Create and manage Store Procedures from inside VS

With a local conn to SQL2000 I can edit sprocs no problem, but if I change the connection to a remote computer (to which I have all permissions) I cannot create or manage stored procedures from within VS IDE? Is there a work around?

I noticed that a procedure written for the localhost accepts CREATE PROCEDURE and changes it to ALTER PROCEDURE. When I script the sprocs from my development machine to the server, those scripts with ALTER in them do not work. I change them to CREATE and they work fine.

I haven't found anything yet on MSDN about this, but will continue to look.

Thanks in advance,

_EHi _E

You may have better luck with this question in the SQL Server Tools - General forum.
Allan|||Thanks, I'll try there. Didn't know if it was an IDE or SQL thing.

_E

CPU usage comparison for MS SQL Server 2000

Hi All,

I had two Window NT 4.0 Server, say A and B... We recently upgraded
from MS SQL Server 6.5 to MS SQL Server 2000 on Computer A, and for
Computer B, I installed SQL Server 2000 from scratch. These two have a
same RAM(512MB) and CPU speed...so the setup for hardware is almost
identical...

For server A, there are around 10 connection to this SQL Server...
For server B, there are also around 10 connection to this SQL
Server...

The database for SQL Server B is a copy from SQL Server A... I
restored the database on SQL Server B from the backup dump of Server
A...

We have a store procedure called usp_GetMemo(ID Interger) ... we feed
ID number to this store procedure and return its return Description...
this table has ID column and it's Non-Cluster index, allow the
duplicate row... there are 1.7 million records for this table...

Here is problem... whenever i execute more than 100 times for this
store procedure(usp_GetMemo(ID)) continuously, the CPU usage of
Computer A is 3 times bigger than computer B...

I did run the command "DBCC DBReindex" , "Update Statistics" for this
table on computer A, but did not make any difference...

Keep in mind that Computer A has been upgraded to SQL server 2000
while Computer B installed from scratch... would that make difference
somehow?? Before the upgrading, the CPU usage of computer A is the
same as Computer B...

Any help will be really appreciated,
Thanks alot,
Kim,kct@.emia.com.au (kim) wrote in message news:<5c2c58b.0402011554.3fc49d41@.posting.google.com>...
> Hi All,
> I had two Window NT 4.0 Server, say A and B... We recently upgraded
> from MS SQL Server 6.5 to MS SQL Server 2000 on Computer A, and for
> Computer B, I installed SQL Server 2000 from scratch. These two have a
> same RAM(512MB) and CPU speed...so the setup for hardware is almost
> identical...
> For server A, there are around 10 connection to this SQL Server...
> For server B, there are also around 10 connection to this SQL
> Server...
> The database for SQL Server B is a copy from SQL Server A... I
> restored the database on SQL Server B from the backup dump of Server
> A...
> We have a store procedure called usp_GetMemo(ID Interger) ... we feed
> ID number to this store procedure and return its return Description...
> this table has ID column and it's Non-Cluster index, allow the
> duplicate row... there are 1.7 million records for this table...
> Here is problem... whenever i execute more than 100 times for this
> store procedure(usp_GetMemo(ID)) continuously, the CPU usage of
> Computer A is 3 times bigger than computer B...
> I did run the command "DBCC DBReindex" , "Update Statistics" for this
> table on computer A, but did not make any difference...
> Keep in mind that Computer A has been upgraded to SQL server 2000
> while Computer B installed from scratch... would that make difference
> somehow?? Before the upgrading, the CPU usage of computer A is the
> same as Computer B...
> Any help will be really appreciated,
> Thanks alot,
> Kim,

Have you checked that the database compatibility level of the upgraded
database is set to 80, not 65? See sp_dbcmptlvl in Books Online.

Simon|||In article <60cd0137.0402020716.1800e419@.posting.google.com>,
sql@.hayes.ch says...
> kct@.emia.com.au (kim) wrote in message news:<5c2c58b.0402011554.3fc49d41@.posting.google.com>...
> > Hi All,
> > I had two Window NT 4.0 Server, say A and B... We recently upgraded
> > from MS SQL Server 6.5 to MS SQL Server 2000 on Computer A, and for
> > Computer B, I installed SQL Server 2000 from scratch. These two have a
> > same RAM(512MB) and CPU speed...so the setup for hardware is almost
> > identical...
> > For server A, there are around 10 connection to this SQL Server...
> > For server B, there are also around 10 connection to this SQL
> > Server...
> > The database for SQL Server B is a copy from SQL Server A... I
> > restored the database on SQL Server B from the backup dump of Server
> > A...
> > We have a store procedure called usp_GetMemo(ID Interger) ... we feed
> > ID number to this store procedure and return its return Description...
> > this table has ID column and it's Non-Cluster index, allow the
> > duplicate row... there are 1.7 million records for this table...
> > Here is problem... whenever i execute more than 100 times for this
> > store procedure(usp_GetMemo(ID)) continuously, the CPU usage of
> > Computer A is 3 times bigger than computer B...
> > I did run the command "DBCC DBReindex" , "Update Statistics" for this
> > table on computer A, but did not make any difference...
> > Keep in mind that Computer A has been upgraded to SQL server 2000
> > while Computer B installed from scratch... would that make difference
> > somehow?? Before the upgrading, the CPU usage of computer A is the
> > same as Computer B...
> > Any help will be really appreciated,
> > Thanks alot,
> > Kim,
> Have you checked that the database compatibility level of the upgraded
> database is set to 80, not 65? See sp_dbcmptlvl in Books Online.

On top of that, never do an in-place upgrade, you leave sooo many things
behind when you do that.

There are many things to consider -

Hard drive arrays and cache - Are they the same?

Drive fragmentation? Did you defrag both servers?

Users, not just DB users, but total users on both systems - are they the
same?

Did you set the SQL memory at 400MB fixed or did you allow it to use as
much as it wants? Never allow it to do it on it's own, make sure that
you leave 128MB for the OS to use.

Did you run the maintenance plan on both systems?

--
--
spamfree999@.rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)|||Kim,
I don't think the upgrade is the problem. I think the problem is the
drives in server A. If they are identical drives, configured in the same
format as server B, then try defragging the drive(s) on server A. They have
probably been in use for a while and are probably very fragmented. Make
sure you bring down the database before defragging. Also, recommend you use
a 3rd party defragger like Norton speed disk as the defragger that comes
with Windows doesn't do as good a job.
Hope this helps,
Best regards,
Chuck Conover
www.TechnicalVideos.net

"kim" <kct@.emia.com.au> wrote in message
news:5c2c58b.0402011554.3fc49d41@.posting.google.co m...
> Hi All,
> I had two Window NT 4.0 Server, say A and B... We recently upgraded
> from MS SQL Server 6.5 to MS SQL Server 2000 on Computer A, and for
> Computer B, I installed SQL Server 2000 from scratch. These two have a
> same RAM(512MB) and CPU speed...so the setup for hardware is almost
> identical...
> For server A, there are around 10 connection to this SQL Server...
> For server B, there are also around 10 connection to this SQL
> Server...
> The database for SQL Server B is a copy from SQL Server A... I
> restored the database on SQL Server B from the backup dump of Server
> A...
> We have a store procedure called usp_GetMemo(ID Interger) ... we feed
> ID number to this store procedure and return its return Description...
> this table has ID column and it's Non-Cluster index, allow the
> duplicate row... there are 1.7 million records for this table...
> Here is problem... whenever i execute more than 100 times for this
> store procedure(usp_GetMemo(ID)) continuously, the CPU usage of
> Computer A is 3 times bigger than computer B...
> I did run the command "DBCC DBReindex" , "Update Statistics" for this
> table on computer A, but did not make any difference...
> Keep in mind that Computer A has been upgraded to SQL server 2000
> while Computer B installed from scratch... would that make difference
> somehow?? Before the upgrading, the CPU usage of computer A is the
> same as Computer B...
> Any help will be really appreciated,
> Thanks alot,
> Kim,|||Hi simon,

Thanks alot for your respond...
The database compatibility level for both server is 80...

Thanks again

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||Hi,

Thanks a lot for your respond...

For the Hard drive arrays and cache,How can i check it.. i'm no expert
in hardware stub..

Yeah, for Server A has not been defrag for a while.. Yes, I should do
fragmentation on it...

Thanks a lot
Kim,

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||about the defragmentation, which software is good to degrag Windows NT
4.0 server?

Thanks alot,

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||In article <401edd39$0$70302$75868355@.news.frii.net>, kct@.emia.com.au
says...
> about the defragmentation, which software is good to degrag Windows NT
> 4.0 server?
Diskeeper Server version

--
--
spamfree999@.rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

CPU usage changed after upgrading to MS SQL Server 2000 from MS SQL Server 6.5

Hi All,

I had two Window NT 4.0 Server, say A and B... We recently upgraded from MS SQL Server 6.5 to MS SQL Server 2000 on Computer A, and for Computer B, I installed SQL Server 2000 from scratch. These two have a same RAM(512MB) and CPU speed...so the setup for hardware is almost identical...

For server A, there are around 10 connection to this SQL Server...
For server B, there are also around 10 connection to this SQL Server...

The database for SQL Server B is a copy from SQL Server A... I restored the database on SQL Server B from the backup dump of Server A...

We have a store procedure called usp_GetMemo(ID Interger) ... we feed ID number to this store procedure and return its return Description... this table has ID column and it's Non-Cluster index, allow the duplicate row... there are 1.7 million records for this table...

Here is problem... whenever i execute more than 100 times for this store procedure(usp_GetMemo(ID)) continuously, the CPU usage of Computer A is 3 times bigger than computer B...

I did run the command "DBCC DBReindex" , "Update Statistics" for this table on computer A, but did not make any difference...

Keep in mind that Computer A has been upgraded to SQL server 2000 while Computer B installed from scratch... would that make difference somehow?? Before the upgrading, the CPU usage of computer A is the same as Computer B...

Any help will be really appreciated,
Thanks alot,
Kim,while mentioning the fact that computer A was upgraded, you didn't say anything about the compatibility level of the database on that computer.|||Hi,

Thanks alot for your reply.. the compatibility level for SQL 2000 is 80

Kim,|||you're VERY welcome.

have you checked the execution plan for both databases?|||i'm still baby in SQL 2000, would you please tell me where can i checked the execution plan ?

Thanks,
KIM,|||open query analyzer (2 sessions) and press ctrl-k in both prior to executing the procedure. one of the panes will be called "Execution Plan." there you can see the difference, if any. also right-mouse click anywhere on the command pane of the query window, go to connection options, and set io and cpu statistics on.|||I did not have a chance to look at Execute plan and CPU stats because my boss give me a new task, he want to know whether necessary to run "Update Statistics" after run "DBCC DBreindex". Does "DBCC DBReindex" automaticlly update stats? You mind to answer this question for me... thanks alot...|||updating statistics is part of what dbreindex does, so no need to do it again.