Compatiblity level in SQL 2005

What does are the rammifications in SQL 2005 of setting the compatibility level for a database to a lower level, for example SQL 2000 (80)?

Does this affect the underlying datastructure, the stored files on the server, or the indexes?

What effect does changing the compatibility level have? Does changing it cause the server to have to do any work to the indexs or table?

TIA!

refer this link,

ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/tsqlref9/html/508c686d-2bd4-41ba-8602-48ebca266659.htm

performance dashboard cannot be used if the compatability is not 90.......

|||

Compatibility level allows you to keep databases in SQL Server 2005 that remain compatible with prior versions of SQL Server. This also means that you cannot use Transact-SQL extensions introduced in SQL Server 2005 with a SQL Server 2000-compatible database. AFAIK there is not much change in storage architecture of sql server 2005 from 2000. Still they are stored in Pages/extents.

Madhu

Compatible versions of Ms SQL Server, ODBC driver, Driver Manager and ODBC API s

Hi,

Please help share with me if you know the version compatibility matrix of Ms SQL Server, ODBC driver (sqlsrv32.dll), Driver Manager (odbc32.dll) and ODBC API spec. For instance, how can I know Ms SQL Server 2000 can work with which version of sqlsrv32.dll, a particular version of sqlsrv32.dll can work with which version of odbc32.dll and a certain version of sqlsrv32.dll/odbc32.dll conforms to which version of ODBC API spec (e.g. 3.5).

Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks,

vtluu.Instead of sweating bullets trying to juggle chainsaws, why not just use the current MDAC (http://msdn.microsoft.com/data/mdac/)?

-PatP

Compatibility with sql 2000

Can I Install Sql 2005 in a machine with sql 2000? Will I have problems when the final version of sql 2005 comes out?At RTM of SQL Server 2005 we will support installing it on a machine that already has SQL Server 2000 installed. We have put a lot of work in this area to insure they can install harmoniously on the same machine. We don't recommend installing SQL Server 2000 after SQL Server 2005 is already installed - but the reverse is okay.

Dan|||1. RTM is still a few months in the future, what about right now, will it break 2000?
2. If not, will it be OK if 2000 has Report Server installed?

Thanks.

Compatibility with SQL 2000

I have moved a database from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005 Express. I have modified the structure in 2005 Management Studio Express.

Now I cannot attach to the modified dataabse in SQL 2000 Enterprise Manager. I get "Error 602: Could not find row in sysindexes for database ID.... Run DBCC CHECKTABLE on sysindexes".

This occurs despite the fact that I have kept the database at Compatibiluty Level SQL Server 2000, as reported in 2005 Management Studio Express.

Are 2005 and 2000 databases not compatible?

Many thanks.

As you discovered, once you attach a database to SQL 2005, you cannot move it back to SQL 2000.

Moving a database is a one-way operation, and cannot be reversed.

|||

Compatability Mode has nothing to do with the database format, it has to do with how commands are run by the database engine. Databases are automatically converted to the 2005 file format when they are attached, there is no way to convert the database format back. You should be able to manage SQL 2000 database from SSMS if that is the tool you would prefer to use, but you can not bounce databases back and forth between SQL 2000 and SQL 2005.

Mike

|||Thanks.

Compatibility vs2005/sql2005 and sql2000

Hi,
Are there any known compatibility issues with VS/SQL 2005 and SQL Server 2000?
In other words, can I (continue to) develop a report project for SQL server
2000 when I have VS/SQL2005 installed on my pc?
--
Thanks,
EdgarI have both VS 2003 and VS 2005. I have modified and deployed reports from
VS 2003 to RS 2000.
What you cannot do is create or modify a report in VS 2005 and deploy to RS
2000. RS 2005 reports require RS 2005.
But, you can upgrade RS 2000 to RS 2005 leaving SQL Server at 2000 (still
need a SQL Server 1005 license).
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Edgar" <Edgar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6DDB23AB-3B8D-4635-B85C-08C7EF2CE08B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Are there any known compatibility issues with VS/SQL 2005 and SQL Server
> 2000?
> In other words, can I (continue to) develop a report project for SQL
> server
> 2000 when I have VS/SQL2005 installed on my pc?
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Edgar|||Ok...but can you create reports in 2003 and deploy to 2005?|||Yes, you can use the RS 2000 report designer which installs into VS 2003 for
this purpose. RS 2000 RDLs can be directly published from the old report
designer to RS 2005 report servers. Note: the RS 2000 report designer will
not support any of the new RS 2005 features (such as Interactive Sort,
etc.).
-- Robert
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Dave" <KillnComputers@.Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:1130962651.742396.163040@.g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ok...but can you create reports in 2003 and deploy to 2005?
>|||Some more questions about this to get it clear:
- Can I use VS 2005 with RS2000 to deploy reports to SQL 2000 Report Server?
- Can I use VS 2005 with RS2005 to deploy reports to SQL 2000 Report Server?
Thanks,
Edgar
"Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" wrote:
> Yes, you can use the RS 2000 report designer which installs into VS 2003 for
> this purpose. RS 2000 RDLs can be directly published from the old report
> designer to RS 2005 report servers. Note: the RS 2000 report designer will
> not support any of the new RS 2005 features (such as Interactive Sort,
> etc.).
> -- Robert
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
> "Dave" <KillnComputers@.Verizon.Net> wrote in message
> news:1130962651.742396.163040@.g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Ok...but can you create reports in 2003 and deploy to 2005?
> >
>
>|||No to both.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Edgar" <Edgar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4068C225-D2EE-4613-B1EE-C03A098F810C@.microsoft.com...
> Some more questions about this to get it clear:
> - Can I use VS 2005 with RS2000 to deploy reports to SQL 2000 Report
> Server?
> - Can I use VS 2005 with RS2005 to deploy reports to SQL 2000 Report
> Server?
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Edgar
>
> "Robert Bruckner [MSFT]" wrote:
>> Yes, you can use the RS 2000 report designer which installs into VS 2003
>> for
>> this purpose. RS 2000 RDLs can be directly published from the old report
>> designer to RS 2005 report servers. Note: the RS 2000 report designer
>> will
>> not support any of the new RS 2005 features (such as Interactive Sort,
>> etc.).
>> -- Robert
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>>
>> "Dave" <KillnComputers@.Verizon.Net> wrote in message
>> news:1130962651.742396.163040@.g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Ok...but can you create reports in 2003 and deploy to 2005?
>> >
>>

compatibility question

just a question....

my web project is using SQL Express2005 and ASP.NET and C#.
my web hosting company only have MSsql2000. would there be any conflict with regards to my database? im sorry if i sound dumb. im a newbie to this.

thanks a lot!
There will not be a conflict but you may have to make code changes, there are a fair number of features in SQL Express that will not work with SQL 2000. I suggest downloading a copy of MSDE for yourself(which is free) so you can test before going live with the hoster.|||i am only using one mdf file and my asp.net program just deals with the common add, edit, delete transactions. would these transactions differ from version to version of MSSQL?

honestly i did not think there would be a problem coz these transactions are very common. pls correct me if i am wrong.
|||

It depends. Are you using user instances(its in the connection string)? are you using varchar(max), xml types? Are you using the new security features?

Any of the above will prevent the app from working on a sql server 200 machine.

|||

Euan Garden wrote:

It depends. Are you using user instances(its in the connection string)? are you using varchar(max), xml types? Are you using the new security features?

Any of the above will prevent the app from working on a sql server 200 machine.

this is my connection string:
<add name="conn_name" connectionString="Data Source=.\SQLEXPRESS;AttachDbFilename=|DataDirectory|\dbase_name.mdf;Integrated Security=True;User Instance=True" providerName="System.Data.SqlClient"/>

sql2000 doesnt support user instance, does it?

__
i just installed MSDE to make a test. i tried attaching my mdf file (created by SQL Express) to the MSDE but i got this error message:

"An error occured when attaching the database"

i attached that mdf file to the SQL Express and i encountered no problem at all. do you think i will encounter the same problem with my hosting company?

thanks for your time Euan.|||

2 issues here;

1/ MSDE does NOT support user instances so you need to change your conection string to a regular one.

2/ You are trying to attach a SQL2005 db to a SQL2000 machine, this will not work, you will need to move the data and schema onto a SQL Server 2000 implementation.

|||can I implement the membership control (provided by ASP.NET) on MSDE? i can try migrating from SQLEXxpress to MSDE but im not sure if membership control works on that MSDE. sorry if i really sound dumb. im a newbie.|||There is a tool that comes with ASP.Net that supports installation of the databases, aspnet_regsql.exe is its name, check and see if it can install the tables for membership control, I believe it supports SQL 2000 ie MSDE.|||

Euan Garden wrote:

There is a tool that comes with ASP.Net that supports installation of the databases, aspnet_regsql.exe is its name, check and see if it can install the tables for membership control, I believe it supports SQL 2000 ie MSDE.

i just tried it and it installed all the membership tables using this MSDE.
thanks for the help Euan Garden.

Compatibility problem SQL 2005 <-> SQL 2000

I use the following sql 2000 query:
Delete otherdatabase..table
From table Join otherdatabase..table on table.DSN =
otherdatabase..table.DSN
Where otherdatabase..table.TOUCH <= table.TOUCH
The table structure of "otherdatabase..table" and "Table" are the same.
The query works fine under sql 2000.
With sql 2005 I get an error:
The objects "otherdatabase..table" and "table" in the FROM clause have
the same exposed names. Use correlation names to distinguish them.
When I replace table with table as table_a it works.
I use the syntax above at many places.
Any hints to run the query above without changes under sql 2005?try setting database compatibility to 8.0
Farmer
<Klaus8812@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:OuyJTR83FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I use the following sql 2000 query:
>
> Delete otherdatabase..table
> From table Join otherdatabase..table on table.DSN =
> otherdatabase..table.DSN
> Where otherdatabase..table.TOUCH <= table.TOUCH
> The table structure of "otherdatabase..table" and "Table" are the same.
>
> The query works fine under sql 2000.
>
> With sql 2005 I get an error:
>
> The objects "otherdatabase..table" and "table" in the FROM clause have
> the same exposed names. Use correlation names to distinguish them.
> When I replace table with table as table_a it works.
> I use the syntax above at many places.
> Any hints to run the query above without changes under sql 2005?
>|||Hello,
I tested the issue on my side and I received the same error in SQL server
2000. However, add a table alias can resolve the error. For your
reference, I tested it by performing the following steps:
1. Run the following code in SQL server 2000:
select * into test..authors from pubs..authors
go
Delete test..authors
From authors Join test..authors on authors.au_id =
test..authors.au_id
Where test..authors.au_lname='white'
I received the same error message you mentioned. However, the following
works fine:
Delete test..authors
From authors a Join test..authors on a.au_id =test..authors.au_id
Where test..authors.au_lname='white'
2. Run the following code in SQL server 2005, I receive the same error:
select * into test..address from person.address
Delete test..address
From person.address Join test..address on person.address.addressid =
test..address.addressid
Where test..address.addressID=1
The the following works fine:
Delete test..address
From person.address a Join test..address on a.addressid =
test..address.addressid
Where test..address.addressID=1
I hope the information is helpful.
Sophie Guo
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
========================================
=============
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||You should add aliases to Remote tables.
In general, 3dot notation is used for cross server queries, eg.
server.database.owner.object
Using 3dot notation in join clauses is just confusing.
eg.
DELETE FROM
myDatabase..MyTable
FROM
myDatabase..MyTable remoteMyTable
JOIN
MyTable localMyTable
ON
remoteMyTable.id = localMyTable.id
WHERE
remoteMyTable.Filter <= localMyTable.Filter
In addition to making it work in 2k5, it also makes it more readable IMO.
<Klaus8812@.community.nospam> wrote in message
news:OuyJTR83FHA.252@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I use the following sql 2000 query:
>
> Delete otherdatabase..table
> From table Join otherdatabase..table on table.DSN =
> otherdatabase..table.DSN
> Where otherdatabase..table.TOUCH <= table.TOUCH
> The table structure of "otherdatabase..table" and "Table" are the same.
>
> The query works fine under sql 2000.
>
> With sql 2005 I get an error:
>
> The objects "otherdatabase..table" and "table" in the FROM clause have
> the same exposed names. Use correlation names to distinguish them.
> When I replace table with table as table_a it works.
> I use the syntax above at many places.
> Any hints to run the query above without changes under sql 2005?
>

Compatibility of SQL Server 7.0 with Windows 2K

Is SQL Server 7.0 compatible with the Windows 200 operating system? Are
there certain patches or service packs that need to be applied to SQL to
make this compatibility work? Thanks.

Larry"lmclaus" <lmclaus@.sandia.gov> wrote in message
news:bka37u$j4c$1@.sass2141.sandia.gov...
> Is SQL Server 7.0 compatible with the Windows 200 operating system? Are
> there certain patches or service packs that need to be applied to SQL to
> make this compatibility work? Thanks.
> Larry

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evalua...datasheet.asp#E

Simon|||"lmclaus" <lmclaus@.sandia.gov> wrote in message
news:bka37u$j4c$1@.sass2141.sandia.gov...
> Is SQL Server 7.0 compatible with the Windows 200 operating system? Are
> there certain patches or service packs that need to be applied to SQL to
> make this compatibility work? Thanks.

Seems to be working fine here.

Ron.
--
Performance Intelligence, Inc.
Spy 4 DB2 - http://www.pireporting.com/spy4db2.html

Compatibility of SQL 2000

I find that the "Create Table" script generated by SQL Server 2005 is in format:

CREATE TABLE [dbo].[City](
[CityID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[Name] [nvarchar](50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_City] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[CityID] ASC
)WITH (IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF) ON [PRIMARY]
) ON [PRIMARY]

Can this appliable in SQL Server 2000 or MSDE? If not, how should I change it to make it work in both SQL 2000 and 2005?

Thanks

Thats not working in SQL 2000. You will have to create it in compat. mode 2k.

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

Would you please show me a sample code?

Thanks

|||Hi,

the equivalent would be:

CREATE TABLE [dbo].[City](

[CityID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,

[Name] [nvarchar](50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL,

CONSTRAINT [PK_City] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED

(

[CityID] ASC

) ON [PRIMARY]

)

GO

CREATE UNIQUE INDEX [SomenewIndex] ON [dbo].[City]([CityID])

WITH IGNORE_DUP_KEY ON [PRIMARY]

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

What did you use to generate the script above? Did you use SMO or Tools? Did you select the correct compatibility level for the script? If you cannot get the correct output for the script then you should just create it by hand since it is easier that way and avoids all the other unnecessary default options. For example, the default for IGNORE_DUP_KEY is OFF for PRIMARY/UNIQUE key constraints and you should probably avoid using it anyway. So you can write DDL like:

CREATE TABLE [dbo].[City](
[CityID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[Name] [nvarchar](50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_City] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[CityID] ASC
)

) ON [PRIMARY]

Btw, if you cannot get the tools or SMO to work correctly then please file a bug using http://connect.microsoft.com/sqlserver or create a thread in the SQL Server Tools forum.

|||

Thanks for the reply.

I generated the script using SMO in the following steps:

1. In SMO, right-click on the table City, choose Modify.

2. Highlight CityID, click the "Set Primary Key" button and save the change

3. Right-click on table City, choose "Script table as", choose "Create to"....

Thanks.

|||

Hi

u can't use ignore_dup_key with constraint. u need to create index key.

CREATE TABLE [dbo].[test] (
[id] [int] NOT NULL ,
[name] [varchar] (50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO

ALTER TABLE [dbo].[test] WITH NOCHECK ADD
CONSTRAINT [pk_id] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[id]
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO

CREATE UNIQUE INDEX [ind_id] ON [dbo].[test]([id] DESC ) WITH IGNORE_DUP_KEY ON [PRIMARY]
GO

|||

I upgraded my SQL Server 2005 to SP1.

Then this line : WITH (IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF) is removed from generated script.

Problem solved!!

Compatibility of SQL 2000

I find that the "Create Table" script generated by SQL Server 2005 is in format:

CREATE TABLE [dbo].[City](
[CityID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[Name] [nvarchar](50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_City] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[CityID] ASC
)WITH (IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF) ON [PRIMARY]
) ON [PRIMARY]

Can this appliable in SQL Server 2000 or MSDE? If not, how should I change it to make it work in both SQL 2000 and 2005?

Thanks

Thats not working in SQL 2000. You will have to create it in compat. mode 2k.

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

Would you please show me a sample code?

Thanks

|||Hi,

the equivalent would be:

CREATE TABLE [dbo].[City](

[CityID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,

[Name] [nvarchar](50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL,

CONSTRAINT [PK_City] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED

(

[CityID] ASC

) ON [PRIMARY]

)

GO

CREATE UNIQUE INDEX [SomenewIndex] ON [dbo].[City]([CityID])

WITH IGNORE_DUP_KEY ON [PRIMARY]

HTH, Jens K. Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

What did you use to generate the script above? Did you use SMO or Tools? Did you select the correct compatibility level for the script? If you cannot get the correct output for the script then you should just create it by hand since it is easier that way and avoids all the other unnecessary default options. For example, the default for IGNORE_DUP_KEY is OFF for PRIMARY/UNIQUE key constraints and you should probably avoid using it anyway. So you can write DDL like:

CREATE TABLE [dbo].[City](
[CityID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[Name] [nvarchar](50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_City] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[CityID] ASC
)

) ON [PRIMARY]

Btw, if you cannot get the tools or SMO to work correctly then please file a bug using http://connect.microsoft.com/sqlserver or create a thread in the SQL Server Tools forum.

|||

Thanks for the reply.

I generated the script using SMO in the following steps:

1. In SMO, right-click on the table City, choose Modify.

2. Highlight CityID, click the "Set Primary Key" button and save the change

3. Right-click on table City, choose "Script table as", choose "Create to"....

Thanks.

|||

Hi

u can't use ignore_dup_key with constraint. u need to create index key.

CREATE TABLE [dbo].[test] (
[id] [int] NOT NULL ,
[name] [varchar] (50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO

ALTER TABLE [dbo].[test] WITH NOCHECK ADD
CONSTRAINT [pk_id] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[id]
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO

CREATE UNIQUE INDEX [ind_id] ON [dbo].[test]([id] DESC ) WITH IGNORE_DUP_KEY ON [PRIMARY]
GO

|||

I upgraded my SQL Server 2005 to SP1.

Then this line : WITH (IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF) is removed from generated script.

Problem solved!!

Compatibility of SQL 2000

I find that the "Create Table" script generated by SQL Server 2005 is in format:

CREATE TABLE [dbo].[City](
[CityID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[Name] [nvarchar](50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_City] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[CityID] ASC
)WITH (IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF) ON [PRIMARY]
) ON [PRIMARY]

Can this appliable in SQL Server 2000 or MSDE? If not, how should I change it to make it work in both SQL 2000 and 2005?

Thanks

Drop the With( IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF ) clause. That is not supported in the Create statement in 2000. It refers to how the index created to support the constraint should react to duplicate keys. This option can be specified if the index is created separately. OFF is the default setting, so removing it will not change the behavior.

Compatibility of ODBC 2000 vs ODBC 2003

Will there be a compatibility issue between my client ODBC
version 2000.80.194 and the SQL server 2003.I assume you are referring to SQL Server 2005. There is no SQL Server 2003.
The client version you are referring to is the one that shipped with SQL
2000. The SQL 2000 clients will work fine against a SQL 2005 server, but
they wont be able to access all of the new features.
Brannon
"chanjo" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:181f01c48c62$c7433290$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Will there be a compatibility issue between my client ODBC
> version 2000.80.194 and the SQL server 2003.

Compatibility of ODBC 2000 vs ODBC 2003

Will there be a compatibility issue between my client ODBC
version 2000.80.194 and the SQL server 2003.
I assume you are referring to SQL Server 2005. There is no SQL Server 2003.
The client version you are referring to is the one that shipped with SQL
2000. The SQL 2000 clients will work fine against a SQL 2005 server, but
they wont be able to access all of the new features.
Brannon
"chanjo" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:181f01c48c62$c7433290$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Will there be a compatibility issue between my client ODBC
> version 2000.80.194 and the SQL server 2003.

Compatibility of MSDE with .NEt

Hai frnds,

Can i use MSDE for my .net applications instead of SQl server ?

Yes.|||

Can u sugget some good documents regarding MSDE compatibility with .NET

Applications

|||

There's nothing much to say. MSDE is basically the same thing as SQL Server execept some performance limitations and missing components (no graphical interface tools, no analysis services etc). Other than that it supports exactly the same SQL syntax and data types, views, triggers etc like SQL Server 2000 and for connection you use the same classes (System.Data.SqlClient) and connection strings.

You may also want to check SQL Server 2005 Express Edition which is also free and works with .NET and replaces MSDE. See http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/express/default.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/express/upgrade.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/express/features.mspx

Compatibility of AS with Excel 2000

can i use excel 2000 to connect to as 2005 data source?

cherriesh

You should be able to, as long as the latest OLE DB for OLAP Provider is installed on the client and supports AS 2005 (ie. MSOLAP.3).

Feature Pack for Microsoft SQL Server 2005 - February 2007

...

Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Analysis Services 9.0 OLE DB Provider

The Analysis Services 9.0 OLE DB Provider is a COM component that software developers can use to create client-side applications that browse metadata and query data stored in Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Analysis Services. This provider implements both the OLE DB specification and the specification’s extensions for online analytical processing (OLAP) and data mining.

...

|||

How to connect Excel 2003 or an earlier version of Excel to SQL Server 2005 Analysis Services
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940167

Compatibility Mode 70 in SQL Server 2008

Hi,
does anybody know if MS's going to deprecate "Compatibility Mode 70"
databases in SQL Server 2008?
With SQL Server 2005, MS already removed CM70 support from all their
Wizards (e.g. the Database Backup Wizard - which is bad enough), so I'm
afraid they're gonna go one step further.
thx
AxelThere is no "SQL Server 7.0 (70)" item in the Compatibility Level list in
the database options in SQL SErver 2008 November CTP.
Ekrem nsoy
"Axel Bender" <axel_bender@.t-online.de> wrote in message
news:fj0jhm$7l0$00$1@.news.t-online.com...
> Hi,
> does anybody know if MS's going to deprecate "Compatibility Mode 70"
> databases in SQL Server 2008?
> With SQL Server 2005, MS already removed CM70 support from all their
> Wizards (e.g. the Database Backup Wizard - which is bad enough), so I'm
> afraid they're gonna go one step further.
> thx
> Axel|||... and Books Online (ALTER DATABASE and sp_dbcmptlevel) only lists levels
80, 90 and 100.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Ekrem nsoy" <ekrem@.btegitim.com> wrote in message
news:6CB644E8-4284-4BA8-86B2-CD764F70EF27@.microsoft.com...
> There is no "SQL Server 7.0 (70)" item in the Compatibility Level list in
the database options in
> SQL SErver 2008 November CTP.
> --
> Ekrem nsoy
>
> "Axel Bender" <axel_bender@.t-online.de> wrote in message news:fj0jhm$7l0$0
0$1@.news.t-online.com...
>

Compatibility Mode 70 in SQL Server 2008

Hi,
does anybody know if MS's going to deprecate "Compatibility Mode 70"
databases in SQL Server 2008?
With SQL Server 2005, MS already removed CM70 support from all their
Wizards (e.g. the Database Backup Wizard - which is bad enough), so I'm
afraid they're gonna go one step further.
thx
AxelThere is no "SQL Server 7.0 (70)" item in the Compatibility Level list in
the database options in SQL SErver 2008 November CTP.
--
Ekrem Önsoy
"Axel Bender" <axel_bender@.t-online.de> wrote in message
news:fj0jhm$7l0$00$1@.news.t-online.com...
> Hi,
> does anybody know if MS's going to deprecate "Compatibility Mode 70"
> databases in SQL Server 2008?
> With SQL Server 2005, MS already removed CM70 support from all their
> Wizards (e.g. the Database Backup Wizard - which is bad enough), so I'm
> afraid they're gonna go one step further.
> thx
> Axel|||... and Books Online (ALTER DATABASE and sp_dbcmptlevel) only lists levels 80, 90 and 100.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Ekrem Önsoy" <ekrem@.btegitim.com> wrote in message
news:6CB644E8-4284-4BA8-86B2-CD764F70EF27@.microsoft.com...
> There is no "SQL Server 7.0 (70)" item in the Compatibility Level list in the database options in
> SQL SErver 2008 November CTP.
> --
> Ekrem Önsoy
>
> "Axel Bender" <axel_bender@.t-online.de> wrote in message news:fj0jhm$7l0$00$1@.news.t-online.com...
>> Hi,
>> does anybody know if MS's going to deprecate "Compatibility Mode 70" databases in SQL Server
>> 2008?
>> With SQL Server 2005, MS already removed CM70 support from all their Wizards (e.g. the Database
>> Backup Wizard - which is bad enough), so I'm afraid they're gonna go one step further.
>> thx
>> Axel
>

Compatibility Mode 70 databases in SP2

Hi,
Does anybody know if the creation of maintenance plans for Compatibility
Mode 70 databases will be possible with SQL Server 2005 SP2?
According to what I've heard so far, there is no chance to do that in
SP0/1 installations of SQL Server 2005 (CM 70 databases won't show up in
the wizard). I consider this a severe shortcoming in the product, which
should be tackled by MS.
Any opinions/workarounds?Hi
I would not say that this would be deemed a major issue as it is simple to
write your own maintenance procedures, and there are examples if you search
the web.
It is also recommended that compatibility mode is mainly designed as a
transient part of an upgrade and should not normally be something to be
relied upon long term, unless there is no way you can upgrade change the
database. If the latter is the case then your buisiness may be at risk if you
are relying on such software.
John
"Axel Bender" wrote:
> Hi,
> Does anybody know if the creation of maintenance plans for Compatibility
> Mode 70 databases will be possible with SQL Server 2005 SP2?
> According to what I've heard so far, there is no chance to do that in
> SP0/1 installations of SQL Server 2005 (CM 70 databases won't show up in
> the wizard). I consider this a severe shortcoming in the product, which
> should be tackled by MS.
> Any opinions/workarounds?
>|||Thanks for the answer, John.
Although I generally agree with you in saying that a compatibility mode
should not be used on a long-term basis, I have to make some additional
points on that topic:
a) We have deployed a lot of CM 70 databases; changing the compatibility
mode for them would not break our application, but it would give the
users very slow response times in parts of the app (this is due to the
change MS made to the query optimizer when it comes to selecting
indexes). We know we have to make changes to the app, but frankly, we
simply cannot afford the time for this now.
b) Most of our customers are not able to write maintenance procedures
(nor are all of our supporters).
c) There is no common scheme that our users follow when it comes to
backing up and checking their databases.
d) S2k5 supports maintenance plans for CM 80 databases, why not for CM
70 ones?
I think, that supporting CM 70 databases would not be a big deal for MS;
for us it would be.
Kind regards,
Axel|||Hi Axel
I suggest that you ship some standard jobs and procedures that will do this
for them and avoid the maintenance plans.
I don't really have any idea how widespread this issue is how much it would
actually take to implement this additional feature, but I can only assume
that it is not as big an issue as you think or MS is not aware of the
magnitude. If you wish to formally request a response and make them aware of
this issue I would raise a support call.
John
"Axel Bender" wrote:
> Thanks for the answer, John.
> Although I generally agree with you in saying that a compatibility mode
> should not be used on a long-term basis, I have to make some additional
> points on that topic:
> a) We have deployed a lot of CM 70 databases; changing the compatibility
> mode for them would not break our application, but it would give the
> users very slow response times in parts of the app (this is due to the
> change MS made to the query optimizer when it comes to selecting
> indexes). We know we have to make changes to the app, but frankly, we
> simply cannot afford the time for this now.
> b) Most of our customers are not able to write maintenance procedures
> (nor are all of our supporters).
> c) There is no common scheme that our users follow when it comes to
> backing up and checking their databases.
> d) S2k5 supports maintenance plans for CM 80 databases, why not for CM
> 70 ones?
> I think, that supporting CM 70 databases would not be a big deal for MS;
> for us it would be.
> Kind regards,
> Axel
>

Compatibility Mode 70 databases in SP2

Hi
I would not say that this would be deemed a major issue as it is simple to
write your own maintenance procedures, and there are examples if you search
the web.
It is also recommended that compatibility mode is mainly designed as a
transient part of an upgrade and should not normally be something to be
relied upon long term, unless there is no way you can upgrade change the
database. If the latter is the case then your buisiness may be at risk if you
are relying on such software.
John
"Axel Bender" wrote:

> Hi,
> Does anybody know if the creation of maintenance plans for Compatibility
> Mode 70 databases will be possible with SQL Server 2005 SP2?
> According to what I've heard so far, there is no chance to do that in
> SP0/1 installations of SQL Server 2005 (CM 70 databases won't show up in
> the wizard). I consider this a severe shortcoming in the product, which
> should be tackled by MS.
> Any opinions/workarounds?
>
Hi Axel
I suggest that you ship some standard jobs and procedures that will do this
for them and avoid the maintenance plans.
I don't really have any idea how widespread this issue is how much it would
actually take to implement this additional feature, but I can only assume
that it is not as big an issue as you think or MS is not aware of the
magnitude. If you wish to formally request a response and make them aware of
this issue I would raise a support call.
John
"Axel Bender" wrote:

> Thanks for the answer, John.
> Although I generally agree with you in saying that a compatibility mode
> should not be used on a long-term basis, I have to make some additional
> points on that topic:
> a) We have deployed a lot of CM 70 databases; changing the compatibility
> mode for them would not break our application, but it would give the
> users very slow response times in parts of the app (this is due to the
> change MS made to the query optimizer when it comes to selecting
> indexes). We know we have to make changes to the app, but frankly, we
> simply cannot afford the time for this now.
> b) Most of our customers are not able to write maintenance procedures
> (nor are all of our supporters).
> c) There is no common scheme that our users follow when it comes to
> backing up and checking their databases.
> d) S2k5 supports maintenance plans for CM 80 databases, why not for CM
> 70 ones?
> I think, that supporting CM 70 databases would not be a big deal for MS;
> for us it would be.
> Kind regards,
> Axel
>

Compatibility Mode 70 databases in SP2

Hi,
Does anybody know if the creation of maintenance plans for Compatibility
Mode 70 databases will be possible with SQL Server 2005 SP2?
According to what I've heard so far, there is no chance to do that in
SP0/1 installations of SQL Server 2005 (CM 70 databases won't show up in
the wizard). I consider this a severe shortcoming in the product, which
should be tackled by MS.
Any opinions/workarounds?Hi
I would not say that this would be deemed a major issue as it is simple to
write your own maintenance procedures, and there are examples if you search
the web.
It is also recommended that compatibility mode is mainly designed as a
transient part of an upgrade and should not normally be something to be
relied upon long term, unless there is no way you can upgrade change the
database. If the latter is the case then your buisiness may be at risk if yo
u
are relying on such software.
John
"Axel Bender" wrote:

> Hi,
> Does anybody know if the creation of maintenance plans for Compatibility
> Mode 70 databases will be possible with SQL Server 2005 SP2?
> According to what I've heard so far, there is no chance to do that in
> SP0/1 installations of SQL Server 2005 (CM 70 databases won't show up in
> the wizard). I consider this a severe shortcoming in the product, which
> should be tackled by MS.
> Any opinions/workarounds?
>|||Thanks for the answer, John.
Although I generally agree with you in saying that a compatibility mode
should not be used on a long-term basis, I have to make some additional
points on that topic:
a) We have deployed a lot of CM 70 databases; changing the compatibility
mode for them would not break our application, but it would give the
users very slow response times in parts of the app (this is due to the
change MS made to the query optimizer when it comes to selecting
indexes). We know we have to make changes to the app, but frankly, we
simply cannot afford the time for this now.
b) Most of our customers are not able to write maintenance procedures
(nor are all of our supporters).
c) There is no common scheme that our users follow when it comes to
backing up and checking their databases.
d) S2k5 supports maintenance plans for CM 80 databases, why not for CM
70 ones?
I think, that supporting CM 70 databases would not be a big deal for MS;
for us it would be.
Kind regards,
Axel|||Hi Axel
I suggest that you ship some standard jobs and procedures that will do this
for them and avoid the maintenance plans.
I don't really have any idea how widespread this issue is how much it would
actually take to implement this additional feature, but I can only assume
that it is not as big an issue as you think or MS is not aware of the
magnitude. If you wish to formally request a response and make them aware of
this issue I would raise a support call.
John
"Axel Bender" wrote:

> Thanks for the answer, John.
> Although I generally agree with you in saying that a compatibility mode
> should not be used on a long-term basis, I have to make some additional
> points on that topic:
> a) We have deployed a lot of CM 70 databases; changing the compatibility
> mode for them would not break our application, but it would give the
> users very slow response times in parts of the app (this is due to the
> change MS made to the query optimizer when it comes to selecting
> indexes). We know we have to make changes to the app, but frankly, we
> simply cannot afford the time for this now.
> b) Most of our customers are not able to write maintenance procedures
> (nor are all of our supporters).
> c) There is no common scheme that our users follow when it comes to
> backing up and checking their databases.
> d) S2k5 supports maintenance plans for CM 80 databases, why not for CM
> 70 ones?
> I think, that supporting CM 70 databases would not be a big deal for MS;
> for us it would be.
> Kind regards,
> Axel
>