Determine #transaction per second per db

Whats the best method of determining #trans per sec per db in a SQL2000 Enterprise sp3? Thx in adv.Depends on your view of what a transaction is but how about monitoring the
Transactions/Sec counter in Perfmon under SQL Databases.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"LIZ" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2C79D01A-6D04-4D5F-8FE5-2A6C0E1795DA@.microsoft.com...
> Whats the best method of determining #trans per sec per db in a SQL2000
Enterprise sp3? Thx in adv.|||You could also use the transactions even in SQL Profiler, which also
captures the database... You could save the trace into a SQL table and do a
query grouped by database
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"LIZ" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2C79D01A-6D04-4D5F-8FE5-2A6C0E1795DA@.microsoft.com...
> Whats the best method of determining #trans per sec per db in a SQL2000
Enterprise sp3? Thx in adv.sql

Detaching and transaction logs

Hi,
I'm using SQL 7 with database 1 GB and transaction log 4 GB.
I tried everything to shrink the log files but no succeed. I read somewhere
that detaching the database, deleting the log file and then reattaching is
the solution.
Can I be sure that all the data that was in the log file is now in the db
with this process?
Thanks in advance,
Haim Beyhan
As sp_detach_db issues Checkoint command first, this should be safe. But
befor doing this, check the article at
http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/Art...37/14337.html.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
More than just Training
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Haim Beyhan" <haimb@.enigma.com> wrote in message
news:uRU6eyCLEHA.4080@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I'm using SQL 7 with database 1 GB and transaction log 4 GB.
> I tried everything to shrink the log files but no succeed. I read
somewhere
> that detaching the database, deleting the log file and then reattaching is
> the solution.
> Can I be sure that all the data that was in the log file is now in the db
> with this process?
> Thanks in advance,
> Haim Beyhan
>
|||Hi,
Before detaching, can you try this:-
1. Backup the transaction log
Backup log <dbname> to disk='c:\backup\dbname.trn'
2. DBCCSHRINKFILE('logical_log_file_name','truncateon ly')
Ensure that no open transactions are in the database. Check this using DBCC
OPENTRAN('dbname')
If this is not working out, go with Dejan Sarka's suggestion.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Haim Beyhan" <haimb@.enigma.com> wrote in message
news:uRU6eyCLEHA.4080@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I'm using SQL 7 with database 1 GB and transaction log 4 GB.
> I tried everything to shrink the log files but no succeed. I read
somewhere
> that detaching the database, deleting the log file and then reattaching is
> the solution.
> Can I be sure that all the data that was in the log file is now in the db
> with this process?
> Thanks in advance,
> Haim Beyhan
>
|||Thanks for the reply.
Haim
"Dejan Sarka" <dejan_please_reply_to_newsgroups.sarka@.avtenta.si > wrote in
message news:%23bYwx2CLEHA.3880@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> As sp_detach_db issues Checkoint command first, this should be safe. But
> befor doing this, check the article at
> http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/Art...37/14337.html.
> --
> Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
> Associate Mentor
> Solid Quality Learning
> More than just Training
> www.SolidQualityLearning.com
> "Haim Beyhan" <haimb@.enigma.com> wrote in message
> news:uRU6eyCLEHA.4080@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> somewhere
is[vbcol=seagreen]
db
>
|||Thank you for the reply.
I tried your steps and it did not help. then I tried Dejan's suggestion.
The server created a new log file after the database is reattached.
I hope everything is on the db.
Haim
"Hari" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23v4%23dNDLEHA.1120@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Before detaching, can you try this:-
> 1. Backup the transaction log
> Backup log <dbname> to disk='c:\backup\dbname.trn'
> 2. DBCCSHRINKFILE('logical_log_file_name','truncateon ly')
> Ensure that no open transactions are in the database. Check this using
DBCC[vbcol=seagreen]
> OPENTRAN('dbname')
> If this is not working out, go with Dejan Sarka's suggestion.
> Thanks
> Hari
> MCDBA
>
> "Haim Beyhan" <haimb@.enigma.com> wrote in message
> news:uRU6eyCLEHA.4080@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> somewhere
is[vbcol=seagreen]
db
>

Detaching and transaction logs

Hi,
I'm using SQL 7 with database 1 GB and transaction log 4 GB.
I tried everything to shrink the log files but no succeed. I read somewhere
that detaching the database, deleting the log file and then reattaching is
the solution.
Can I be sure that all the data that was in the log file is now in the db
with this process?
Thanks in advance,
Haim BeyhanAs sp_detach_db issues Checkoint command first, this should be safe. But
befor doing this, check the article at
http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/14337/14337.html.
--
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
More than just Training
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Haim Beyhan" <haimb@.enigma.com> wrote in message
news:uRU6eyCLEHA.4080@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I'm using SQL 7 with database 1 GB and transaction log 4 GB.
> I tried everything to shrink the log files but no succeed. I read
somewhere
> that detaching the database, deleting the log file and then reattaching is
> the solution.
> Can I be sure that all the data that was in the log file is now in the db
> with this process?
> Thanks in advance,
> Haim Beyhan
>|||Hi,
Before detaching, can you try this:-
1. Backup the transaction log
Backup log <dbname> to disk='c:\backup\dbname.trn'
2. DBCCSHRINKFILE('logical_log_file_name','truncateonly')
Ensure that no open transactions are in the database. Check this using DBCC
OPENTRAN('dbname')
If this is not working out, go with Dejan Sarka's suggestion.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Haim Beyhan" <haimb@.enigma.com> wrote in message
news:uRU6eyCLEHA.4080@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I'm using SQL 7 with database 1 GB and transaction log 4 GB.
> I tried everything to shrink the log files but no succeed. I read
somewhere
> that detaching the database, deleting the log file and then reattaching is
> the solution.
> Can I be sure that all the data that was in the log file is now in the db
> with this process?
> Thanks in advance,
> Haim Beyhan
>|||Thanks for the reply.
Haim
"Dejan Sarka" <dejan_please_reply_to_newsgroups.sarka@.avtenta.si> wrote in
message news:%23bYwx2CLEHA.3880@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> As sp_detach_db issues Checkoint command first, this should be safe. But
> befor doing this, check the article at
> http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/14337/14337.html.
> --
> Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
> Associate Mentor
> Solid Quality Learning
> More than just Training
> www.SolidQualityLearning.com
> "Haim Beyhan" <haimb@.enigma.com> wrote in message
> news:uRU6eyCLEHA.4080@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm using SQL 7 with database 1 GB and transaction log 4 GB.
> > I tried everything to shrink the log files but no succeed. I read
> somewhere
> > that detaching the database, deleting the log file and then reattaching
is
> > the solution.
> > Can I be sure that all the data that was in the log file is now in the
db
> > with this process?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Haim Beyhan
> >
> >
>|||Thank you for the reply.
I tried your steps and it did not help. then I tried Dejan's suggestion.
The server created a new log file after the database is reattached.
I hope everything is on the db.
Haim
"Hari" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23v4%23dNDLEHA.1120@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Before detaching, can you try this:-
> 1. Backup the transaction log
> Backup log <dbname> to disk='c:\backup\dbname.trn'
> 2. DBCCSHRINKFILE('logical_log_file_name','truncateonly')
> Ensure that no open transactions are in the database. Check this using
DBCC
> OPENTRAN('dbname')
> If this is not working out, go with Dejan Sarka's suggestion.
> Thanks
> Hari
> MCDBA
>
> "Haim Beyhan" <haimb@.enigma.com> wrote in message
> news:uRU6eyCLEHA.4080@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm using SQL 7 with database 1 GB and transaction log 4 GB.
> > I tried everything to shrink the log files but no succeed. I read
> somewhere
> > that detaching the database, deleting the log file and then reattaching
is
> > the solution.
> > Can I be sure that all the data that was in the log file is now in the
db
> > with this process?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Haim Beyhan
> >
> >
>

Detaching and transaction logs

Hi,
I'm using SQL 7 with database 1 GB and transaction log 4 GB.
I tried everything to shrink the log files but no succeed. I read somewhere
that detaching the database, deleting the log file and then reattaching is
the solution.
Can I be sure that all the data that was in the log file is now in the db
with this process?
Thanks in advance,
Haim BeyhanAs sp_detach_db issues Checkoint command first, this should be safe. But
befor doing this, check the article at
http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/Ar...337/14337.html.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
More than just Training
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Haim Beyhan" <haimb@.enigma.com> wrote in message
news:uRU6eyCLEHA.4080@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I'm using SQL 7 with database 1 GB and transaction log 4 GB.
> I tried everything to shrink the log files but no succeed. I read
somewhere
> that detaching the database, deleting the log file and then reattaching is
> the solution.
> Can I be sure that all the data that was in the log file is now in the db
> with this process?
> Thanks in advance,
> Haim Beyhan
>|||Hi,
Before detaching, can you try this:-
1. Backup the transaction log
Backup log <dbname> to disk='c:\backup\dbname.trn'
2. DBCCSHRINKFILE('logical_log_file_name','
truncateonly')
Ensure that no open transactions are in the database. Check this using DBCC
OPENTRAN('dbname')
If this is not working out, go with Dejan Sarka's suggestion.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Haim Beyhan" <haimb@.enigma.com> wrote in message
news:uRU6eyCLEHA.4080@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I'm using SQL 7 with database 1 GB and transaction log 4 GB.
> I tried everything to shrink the log files but no succeed. I read
somewhere
> that detaching the database, deleting the log file and then reattaching is
> the solution.
> Can I be sure that all the data that was in the log file is now in the db
> with this process?
> Thanks in advance,
> Haim Beyhan
>|||Thanks for the reply.
Haim
"Dejan Sarka" <dejan_please_reply_to_newsgroups.sarka@.avtenta.si> wrote in
message news:%23bYwx2CLEHA.3880@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> As sp_detach_db issues Checkoint command first, this should be safe. But
> befor doing this, check the article at
> http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/Ar...337/14337.html.
> --
> Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
> Associate Mentor
> Solid Quality Learning
> More than just Training
> www.SolidQualityLearning.com
> "Haim Beyhan" <haimb@.enigma.com> wrote in message
> news:uRU6eyCLEHA.4080@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> somewhere
is[vbcol=seagreen]
db[vbcol=seagreen]
>|||Thank you for the reply.
I tried your steps and it did not help. then I tried Dejan's suggestion.
The server created a new log file after the database is reattached.
I hope everything is on the db.
Haim
"Hari" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23v4%23dNDLEHA.1120@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Before detaching, can you try this:-
> 1. Backup the transaction log
> Backup log <dbname> to disk='c:\backup\dbname.trn'
> 2. DBCCSHRINKFILE('logical_log_file_name','
truncateonly')
> Ensure that no open transactions are in the database. Check this using
DBCC
> OPENTRAN('dbname')
> If this is not working out, go with Dejan Sarka's suggestion.
> Thanks
> Hari
> MCDBA
>
> "Haim Beyhan" <haimb@.enigma.com> wrote in message
> news:uRU6eyCLEHA.4080@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> somewhere
is[vbcol=seagreen]
db[vbcol=seagreen]
>

Design Question - Tables/Foreign Keys with Potential Arrays of Dat

Hello,
I have a situation where I have a table that may depend on no, one, or
multiple rows of another table for a single Transaction ID, and I'm not sure
how to design it.
Here is a simpler version of my schema:
CREATE TABLE MyTransactionTable
(
ID INTEGER IDENTITY NOT NULL,
Name VARCHAR(40),
SomeData INTEGER,
TransType INTEGER,
CONSTRAINT PK_TransTable PRIMARY KEY(ID),
CONSTRAINT FK_TransTableType(TransType) REFERENCES TransactionTypes(ID),
CONSTRAINT FK_SomeDataTable(ID) REFERENCES SomeDataTable(ID)
)
CREATE TABLE TransactionTypes
(
ID INTEGER IDENTITY NOT NULL,
Description VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,
Priority INTEGER DEFAULT 0,
CONSTRAINT PK_TransactionTypes PRIMARY KEY (ID)
)
CREATE TABLE SomeDataTable
(
ID INTEGER IDENTITY NOT NULL,
SomeData VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT PK_SomeDataTable PRIMARY KEY (ID)
)
The problem is, I want a single row in MyTransactionTable that references 0,
1, or more rows in the SomeDataTable.
Thanks,
PAGatesWhy do you "...want a single row in MyTransactionTable that references 0, 1,
or more rows in the SomeDataTable"? That's not a normalized design.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"pagates" <pagates@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:722D2991-CAC4-4F02-BBAE-DDCFF1DE763C@.microsoft.com...
Hello,
I have a situation where I have a table that may depend on no, one, or
multiple rows of another table for a single Transaction ID, and I'm not sure
how to design it.
Here is a simpler version of my schema:
CREATE TABLE MyTransactionTable
(
ID INTEGER IDENTITY NOT NULL,
Name VARCHAR(40),
SomeData INTEGER,
TransType INTEGER,
CONSTRAINT PK_TransTable PRIMARY KEY(ID),
CONSTRAINT FK_TransTableType(TransType) REFERENCES TransactionTypes(ID),
CONSTRAINT FK_SomeDataTable(ID) REFERENCES SomeDataTable(ID)
)
CREATE TABLE TransactionTypes
(
ID INTEGER IDENTITY NOT NULL,
Description VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,
Priority INTEGER DEFAULT 0,
CONSTRAINT PK_TransactionTypes PRIMARY KEY (ID)
)
CREATE TABLE SomeDataTable
(
ID INTEGER IDENTITY NOT NULL,
SomeData VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT PK_SomeDataTable PRIMARY KEY (ID)
)
The problem is, I want a single row in MyTransactionTable that references 0,
1, or more rows in the SomeDataTable.
Thanks,
PAGates|||pagates wrote:
> CREATE TABLE SomeDataTable
> (
> ID INTEGER IDENTITY NOT NULL,
> SomeData VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
> CONSTRAINT PK_SomeDataTable PRIMARY KEY (ID)
> )
> The problem is, I want a single row in MyTransactionTable that references
0,
> 1, or more rows in the SomeDataTable.
>
Add the Transaction ID to SomeDataTable as a foreign key.
As specified your table design is weak because you don't have any
alternate keys. IDENTITY is not a uniqueness constraint and it
shouldn't be the only key of a table.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||First you need relational keys instead of IDENTITY columns. You also
need to read a book on data modeling, so you will quit using vague data
element names. I will make a guess that transactions are really keyed
by a timestamp and a user id of some kind.
CREATE TABLE MyTransactions
(trans_timestamp DATETIME DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP NOT NULL,
user_name VARCHAR(40) NOT NULL,
foobar_id INTEGER NOT NULL
REFERENCES SomeData(foobar_id),
trans_type INTEGER NOT NULL
REFERENCES TransactionTypes(trans_type),
PRIMARY KEY (trans_timestamp, user_name)
);
CREATE TABLE TransactionTypes
(trans_type INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
trans_type_description VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,
trans_priority INTEGER DEFAULT 0 NOT NULL
CHECK (trans_priority >= 0));
CREATE TABLE SomeData
(foobar_id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
vague_stuff VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
.);
1, or more rows in the SomeDataTable. <<
Then you need a table with this relationship. Here is one way to keep
the cardinality of the relation in the 1 to 3 range:
CREATE TABLE SomeData
(trans_timestamp DATETIME NOT NULL,
user_name VARCHAR(40),
FOREIGN KEY (trans_timestamp, user_name)
REFERENCES MyTransactions (trans_timestamp, user_name)
ON DELETE CASCADE
ON UPDATE CASCADE,
foobar_id INTEGER NOT NULL
references SomeData(foobar_id),
seq_nbr INTEGER DEFAULT 1 NOT NULL
CHECK (seq_nbr IN (1, 2, 3)),
PRIMARY KEY (trans_timestamp, user_name, seq_nbr));

Design Problem...Please Help!

Hi,

I'm designing a simple database for filing system:

There are two levels of files (both look_up tables):
tlkpFile1, tlkpSubFile1 and a transaction table, tblFilings, for
filings (when documents ready for filings, user just pick the file name
from either look-up tables and insert to this table). tlkpSubFile1
includes files that are sub files from the files in tlkpFile1.

The design I have come-up with is like this:

tlkpFile1: tlkpSubFile1:
ID(PK) Name_File1 ID (PK) Name(FK_File1) Name_File2

1 Departmetns 1 Departments Marketing
2 Sales 2 Departments IT
3 Sales Jan
3 Sales Feb

My question is how should I design the tblFilings (transaction table)
with respect to those two look-up tables?? I'm thinking to have a
field, FiledIn, which will have a many-many relationship with both
fields in the look-up tables (Name_File1 and Name_File2)

tblFilings:
ID(PK) FiledIn

1 Sales **this from tlkpFile1
2 IT **this from tlkpSubFile1

MTIA,
GrawshaIf there are only two levels of parent and sub file then it looks like
you could do it with something like the following. This is based mainly
on my own assumptions. You are in a much better position than I to
understand your requirements.

CREATE TABLE Files (file_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, file_name VARCHAR(20)
NOT NULL UNIQUE, parent_file_id INTEGER NULL REFERENCES Files
(file_id))

CREATE TABLE Filing (file_id INTEGER REFERENCES Files (file_id))

Forget the concept of "lookup tables". Good database designers don't
recognize such a thing. All entities are treated as equal in the
relational model and there is only one type of table. Also, practically
everyone hates "tbl" prefixes on tables. They only make the name harder
to read and everyone will think you are an Access programmer ;-).

--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Thanks david,

This is what I want. Now, If want to add one more sub_sub level table
(its one-many relationship to tlkpSubFile1), do I need to modify the
design? I did test the table (the new one )and found it ok, unless I'm
missing something. Please help.

MTIA,
Grawsha|||You should be OK with the design of the Files table to represent the
hierarchy as long as the maximum number of hierarchy levels is know.
For a hierarchy of unknown maximum depth it doesn't work so well
because there isn't a set-based way to relate all levels of the tree in
a single query.

--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||>> For a hierarchy of unknown maximum depth it doesn't work so well
because there isn't a set-based way to relate all levels of the tree in
a single query. <<

That is what a nested set model does. The levels are determined by
(rgt-lft), with a larger difference meaning a higher level and 1 being
a leaf node.|||"--CELKO--" <jcelko212@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1113744841.378154.150910@.z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> >> For a hierarchy of unknown maximum depth it doesn't work so well
> because there isn't a set-based way to relate all levels of the tree in
> a single query. <<
> That is what a nested set model does. The levels are determined by
> (rgt-lft), with a larger difference meaning a higher level and 1 being
> a leaf node.

True, or soon through recursion via a recursive WITH, a set-based,
declarative, Standard-compliant (since SQL:1999), and portable
(already provided by DB2 and Oracle) form which we'll finally (!)
see in SQL Server 2005. This is not to say that I wouldn't prefer
a nested-set-model approach still in many cases, I would, but the
possibilities with a recursive WITH are interesting for those wanting
to both keep it relationally pure and computationally more complete.
And, yes, I do mean in addition to tree algorithms.

--
JAG|||>> This is not to say that I wouldn't prefer a nested-set-model
approach still in many cases, I would, but the
possibilities with a recursive WITH are interesting for those wanting
to both keep it relationally pure and computationally more complete.
And, yes, I do mean in addition to tree algorithms. <<

I don't like CTE for trees because it is a loop that runs under the
covers and gets expensive when you do a WITH RECURSION. But to use it
for creating a VIEW on the fly to avoid repeating a derived table over
and over is really handy:

WITH (<<horrible complex query>> ) AS X (..)
SELECT X1.a, X2.a, ...
FROM X AS X1, X AS X2
WHERE X1.foo_date = X2.foo_date - INTERVAL '1' DAY;|||"--CELKO--" <jcelko212@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1113751194.601691.268940@.o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> >> This is not to say that I wouldn't prefer a nested-set-model
> approach still in many cases, I would, but the
> possibilities with a recursive WITH are interesting for those wanting
> to both keep it relationally pure and computationally more complete.
> And, yes, I do mean in addition to tree algorithms. <<
> I don't like CTE for trees because it is a loop that runs under the
> covers and gets expensive when you do a WITH RECURSION. But to use it
> for creating a VIEW on the fly to avoid repeating a derived table over
> and over is really handy:
> WITH (<<horrible complex query>> ) AS X (..)
> SELECT X1.a, X2.a, ...
> FROM X AS X1, X AS X2
> WHERE X1.foo_date = X2.foo_date - INTERVAL '1' DAY;

With respect to tree queries, sure, there might be practical efficiency
considerations for substituting recursion for a node numbering scheme
like the nested set model. And, for what it does, it's simple and clever.
However, as more is demanded of a query language, pushing it towards
computational completeness, a cornerstone of this is the ability to loop,
as required by Turing completeness. Think now not about tree queries
but about such things as graph algorithms like shortest path or combinatorial
algorithms like all subsets of integers whose sum equals some value (with
no a priori upper bound on the cardinality of such sets). So given the
ultimate necessity to loop, one can loop imperatively (control statements in
T-SQL or SQL PSM) or loop declaratively using recursion (recursive WITH),
the latter being more compatible with the high-level declarative nature of the
relational model and SQL.

--
JAG

Design Help - How to get the Best Design

Dear Experts
Originally in about 1986/87 I was a cobol programmer and was used to doing
things the Master Transaction way. After a long gap i am currently in a
situation of
working with SQL Server 7.0 but somehow i feel my design leans on Master
Transaction Style where i increment the balance in master after every
transaction. MY Question is As Follows:
1. What is the yard stick for a great DB Design.?
2. What kind of Book Should i Read?
3. Any Pointers and Help on Database Design Sample or
courses i can take would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance and i apologize for this post if it is not in the right
forum.
Manish
Three Cheers to Technet for the Help!
Look at
http://www.databaseanswers.org/data_models/index.htm
for some samples:
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
"Manish Sawjiani" <ManishSawjiani@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:27506C1E-A756-4506-AF2D-368E757A82B5@.microsoft.com...
> Dear Experts
> Originally in about 1986/87 I was a cobol programmer and was used to doing
> things the Master Transaction way. After a long gap i am currently in a
> situation of
> working with SQL Server 7.0 but somehow i feel my design leans on Master
> Transaction Style where i increment the balance in master after every
> transaction. MY Question is As Follows:
> 1. What is the yard stick for a great DB Design.?
> 2. What kind of Book Should i Read?
> 3. Any Pointers and Help on Database Design Sample or
> courses i can take would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks in Advance and i apologize for this post if it is not in the right
> forum.
> Manish
>
> --
> Three Cheers to Technet for the Help!

Design Help - How to get the Best Design

Dear Experts
Originally in about 1986/87 I was a cobol programmer and was used to doing
things the Master Transaction way. After a long gap i am currently in a
situation of
working with SQL Server 7.0 but somehow i feel my design leans on Master
Transaction Style where i increment the balance in master after every
transaction. MY Question is As Follows:
1. What is the yard stick for a great DB Design.?
2. What kind of Book Should i Read?
3. Any Pointers and Help on Database Design Sample or
courses i can take would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance and i apologize for this post if it is not in the right
forum.
Manish
--
Three Cheers to Technet for the Help!Look at
http://www.databaseanswers.org/data_models/index.htm
for some samples:
--
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
--
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--
"Manish Sawjiani" <ManishSawjiani@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:27506C1E-A756-4506-AF2D-368E757A82B5@.microsoft.com...
> Dear Experts
> Originally in about 1986/87 I was a cobol programmer and was used to doing
> things the Master Transaction way. After a long gap i am currently in a
> situation of
> working with SQL Server 7.0 but somehow i feel my design leans on Master
> Transaction Style where i increment the balance in master after every
> transaction. MY Question is As Follows:
> 1. What is the yard stick for a great DB Design.?
> 2. What kind of Book Should i Read?
> 3. Any Pointers and Help on Database Design Sample or
> courses i can take would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks in Advance and i apologize for this post if it is not in the right
> forum.
> Manish
>
> --
> Three Cheers to Technet for the Help!

Design Help - How to get the Best Design

Dear Experts
Originally in about 1986/87 I was a cobol programmer and was used to doing
things the Master Transaction way. After a long gap i am currently in a
situation of
working with SQL Server 7.0 but somehow i feel my design leans on Master
Transaction Style where i increment the balance in master after every
transaction. MY Question is As Follows:
1. What is the yard stick for a great DB Design.?
2. What kind of Book Should i Read?
3. Any Pointers and Help on Database Design Sample or
courses i can take would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance and i apologize for this post if it is not in the right
forum.
Manish
Three Cheers to technet for the Help!Look at
http://www.databaseanswers.org/data_models/index.htm
for some samples:
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
--
"Manish Sawjiani" <ManishSawjiani@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:27506C1E-A756-4506-AF2D-368E757A82B5@.microsoft.com...
> Dear Experts
> Originally in about 1986/87 I was a cobol programmer and was used to doing
> things the Master Transaction way. After a long gap i am currently in a
> situation of
> working with SQL Server 7.0 but somehow i feel my design leans on Master
> Transaction Style where i increment the balance in master after every
> transaction. MY Question is As Follows:
> 1. What is the yard stick for a great DB Design.?
> 2. What kind of Book Should i Read?
> 3. Any Pointers and Help on Database Design Sample or
> courses i can take would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks in Advance and i apologize for this post if it is not in the right
> forum.
> Manish
>
> --
> Three Cheers to technet for the Help!