Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase «««123

Resource Database Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:32 PM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:11 PM
Points: 5,571, Visits: 24,767
Cliff Jones (5/31/2012)
EL Jerry (5/31/2012)
Thank you for the question, Ron.

I also got the right answers by elimination of the first 2 false statements.

"El" Jerry.


+1 but like Tom I was wondering about the 32767. Didn't seem like a logical choice for an ID but knew the other 2 were wrong.

Go back to the very first days of Microsoft when they were working for IBM to develop a relational DB. In those days, Cobol and Fortran were perhaps the 2 most used languages in computing (outside of the basic Assembly language used by IBM to develop their operating system). In those days 18K of memory was huge. Indirect addressing of memory had yet to be developed, with all those restrictions the largest value that could stored in 16 bits was 32767. So, I am only guessing, that someone at MS with a long memory picked it as the value least likely to create a problem. No facts to back up my assumption, a pure guess on my part, take it for what it is worth .... which of course could be nothing. If you are curious enough use google to look up the IBM 900 or 901 model to learn what the "good old days" of computing were.


If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.

Ron

Please help us, help you -before posting a question please read

Before posting a performance problem please read
Post #1309386
Posted Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:44 PM
Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, July 25, 2014 3:38 PM
Points: 3,786, Visits: 1,086
bitbucket-25253 (5/31/2012)
Cliff Jones (5/31/2012)
EL Jerry (5/31/2012)
Thank you for the question, Ron.

I also got the right answers by elimination of the first 2 false statements.

"El" Jerry.


+1 but like Tom I was wondering about the 32767. Didn't seem like a logical choice for an ID but knew the other 2 were wrong.

Go back to the very first days of Microsoft when they were working for IBM to develop a relational DB. In those days, Cobol and Fortran were perhaps the 2 most used languages in computing (outside of the basic Assembly language used by IBM to develop their operating system). In those days 18K of memory was huge. Indirect addressing of memory had yet to be developed, with all those restrictions the largest value that could stored in 16 bits was 32767. So, I am only guessing, that someone at MS with a long memory picked it as the value least likely to create a problem. No facts to back up my assumption, a pure guess on my part, take it for what it is worth .... which of course could be nothing. If you are curious enough use google to look up the IBM 900 or 901 model to learn what the "good old days" of computing were.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Back in the good old days of GW-BASIC the highest line number a program could have was precisely 32767.

"El" Jerry


"El" Jerry.

"A watt of Ottawa" - Gerardo Galvan
Post #1309401
Posted Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:59 PM
SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:35 PM
Points: 5,975, Visits: 12,881
the maximum number of databases per instance is 32767, therefore the maximum DBID = 32767, I would say thats the reason this number was chosen for the resource database, its as far out of the way of potential user database dbids as you can get.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #1309409
Posted Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:11 PM
Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, July 24, 2014 7:30 AM
Points: 3,871, Visits: 3,621
george sibbald (5/31/2012)
the maximum number of databases per instance is 32767, therefore the maximum DBID = 32767, I would say thats the reason this number was chosen for the resource database, its as far out of the way of potential user database dbids as you can get.


If I were using a sequence or an identity to implement new database ID's then 0 would be out of the way. That's what I was thinking was illogical.
Post #1309417
Posted Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:19 PM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:11 PM
Points: 5,571, Visits: 24,767
EL Jerry (5/31/2012)
bitbucket-25253 (5/31/2012)
Cliff Jones (5/31/2012)
EL Jerry (5/31/2012)
Thank you for the question, Ron.

I also got the right answers by elimination of the first 2 false statements.

"El" Jerry.


+1 but like Tom I was wondering about the 32767. Didn't seem like a logical choice for an ID but knew the other 2 were wrong.

Go back to the very first days of Microsoft when they were working for IBM to develop a relational DB. In those days, Cobol and Fortran were perhaps the 2 most used languages in computing (outside of the basic Assembly language used by IBM to develop their operating system). In those days 18K of memory was huge. Indirect addressing of memory had yet to be developed, with all those restrictions the largest value that could stored in 16 bits was 32767. So, I am only guessing, that someone at MS with a long memory picked it as the value least likely to create a problem. No facts to back up my assumption, a pure guess on my part, take it for what it is worth .... which of course could be nothing. If you are curious enough use google to look up the IBM 900 or 901 model to learn what the "good old days" of computing were.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Back in the good old days of GW-BASIC the highest line number a program could have was precisely 32767.

"El" Jerry

The restriction was the fact that 16 bits (remember 1 bit was reserved - in most systems the high order bit - numbering being from right to left - was reserved to indicate when set that the number was negative, if not set the number was of course positive. So GW-BASIC was limited by memory construction.. the chips themselves ..

Boy oh boy this is taking me down memory lane to the days long past. When Hewlett Packard computers .. first model a 2116C, no hard drive, data read in and output using punched paper tape. An IBM 1401 using a RAMAC hard drive ... drive consisted of multiple platters each about 3 foot in diameter, stacked in a vertical housing standing about 6 ft tall, read / write heads (1 set) driven from platter to platter using of all things a steering gear shaft from a Ford motor vehicle. to raise and lower the heads to the required disc platter. Language used know as auto-coder ... but it did have its bright spots .. got chewed out for a printer miss alinement of its print heads by Admiral Rickover the founder of the U.S. nuclear navy and his people developing the first nuc submarine ... The one individual I wish I had the good fortune to meet, but never did was Adm Grace Hopper the founder of COBOL, (an acronym for Common Business Orientated Language ).

Well enough of the so called Good Old Days.


If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.

Ron

Please help us, help you -before posting a question please read

Before posting a performance problem please read
Post #1309424
Posted Friday, June 1, 2012 1:01 AM


SSChampion

SSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampion

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:29 AM
Points: 13,266, Visits: 10,143
Nice question, thanks.



How to post forum questions.
Need an answer? No, you need a question.
What’s the deal with Excel & SSIS?

Member of LinkedIn. My blog at LessThanDot.

MCSA SQL Server 2012 - MCSE Business Intelligence
Post #1309522
Posted Monday, June 4, 2012 7:52 PM
SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, April 27, 2014 7:45 PM
Points: 1,589, Visits: 253
Good question. Thanks for submitting.

http://brittcluff.blogspot.com/
Post #1310898
Posted Thursday, August 9, 2012 8:49 AM
SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:42 PM
Points: 424, Visits: 55
Nice question!
Post #1342714
Posted Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:13 AM
Mr or Mrs. 500

Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:57 AM
Points: 519, Visits: 73
A Very good addition in the post.
Post #1524477
Posted Thursday, January 30, 2014 5:36 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 1:01 AM
Points: 6, Visits: 78
Does that mean that if one replaces resource db files of 2008R2 server with 2008, SQL would be rolled back to 2008 server? Or the roll back using resource database applies only to Service Packs.
Post #1536271
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase «««123

Permissions Expand / Collapse