hot backup: records

Showing posts with label records. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

How can i cluster sql 2005 for load balancing?

i have a table with 10,000,000,000 records and i need Select and Insert many

records from or into this table in less than one second.

i can't buy a very expensive hardware(Server) for this SQL Server 2005

but i can buy many medium price hardwares(Servers) for this SQL Server

2005.

how can i distribute or cluster this table between many hardwares(Servers)?

note: i have few users (maximum 5 users) for my database but i have a

very large table and Sql server 2005 server need to respond to this

users in less than 1 second.

i want to distribute this huge table in seperated hardwares. becuase i

can't buy a very expensive hardware from my server but i can buy many

medium price hardware for my server.

note: i need this: when a user run a select query on this huge table

his/her request distribute between many hardwares not one hardware.moving to availablility folder...|||

One option for you is to use peer-to-peer replication as a way of partitioning the data between various servers and having the updates on each server reflected on all others. You'll need some mid-tier logic to direct queries to the appropriate server though.

Checkout http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151196.aspx

Thanks

How can i cluster sql 2005 for load balancing?

i have a table with 10,000,000,000 records and i need Select and Insert many

records from or into this table in less than one second.

i can't buy a very expensive hardware(Server) for this SQL Server 2005

but i can buy many medium price hardwares(Servers) for this SQL Server

2005.

how can i distribute or cluster this table between many hardwares(Servers)?

note: i have few users (maximum 5 users) for my database but i have a

very large table and Sql server 2005 server need to respond to this

users in less than 1 second.

i want to distribute this huge table in seperated hardwares. becuase i

can't buy a very expensive hardware from my server but i can buy many

medium price hardware for my server.

note: i need this: when a user run a select query on this huge table

his/her request distribute between many hardwares not one hardware.moving to availablility folder...|||

Checkout http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151196.aspx

Thanks

How can i cluster sql 2005 for load balancing?

i have a table with 10,000,000,000 records and i need Select and Insert many
records from or into this table in less than one second.
i can't buy a very expensive hardware(Server) for this SQL Server 2005
but i can buy many medium price hardwares(Servers) for this SQL Server
2005.
how can i distribute or cluster this table between many hardwares(Servers)?
note: i have few users (maximum 5 users) for my database but i have a
very large table and Sql server 2005 server need to respond to this
users in less than 1 second.
i want to distribute this huge table in seperated hardwares. becuase i
can't buy a very expensive hardware from my server but i can buy many
medium price hardware for my server.
note: i need this: when a user run a select query on this huge table
his/her request distribute between many hardwares not one hardware.
Clusters are for high availability (HA) - not load balancing. You should
look at partitioned tables (SQL 2005) or partitioned views (SQL 2000). If
your queries always include the partitioning column in the WHERE clause, you
should be able to realize a performance benefit without necessarily going to
more servers. In the event that partitioned tables, or local partitioned
views, don't do it, then distributed partitioned views -0 where you do use
multiple servers - can be the solution.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"abssoft2000" <abssoft2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0366D5B7-B160-417E-8037-5269258365FF@.microsoft.com...
i have a table with 10,000,000,000 records and i need Select and Insert many
records from or into this table in less than one second.
i can't buy a very expensive hardware(Server) for this SQL Server 2005
but i can buy many medium price hardwares(Servers) for this SQL Server
2005.
how can i distribute or cluster this table between many hardwares(Servers)?
note: i have few users (maximum 5 users) for my database but i have a
very large table and Sql server 2005 server need to respond to this
users in less than 1 second.
i want to distribute this huge table in seperated hardwares. becuase i
can't buy a very expensive hardware from my server but i can buy many
medium price hardware for my server.
note: i need this: when a user run a select query on this huge table
his/her request distribute between many hardwares not one hardware.
|||Table partitioning allows me to spread the load across disks. However, all
data will still be managed by a single server. my performance bottleneck is
not only Disks resources but also CPU or memory, this method can resolve my
Disk Performance bottleneck but it can't resolve my CPU or memory Performance
bottleneck.
please help me to find a solution for all resource include (CPU,Ram,Disk,...).
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> Clusters are for high availability (HA) - not load balancing. You should
> look at partitioned tables (SQL 2005) or partitioned views (SQL 2000). If
> your queries always include the partitioning column in the WHERE clause, you
> should be able to realize a performance benefit without necessarily going to
> more servers. In the event that partitioned tables, or local partitioned
> views, don't do it, then distributed partitioned views -0 where you do use
> multiple servers - can be the solution.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "abssoft2000" <abssoft2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0366D5B7-B160-417E-8037-5269258365FF@.microsoft.com...
> i have a table with 10,000,000,000 records and i need Select and Insert many
> records from or into this table in less than one second.
> i can't buy a very expensive hardware(Server) for this SQL Server 2005
> but i can buy many medium price hardwares(Servers) for this SQL Server
> 2005.
> how can i distribute or cluster this table between many hardwares(Servers)?
> note: i have few users (maximum 5 users) for my database but i have a
> very large table and Sql server 2005 server need to respond to this
> users in less than 1 second.
> i want to distribute this huge table in seperated hardwares. becuase i
> can't buy a very expensive hardware from my server but i can buy many
> medium price hardware for my server.
> note: i need this: when a user run a select query on this huge table
> his/her request distribute between many hardwares not one hardware.
>
|||Well, without seeing your entire system, that would be difficult.
If you have a disk I/O bottleneck, it could be that you're memory starved.
It could also be that your RAID array has very few spindles.
What numbers have you been getting from Perf Mon?
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"abssoft2000" <abssoft2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D066863B-BAB8-48CE-8D1B-C3BBC451E505@.microsoft.com...
Table partitioning allows me to spread the load across disks. However, all
data will still be managed by a single server. my performance bottleneck is
not only Disks resources but also CPU or memory, this method can resolve my
Disk Performance bottleneck but it can't resolve my CPU or memory
Performance
bottleneck.
please help me to find a solution for all resource include
(CPU,Ram,Disk,...).
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> Clusters are for high availability (HA) - not load balancing. You should
> look at partitioned tables (SQL 2005) or partitioned views (SQL 2000). If
> your queries always include the partitioning column in the WHERE clause,
> you
> should be able to realize a performance benefit without necessarily going
> to
> more servers. In the event that partitioned tables, or local partitioned
> views, don't do it, then distributed partitioned views -0 where you do use
> multiple servers - can be the solution.
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "abssoft2000" <abssoft2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0366D5B7-B160-417E-8037-5269258365FF@.microsoft.com...
> i have a table with 10,000,000,000 records and i need Select and Insert
> many
> records from or into this table in less than one second.
> i can't buy a very expensive hardware(Server) for this SQL Server 2005
> but i can buy many medium price hardwares(Servers) for this SQL Server
> 2005.
> how can i distribute or cluster this table between many
> hardwares(Servers)?
> note: i have few users (maximum 5 users) for my database but i have a
> very large table and Sql server 2005 server need to respond to this
> users in less than 1 second.
> i want to distribute this huge table in seperated hardwares. becuase i
> can't buy a very expensive hardware from my server but i can buy many
> medium price hardware for my server.
> note: i need this: when a user run a select query on this huge table
> his/her request distribute between many hardwares not one hardware.
>
|||i think it is not difficult. i want to distribute my big table between many
servers(include CPU,Ram,Disks) not one server.
i want to use a method that is is distributable. for example: when my table
being larger i could add some new servers to my system to increase my
performance without changing current servers.
note: i only want increase my performance only by add a complete new servers
(include CPU,Ram,...) to currenct system
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> Well, without seeing your entire system, that would be difficult.
> If you have a disk I/O bottleneck, it could be that you're memory starved.
> It could also be that your RAID array has very few spindles.
> What numbers have you been getting from Perf Mon?
>
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "abssoft2000" <abssoft2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D066863B-BAB8-48CE-8D1B-C3BBC451E505@.microsoft.com...
> Table partitioning allows me to spread the load across disks. However, all
> data will still be managed by a single server. my performance bottleneck is
> not only Disks resources but also CPU or memory, this method can resolve my
> Disk Performance bottleneck but it can't resolve my CPU or memory
> Performance
> bottleneck.
> please help me to find a solution for all resource include
> (CPU,Ram,Disk,...).
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
>
>
|||As Tom mentioned, look in Books Online for "Distributed Partitioned Views".
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"abssoft2000" <abssoft2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A1D3E5D7-2077-443D-9F6E-D6056A4BCA83@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>i think it is not difficult. i want to distribute my big table between many
> servers(include CPU,Ram,Disks) not one server.
> i want to use a method that is is distributable. for example: when my
> table
> being larger i could add some new servers to my system to increase my
> performance without changing current servers.
> note: i only want increase my performance only by add a complete new
> servers
> (include CPU,Ram,...) to currenct system
>
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
|||That's the definition of distributed partitioned views. If you have a copy
of "Advanced Transact-SQL for SQL Server 2000", Chapter 13 gives you details
on how to do it. Using DPV's, Microsoft was able to set a new tpmC
benchmark soon after going RTM with SQL Server 2000.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"abssoft2000" <abssoft2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A1D3E5D7-2077-443D-9F6E-D6056A4BCA83@.microsoft.com...
i think it is not difficult. i want to distribute my big table between many
servers(include CPU,Ram,Disks) not one server.
i want to use a method that is is distributable. for example: when my table
being larger i could add some new servers to my system to increase my
performance without changing current servers.
note: i only want increase my performance only by add a complete new servers
(include CPU,Ram,...) to currenct system
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> Well, without seeing your entire system, that would be difficult.
> If you have a disk I/O bottleneck, it could be that you're memory starved.
> It could also be that your RAID array has very few spindles.
> What numbers have you been getting from Perf Mon?
>
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "abssoft2000" <abssoft2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D066863B-BAB8-48CE-8D1B-C3BBC451E505@.microsoft.com...
> Table partitioning allows me to spread the load across disks. However, all
> data will still be managed by a single server. my performance bottleneck
> is
> not only Disks resources but also CPU or memory, this method can resolve
> my
> Disk Performance bottleneck but it can't resolve my CPU or memory
> Performance
> bottleneck.
> please help me to find a solution for all resource include
> (CPU,Ram,Disk,...).
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
>
>
|||I think you are not considering the full ramifications of partitioning that
Tom has recommended, even on a single hardware installation.
It is not just a disk resource issue that partitioning attempts to resolve.
Unless you expect each of the 5 users to query the entire 10 Billion rows on
each pass, partitioning will limit the user to the specified data needed at
for any individual pass if the partitioning function is chosen correctly.
I suspect this table is large because the data is time sensitive, that is,
historical?
If so, if you had a dedicated table (or partition) for each month, week,
day, whatever the granularity is, and then one only needed data for that
particular date range, they would then only access a single table
(partition) instead of the entire data set.
If this data represents years of monthly, or daily, data, then each query
would only have to deal with a handful of tables, each only a few hundred
thousand or so records. Each query then becomes 10, 100, maybe even 1,000
or more times quicker.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"abssoft2000" <abssoft2000@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A1D3E5D7-2077-443D-9F6E-D6056A4BCA83@.microsoft.com...
> i think it is not difficult. i want to distribute my big table between
many
> servers(include CPU,Ram,Disks) not one server.
> i want to use a method that is is distributable. for example: when my
table
> being larger i could add some new servers to my system to increase my
> performance without changing current servers.
> note: i only want increase my performance only by add a complete new
servers[vbcol=seagreen]
> (include CPU,Ram,...) to currenct system
>
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
starved.[vbcol=seagreen]
all[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
my[vbcol=seagreen]
should[vbcol=seagreen]
If[vbcol=seagreen]
clause,[vbcol=seagreen]
going[vbcol=seagreen]
partitioned[vbcol=seagreen]
use[vbcol=seagreen]
Insert[vbcol=seagreen]

How can i cluster sql 2005 for load balancing?

Friday, March 23, 2012

How can I calculate the disk space which some records used in SQL 2005 database?

I execute the following SQL, and return 3 records, I want to know how many disk space the 3 records use, how can I do? thanks!

select * from myTable where username='Paul'

I'd like to use a temp table:

select * INTO tbl_tmp from myTable where username='Paul'

exec sp_spaceused tbl_tmp

drop table tbl_tmp

|||Many thanks! but is there a better way?|||

Or you have to sum date length for all fields:

SELECT [TotalDataSize(Bytes)]=SUM(DATALENGTH(col1)+DATALENGTH(col2)+DATALENGTH(username))
FROM myTable where username='Paul'

|||Sorry, I'm a beginner, what does '[TotalDataSize(Bytes)]' mean ?|||

And more, ifcol1 is null in some records, doesSELECT [TotalDataSize(Bytes)]=SUM(DATALENGTH(col1)+DATALENGTH(col2)+DATALENGTH(username))
FROM myTable where username='Paul' cause error?

Many thanks!

|||BTW, the datalength method is not very accurate. It will give you a kind of estimate, but it isn't even close to correct in many cases.

How can I avoid table lock in SQL2000?

To any and all;

I have a very large table (16Mil+ records), for which I want to delete
about 8 Million records. There are a few indexes on this table.

Is there a way that I can run either a query or a series of queries
that will run against each record and delete based on criteria (date)?
If I do a single DELETE query, it will take forever, lock the table,
and my app that runs against it will stop INSERTING, which is bad.

If I do a cursor, I think it locks the table also, so that won't do,
right?

Any help would be appreciated.

Glenn Dekhayser
Contentcatcher.comOn 15 Feb 2005 13:19:01 -0800, "gdekhayser" <gdekhayser@.voyantinc.com> wrote:

>To any and all;
>I have a very large table (16Mil+ records), for which I want to delete
>about 8 Million records. There are a few indexes on this table.
>Is there a way that I can run either a query or a series of queries
>that will run against each record and delete based on criteria (date)?
> If I do a single DELETE query, it will take forever, lock the table,
>and my app that runs against it will stop INSERTING, which is bad.
>If I do a cursor, I think it locks the table also, so that won't do,
>right?
>Any help would be appreciated.
>Glenn Dekhayser
>Contentcatcher.com

With a table that size, have you thought of partitioning it by date? Then,
locks would be held only on the partition(s) that overlap the date range you
are deleting.|||Right, but I need to deal with the records in place before I can do
that...don't I? Once I get the table down in size to something
rational, then I can partition it...|||gdekhayser (gdekhayser@.voyantinc.com) writes:
> I have a very large table (16Mil+ records), for which I want to delete
> about 8 Million records. There are a few indexes on this table.
> Is there a way that I can run either a query or a series of queries
> that will run against each record and delete based on criteria (date)?
> If I do a single DELETE query, it will take forever, lock the table,
> and my app that runs against it will stop INSERTING, which is bad.
> If I do a cursor, I think it locks the table also, so that won't do,
> right?

First of all, if there is no index on this date column, you can never
avoid the table lock.

If there is a clustered index on the date column, you should be able
to say DELETE tbl "WHERE date < @.somedateinthepast" and still have
your insertes coming through. Then again, if you delete day by day,
it may still be leaner.

If there is a non-clustered index on date, it depends on how many
rows there are per date. If there are too many rows per date, a
DELETE per date could table-scan. You could force an index, but
plenty of rows would be locked, for some time.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||For the future, you should consider partitioning , as deleting n
records is o(n) while dropping a table (or truncating it) is O(1).

For now , I would recommend deleting with rowcount< some number ,
probably in the low thousands, which should leave the table in a fairly
operational state while you do it.

Of course after such a massive delete, the table will be in a terribly
fragmented state internally, so the next step is to rebuild the
indexes.

another alternative is to create another table with the same schema but
without the indexes, insert into it the rows that you do want to keep
(the complement of the 'to be deleted') and then build the indexes. you
can then drop the old table and rename the new one.

hope this helps
Tzvika

gdekhayser wrote:
> To any and all;
> I have a very large table (16Mil+ records), for which I want to
delete
> about 8 Million records. There are a few indexes on this table.
> Is there a way that I can run either a query or a series of queries
> that will run against each record and delete based on criteria
(date)?
> If I do a single DELETE query, it will take forever, lock the table,
> and my app that runs against it will stop INSERTING, which is bad.
> If I do a cursor, I think it locks the table also, so that won't do,
> right?
> Any help would be appreciated.
> Glenn Dekhayser
> Contentcatcher.com|||Erland- I wish I would have read your post earlier. I would have
thought that removing the indexes would make the delete faster. I
goofed and left the 4 indexes in place, the date one wasn't clustered.
I really wouldn't have cared about the row locks if I forced an index,
as they were going to be deleted anyway and not accessed.

I ended up just performing the delete- and watching my logs grow REAL
large.

I now have 3 log files where I really only want one- is there a way to
condense back into one log file when you're split into 3?|||gdekhayser (gdekhayser@.voyantinc.com) writes:
> Erland- I wish I would have read your post earlier. I would have
> thought that removing the indexes would make the delete faster.

Yeah, removing the indexes not useful for the DELETE would have speedied
things up a little. It may not be a good idea to drop the clustered index
though.

> I ended up just performing the delete- and watching my logs grow REAL
> large.
> I now have 3 log files where I really only want one- is there a way to
> condense back into one log file when you're split into 3?

Well, you can say ALTER DATABASE REMOVE FILE, but you would have to
truncate the log first. Maybe the best is to use WITH TRUNCATE_ONLY
and the take a full backup of the database. I guess that then you
should be able to remove some of the files.

But I will have to admit that I have never had reason to drop a log
file, so I am just speculating here.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

How can i add scrollbars to a datagrid or a gridview

Is it possible to add a scrollbar to datagrid or gridview, cause i want to show all the records in a same page.

Regards

Karen

If the size of theGridView is not large enough to display all the items, users can scroll horizontally or vertically by using scrollbars, which are provided by aScrollViewer control. AScrollBar is hidden if all the content is visible in a specific direction. Column headers do not scroll with a vertical scroll bar, but do scroll horizontally

from article ..

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms752213.aspx

Monday, March 19, 2012

How can client applications know if a table has been changed

If you're asking about a way in which a client application can be
notified of new or even updated records on the server, then you may want
to check out Notification Services. The provided Realtor sample provides
a simple example.
HTH...
Joe Webb
SQL Server MVP
~~~
Get up to speed quickly with SQLNS
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...il/-/0972688811
Tibor Karaszi wrote:
>
> Or, in the UPDATE, you include the buffered rowversion value in the WHERE
clause (with the primary
> key value). If the update modifies zero rows, you know that either the row
was deleted or it was
> updated.
>LOL!!! :)
HTH...
Joe Webb
SQL Server MVP
~~~
Get up to speed quickly with SQLNS
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...il/-/0972688811
Tibor Karaszi wrote:
> LOL. First time I noticed your signature, Joe, I thought that SQLNS referr
ed to the SQL-NS API with
> which you can re-use dialogs from EM in your client app. :-)
>

How can a SP to handle a "TempDB Full" error ?

I always need to create a temporary table and insert a large amount of
records into it within a stored procedure, my problem is : even I have
already set the growth rate of the TempDB to 100%, but once all the free
TempDB disk space is used up, the stored procedure will fail and terminated
no matter how much free hard disk space outside the TempDB is.
Could anybody tell me is it possible to handle this error within a stored
procedure ?
For example, will the SP generate an error code for such a suitation ? Or
can I add some commands with a SP so that the SP can increase or shrink the
TempDB dynamically ?stuff I can recommend:
1. find out what has caused the tempdb to grow so much? uncommitted
transactions during a long period of time? try to reduce the transaction
size.
2. Alter the tempdb to larger size so that when it gets recreated upon
server restart, it doesn't have to grow as much.
3. don't set autogrowth by 100%. That may take too long to expand and cause
procs to time out.
4. Set up an alert on tempdb size exceeding a threshold. Run dbcc
shrinkdatabase or dbcc shrinkfile to reduce tempdb.
richard
"cpchan" <cpchaney@.netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:c60sfj$ns41@.imsp212.netvigator.com...
> I always need to create a temporary table and insert a large amount of
> records into it within a stored procedure, my problem is : even I have
> already set the growth rate of the TempDB to 100%, but once all the free
> TempDB disk space is used up, the stored procedure will fail and
terminated
> no matter how much free hard disk space outside the TempDB is.
> Could anybody tell me is it possible to handle this error within a stored
> procedure ?
> For example, will the SP generate an error code for such a suitation ? Or
> can I add some commands with a SP so that the SP can increase or shrink
the
> TempDB dynamically ?
>
>

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Hours Days and Months

This code displays records by the the month they where recorded and displays the months as names (January...)
How can I do the Same for Days (Mon, Tues) and Hours (9.00,10.00)

Select DATENAME(mm,dDate) as Month, count(iStatID) as Total_Po
from ListingStats
Group by DATENAME(mm,dDate)
Order by DATENAME(mm,dDate)Weekly as well if possible|||Same way, Nate:

Select DATENAME(dw,date) as day, count(id) as Total_Po
from eventlog
Group by DATENAME(dw,date)
Order by DATENAME(dw,date)

Select DATENAME(wk, date) as weeknumber, count(id) as Total_Po
from eventlog
Group by DATENAME(wk,date)
Order by DATENAME(wk,date)

Select DATENAME(hh, date) as hour, count(id) as Total_Po
from eventlog
Group by DATENAME(hh,date)
Order by DATENAME(hh,date)

table and count column names were changed to protect the innoce...ok, because I was too lazy to change 'em to your names ;)

Look at BOL under the subject "DATEPART"|||THis Displays day of the Week

Select DATENAME(dw,dDate) as Month, count(iStatID) as Total_Po
from ListingStats
Group by DATENAME(dw,dDate)
Order by DATENAME(dw,dDate)|||Awesome thanks alot|||Not a problem! Remember always, BOL is our friend.|||What about joining Values Like
16-Sept

or Monday 16th

Can that be done with SQL? I'm trying to display the data in crystal reports.|||You bet!

Take a look at Books Online in CONVERT and STRING system functions.|||I think Ive figured them out thanks for your help need some more test data can't be bothered loading it right now.

Im pretty sure this loads the last seven days views

Select DATENAME(dd,dDate)+ ' ' + Substring(DATENAME(mm,dDate),0,4) as Day, count(iStatID) as Views
from ListingStats Where IListingID = @.ListingID AND (dDate < GetDate()) AND (dDate > DATENAME(dd,GetDate())-7)
Group by DATENAME(dd,dDate)+ ' ' + Substring(DATENAME(mm,dDate),0,4)
Order by DATENAME(dd,dDate)+ ' ' + Substring(DATENAME(mm,dDate),0,4)

Thanks for your help much appreciated

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

How can i cluster sql 2005 for load balancing?

How can i cluster sql 2005 for load balancing?

How can i cluster sql 2005 for load balancing?

How can i cluster sql 2005 for load balancing?

Friday, March 23, 2012

How can I calculate the disk space which some records used in SQL 2005 database?

How can I avoid table lock in SQL2000?

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

How can i add scrollbars to a datagrid or a gridview

Monday, March 19, 2012

How can client applications know if a table has been changed

How can a SP to handle a "TempDB Full" error ?

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Hours Days and Months

hot backup

Blog Archive

About Me