checkdb-omit-tables-option The workaround from the product team was that you could script out the checks that you did want to carry out, rather than omitting the ones that you didn't. I didn't overly like this as a workaround as clients often had a very large number of objects that they did want to check and only one or two that they didn't. I've always been impressed with the work that our buddy Ola Hallengren has done on his maintenance scripts. He pinged me recently about my old Connect item and said he was going to implement something similar. The good news is that it's available now. Here are some examples he provided of the newly-supported syntax: EXECUTE dbo.DatabaseIntegrityCheck @Databases = 'AdventureWorks', @CheckCommands = 'CHECKDB' EXECUTE dbo.DatabaseIntegrityCheck @Databases = 'AdventureWorks', @CheckCommands = 'CHECKALLOC,CHECKTABLE,CHECKCATALOG', @Objects = 'AdventureWorks.Person.Address' EXECUTE dbo.DatabaseIntegrityCheck @Databases = 'AdventureWorks', @CheckCommands = 'CHECKALLOC,CHECKTABLE,CHECKCATALOG', @Objects = 'ALL_OBJECTS,-AdventureWorks.Person.Address' EXECUTE dbo.DatabaseIntegrityCheck @Databases = 'AdventureWorks', @CheckCommands = 'CHECKFILEGROUP,CHECKCATALOG', @FileGroups = 'AdventureWorks.PRIMARY' EXECUTE dbo.DatabaseIntegrityCheck @Databases = 'AdventureWorks', @CheckCommands = 'CHECKFILEGROUP,CHECKCATALOG', @FileGroups = 'ALL_FILEGROUPS,-AdventureWorks.PRIMARY' Note the syntax to omit an object from the list of objects and the option to omit one filegroup. Nice! Thanks Ola! You'll find details here: http://ola.hallengren.com/  

    Read the article

  • Utility Queries–Database Files, (and Filegroups)

    - by drsql
    It has been a while since I last posted a utility query, and today, to avoid other work I am supposed to be doing, I decided to go ahead and work on another post.  Today, I went ahead and worked on a server configuration type query. One query I find I use pretty often is the following one that lists the files in the database. In this blog I will include 3 queries.  The first will deal with files and databases, and the second runs in a database to see the files and their filegroups (If there...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Utility Queries–Database Files, (and Filegroups)

    - by drsql
    It has been a while since I last posted a utility query, and today, to avoid other work I am supposed to be doing, I decided to go ahead and work on another post.  Today, I went ahead and worked on a server configuration type query. One query I find I use pretty often is the following one that lists the files in the database. In this blog I will include 3 queries.  The first will deal with files and databases, and the second runs in a database to see the files and their filegroups (If there...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Restore Partioned database into multiple filegroups

    - by Renju
    does anyone have any query to restore partioned db that having multiple file groups,In the restore option in the SSME i need to edit manually all the path of the filegroups restore as option it little bit tedious as it having more than 150 filegroups eg:USE master GO -- First determine the number and names of the files in the backup. RESTORE FILELISTONLY FROM MyNwind_1 -- Restore the files for MyNwind. RESTORE DATABASE MyNwind FROM MyNwind_1 WITH NORECOVERY, MOVE 'MyNwind_data_1' TO 'D:\MyData\MyNwind_data_1.mdf', MOVE 'MyNwind_data_2' TO 'D:\MyData\MyNwind_data_2.ndf' GO -- Apply the first transaction log backup. RESTORE LOG MyNwind FROM MyNwind_log1 WITH NORECOVERY GO -- Apply the last transaction log backup. RESTORE LOG MyNwind FROM MyNwind_log2 WITH RECOVERY GO Here i need to specify multiple MOVE command for all my filegroups,this is a tedious task when having more than 100s of filegroups MOVE 'MyNwind_data_1' TO 'D:\MyData\MyNwind_data_1.mdf', MOVE 'MyNwind_data_2' TO 'D:\MyData\MyNwind_data_2.ndf' I need to move the files into the path i provided as a parameter.Please help. Regards Renju http://blog.renjucool.com

    Read the article

  • Geek City: Where are LOBs stored?

    - by Kalen Delaney
    When researching a question from one of the students in my class last week, I was reading the documentation for CREATE TABLE about storing LOB columns at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms174979.aspx . For this discussion LOB columns includes text, image, ntext, xml and the MAX columns when they are over 8000 bytes and stored outside the regular data row. I knew that SQL Server gives us the capability of storing LOB columns in a separate filegroup with the TEXTIMAGE_ON clause, but I was surprised...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Will SQL Server Partitioning increase performance without changing filegroups

    - by Tom
    Scenario I have a 10 million row table. I partition it into 10 partitions, which results in 1 million rows per partition but I do not do anything else (like move the partitions to different file groups or spindles) Will I see a performance increase? Is this in effect like creating 10 smaller tables? If I have queries that perform key lookups or scans, will the performance increase as if they were operating against a much smaller table? I'm trying to understand how partitioning is different from just having a well indexed table, and where it can be used to improve performance. Would a better scenario be to move the old data (using partition switching) out of the primary table to a read only archive table? Is having a table with a 1 million row partition and a 9 million row partition analagous (performance wise) to moving the 9 million rows to another table and leaving only 1 million rows in the original table?

    Read the article

  • Putting indexes in separate filegroup kills our queries

    - by womp
    Can anyone shed some light on this? On our dev boxes, our database resides entirely in the PRIMARY filegroup, and everything works fine. On one of our production servers, recently upgraded from 2005 to 2008, we noticed it was performing slower than it should. On this machine, there are two filegroups - PRIMARY and INDEXES. Both filegroups contain 1 file per logical volume, one logical volume per CPU, (and each logical volume is a RAID 10 of 4 physical disks). We isolated a few queries that were performing fast on the dev boxes and slow (up to 40x slower) on the production machine. Turned out these queries were using the non-clustered indexes that resided in the INDEXES filegroup. Tweaking some of the queries to only use clustered indexes that were in the PRIMARY filegroup dropped their times back to normal. As a final confirmation, we redeployed the same database on the same machine to have everything in PRIMARY, and things went back to normal! Here's the statistics output of one of the queries, run identically on the machine with different filegroup configurations (table names changed to protect the innocent): FAST (everything in PRIMARY filegroup): (3 row(s) affected) Table '0'. Scan count 2, logical reads 14, ... Table '1'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, ... Table '1'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, ... Table '2'. Scan count 2, logical reads 7, ... Table '3'. Scan count 2, logical reads 1012, ... Table '4'. Scan count 1, logical reads 3, ... SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 437 ms, elapsed time = 445 ms. SLOW (indexes split into their own filegroup): (3 row(s) affected) Table '0'. Scan count 209, logical reads 428, ... Table '1'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0,... Table '2'. Scan count 1021, logical reads 9043,.... Table '3'. Scan count 209, logical reads 105754, .... Table '4'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, .... Table '5'. Scan count 1, logical reads 695, ... **Table '#46DA8CA9'. Scan count 205, logical reads 205, ...** Table '6'. Scan count 6, logical reads 436, ... Table '7'. Scan count 1, logical reads 12,.... SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 17581 ms, elapsed time = 17595 ms. Notice the weird temp table and extra tables involved in the slow query. It seems clear that having a second file group is making SQL Server batty with choosing an execution plan. What the heck is going on?

    Read the article

  • Files and filegroups sql server 2005

    - by Dhivagar
    Can we move default file to another filegroup. sample code is given below Sample code create database EMPLOYEE ON PRIMARY ( NAME = 'PRIMARY_01', FILENAME = 'C:\METADATA\PRIM01.MDF', SIZE = 5 MB , MAXSIZE =50 MB, FILEGROWTH = 2 MB), ( NAME = 'SECONDARY_02', FILENAME = 'C:\METADATA\SEC02.NDF' ), FILEGROUP EMPLOYEE_dETAILS ( NAME = 'EMPDETILS_01', FILENAME = 'C:\METADATA\EMPDET01.NDF', SIZE = 5 MB , MAXSIZE =50 MB, FILEGROWTH = 2 MB), ( NAME = 'EMPDETILS_02', FILENAME = 'C:\METADATA\EMPDET02.NDF', SIZE = 5 MB , MAXSIZE =50 MB, FILEGROWTH = 2 MB) LOG ON ( NAME = 'TRANSACLOG', FILENAME ='c:\METADATA\TRAS01.LDF', SIZE = 5 MB , MAXSIZE =50 MB, FILEGROWTH = 2 MB ) now i want to move the FILENAME = 'C:\METADATA\SEC02.NDF' from deault primary file to the FILEGROUP EMPLOYEE_dETAILS ? need assist ??

    Read the article

  • Advantages of multiple SQL Server files with a single RAID array

    - by Dr Giles M
    Originally posted on stack overflow, but re-worded. Imagine the scenario : For a database I have RAID arrays R: (MDF) T: (transaction log) and of course shared transparent usage of X: (tempDB). I've been reading around and get the impression that if you are using RAID then adding multiple SQL Server NDF files sitting on R: within a filegroup won't yeild any more improvements. Of course, adding another raid array S: and putting an NDF file on that would. However, being a reasonably savvy software person, it's not unthinkable to hypothesise that, even for smaller MDFs sitting on one RAID array that SQL Server will perform growth and locking operations (for writes) on the MDF, so adding NDFs to the filegroup even if they sat on R: would distribute the locking operations and growth operations allowing more throughput? Or does the time taken to reconstruct the data from distributed filegroups outweigh the benefits of reduced locking? I'm also aware that the behaviour and benefits may be different for tables/indeces/log. Is there a good site that distinguishes the benefits of multiple files when RAID is already in place?

    Read the article

  • SQL restore from single file db to filegroup

    - by Mauro
    I have a 180GB MOSS 2007 database whose maintenance (i.e. backups and restores) are becoming a problem. Part of the issue can be resolved by splitting the three content sites down into their own site collections, however this will likely still leave me with a 100gb DB to deal with. Whilst this isnt entirely problematic for SQL it does mean that backups / restores take far too long. my idea is to split each of the databases to 30gb files, then to import the content into them which should distribute the content across the file groups,making it much easier / faster to backup/restore. Is there a way to backup from a single file and restore to a filegroup? If i have the wrong understanding of filegroups then I'm more than happy to find out other methods of managing the size of databases.

    Read the article

  • After adding data files to a file group Is there a way to distribute the data into the new files?

    - by Blootac
    I have a database in a single file group, with a single file group. I've added 7 data files to this file group. Is there a way to rebalance the data over the 8 data files other than by telling sql server to empty the original? If this is the only way, is it possible to allow sql server to start writing to this file? MSDN says that once its empty its marked so no new data will be written to it. What I'm aiming for is 8 equally balanced data files. I'm running SQL Server 2005 standard edition. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to use a variable to specify filegroup in MSSQL

    - by gt
    I want to alter a table to add a constraint during upgrade on a MSSQL database. This table is normally indexed on a filegroup called 'MY_INDEX' - but may also be on a database without this filegroup. In this case I want the indexing to be done on the 'PRIMARY' filegroup. I tried the following code to achieve this: DECLARE @fgName AS VARCHAR(10) SET @fgName = CASE WHEN EXISTS(SELECT groupname FROM sysfilegroups WHERE groupname = 'MY_INDEX') THEN QUOTENAME('MY_INDEX') ELSE QUOTENAME('PRIMARY') END ALTER TABLE [dbo].[mytable] ADD CONSTRAINT [PK_mytable] PRIMARY KEY ( [myGuid] ASC ) ON @fgName -- fails: 'incorrect syntax' However, the last line fails as it appears a filegroup cannot be specified by variable. Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • How to use a variable to specify filegroup in SQL Server

    - by gt
    I want to alter a table to add a constraint during upgrade on a SQL Server database. This table is normally indexed on a filegroup called 'MY_INDEX' - but may also be on a database without this filegroup. In this case I want the indexing to be done on the 'PRIMARY' filegroup. I tried the following code to achieve this: DECLARE @fgName AS VARCHAR(10) SET @fgName = CASE WHEN EXISTS(SELECT groupname FROM sysfilegroups WHERE groupname = 'MY_INDEX') THEN QUOTENAME('MY_INDEX') ELSE QUOTENAME('PRIMARY') END ALTER TABLE [dbo].[mytable] ADD CONSTRAINT [PK_mytable] PRIMARY KEY ( [myGuid] ASC ) ON @fgName -- fails: 'incorrect syntax' However, the last line fails as it appears a filegroup cannot be specified by variable. Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • Fetching Partition Information

    - by Mike Femenella
    For a recent SSIS package at work I needed to determine the distinct values in a partition, the number of rows in each partition and the file group name on which each partition resided in order to come up with a grouping mechanism. Of course sys.partitions comes to mind for some of that but there are a few other tables you need to link to in order to grab the information required. The table I’m working on contains 8.8 billion rows. Finding the distinct partition keys from this table was not a fast operation. My original solution was to create  a temporary table, grab the distinct values for the partitioned column, then update via sys.partitions for the rows and the $partition function for the partitionid and finally look back to the sys.filegroups table for the filegroup names. It wasn’t pretty, it could take up to 15 minutes to return the results. The primary issue is pulling distinct values from the table. Queries for distinct against 8.8 billion rows don’t go quickly. A few beers into a conversation with a friend and we ended up talking about work which led to a conversation about the task described above. The solution was already built in SQL Server, just needed to pull it together. The first table I needed was sys.partition_range_values. This contains one row for each range boundary value for a partition function. In my case I have a partition function which uses dayid values. For example July 4th would be represented as an int, 20130704. This table lists out all of the dayid values which were defined in the function. This eliminated the need to query my source table for distinct dayid values, everything I needed was already built in here for me. The only caveat was that in my SSIS package I needed to create a bucket for any dayid values that were out of bounds for my function. For example if my function handled 20130501 through 20130704 and I had day values of 20130401 or 20130705 in my table, these would not be listed in sys.partition_range_values. I just created an “everything else” bucket in my ssis package just in case I had any dayid values unaccounted for. To get the number of rows for a partition is very easy. The sys.partitions table contains values for each partition. Easy enough to achieve by querying for the object_id and index value of 1 (the clustered index) The final piece of information was the filegroup name. There are 2 options available to get the filegroup name, sys.data_spaces or sys.filegroups. For my query I chose sys.filegroups but really it’s a matter of preference and data needs. In order to bridge between sys.partitions table and either sys.data_spaces or sys.filegroups you need to get the container_id. This can be done by joining sys.allocation_units.container_id to the sys.partitions.hobt_id. sys.allocation_units contains the field data_space_id which then lets you join in either sys.data_spaces or sys.file_groups. The end result is the query below, which typically executes for me in under 1 second. I’ve included the join to sys.filegroups and to sys.dataspaces, and I’ve  just commented out the join sys.filegroups. As I mentioned above, this shaves a good 10-15 minutes off of my original ssis package and is a really easy tweak to get a boost in my ETL time. Enjoy.

    Read the article

  • Can I split a single SQL 2008 DB Table into multiple filegroups, based on a discriminator column?

    - by Pure.Krome
    Hi folks, I've got a SQL Server 2008 R2 database which has a number of tables. Two of these tables contains a lot of large data .. mainly because one of them is VARBINARY(MAX) and the sister table is GEOGRAPHY. (Why two tables? Read Below if you're interested***) The data in these tables are geospatial shapes, such as zipcode boundaries. Now, the first 70K odd rows are for DataType = 1 the rest 5mil rows are for DataType = 2 Now, is it possible to split the table data into two files? so all rows that are for DataType != 2 goes into File_A and DataType = 2 goes into File_B? This way, when I backup the DB, I can skip adding File_B so my download is waaaaay smaller? Is this possible? I guessing you might be thinking - why not keep them as TWO extra tables? Mainly because in the code, the data is conceptually the same .. it's just happens that I want to split the storage of this model data. It really messes up my model if I now how two aggregates in my model, instead of one. ***Entity Framework doesn't like Tables with GEOGRAPHY, so i have to create a new table which transforms the GEOGRAPHY to VARBINARY, and then drop that into EF.

    Read the article

  • Designing Databases for Rapid Resilience

    As the volume of data increases, DBAs need to plan more actively for rapid restores in the event of failure. For this, the intelligent use of filegroups is important, particularly when the Enterprise Edition of SQL Server offers the hope of online restores. How, though, should you arrange your data on the different filegroups? What happenens if the primary filegroup gets corrupted? Why backup and restore indexes?

    Read the article

  • Designing Databases for Rapid Resilience

    As the volume of data increases, DBAs need to plan more actively for rapid restores in the event of failure. For this, the intelligent use of filegroups is important, particularly when the Enterprise Edition of SQL Server offers the hope of online restores. How, though, should you arrange your data on the different filegroups? What happenens if the primary filegroup gets corrupted? Why backup and restore indexes?

    Read the article

  • Efficient, partial, point-in-time database restores

    - by GavinPayneUK
    This article is about a situation that many of us could describe the theoretical approach to solving, but then struggle to understand why SQL Server wasn’t following that theoretical approach when you tried it for real. Earlier this week, I had a client ask about the best way to perform: a partial database restore, 1 of 1300 filegroups; to a specific point in time; using a differential backup, and therefore; without restoring each transaction log backup taken since the full backup. The last point...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Need help recovering a corrupt SQL database

    - by user570079
    I have a very special case that I have been working on for several days. I have a very large SQL Server 2008 database (about 2 TB) that contains 500 filegroups to support very large partitioned tables. Recently we had a catastophic failure on one of the drive and lost several filegroups and the database became in-accessible. We have been doing filegroup backups on a daily basis, but due to other issues, we lost our most recent backup of the log and the primary filegroup. We have all the data backed up but the primary filegroup backup is old. There have been no schema changes since the primary filegroup backup, but the lsn's are now all out of sync and we cannot recover the data. I have tried everything I could think of (and have tried just about every trick and hack I could google) but I still end up at the same point where I get messages saying that the files for filegroup x do not match the primary filegroup. I am now at the point of trying to edit the system tables (we have a separate temporary environment to do this so we are not worried about corrupting any production databases). I have tried updated sys.sysdbreg, sys.sysbrickfiles, and sys.sysprufiles to try to trick SQL into thinking all the files are online, but a "Select * From OPENROWSET(TABLE DBPROP, 5)" shows a different database state from what I see in sys.sysdbreg. I am now thinking I need to somehow edit the headers of the actual data files to try to line up the lsn's with the primary. I appreciate any help anyone can give me here, but please do not respond with things like "you are not supposed to do edit mdf, ndf files...." or "see msdn article....", etc. This is an advanced emergency case and I need a real hack so we can just get to the data in this corrupt database and export to a fresh new database. I know there is a way to do this, but not knowing what the DBPROP system functions does (i.e. does it look at system tables or does it actually open the file) is keeping me from trying to figure out how to fool SQL into allowing me to read these files. Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Generate Database Script for SQL Azure

    - by pinaldave
    When talking about SQL Azure the common complain I hear is that the script generated from stand-along SQL Server database is not compatible with SQL Azure. This was true for some time for sure but not any more. If you have SQL Server 2008 R2 installed you can follow the guideline below to generate script which is compatible with SQL Azure. As above images are very clear I will not write more about them. SQL Azure does not support filegroups. Let us generate script for any table created on PRIMARY filegroup for standalong SQL Server and compare it with the script generated for SQL Azure. You can clearly see that there is no filegroup in the code generated for SQL Azure. Give it a try and please your comment here about what do you think about the same. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: Pinal Dave, SQL, SQL Add-On, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Scripts, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology Tagged: SQL Azure

    Read the article

1 2  | Next Page >