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 12345»»»

SQL Server 2005 Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Wednesday, May 7, 2008 9:19 PM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, February 21, 2013 2:41 AM
Points: 271, Visits: 97
Comments posted to this topic are about the item SQL Server 2005
Post #496827
Posted Wednesday, May 7, 2008 9:40 PM
SSC-Addicted

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

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:47 AM
Points: 488, Visits: 404
There seems to be a conflict in the documentation about what constitutes a "database". Seems that Resource is a *special* system database. Whether it's truly a system database is debatable ...
So I reckon Resource is *not* a system database using following logic:

* SQL Server 2005 BOL ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/tsqlref9/html/60a93880-62f1-4eda-a886-f046706ba90c.htm states for sys.sysdatabases
"Contains one row for each database in an instance of Microsoft SQL Server 2005. When SQL Server is first installed, sysdatabases contains entries for the master, model, msdb, and tempdb databases."
No Resource there.

* Also, trying the following in studio
use msdb
use tempdb
use Resource
use master
it failed with:
"Could not locate entry in sysdatabases for database 'Resource'. No entry found with that name. Make sure that the name is entered correctly."
----
So if it doesn't look like a duck and can't quack like a duck, I reckon it's not a duck.
Post #496834
Posted Wednesday, May 7, 2008 11:19 PM


SSC-Insane

SSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-Insane

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:34 PM
Points: 23,343, Visits: 32,079
True, the Resource database is not listed in sys.databases; however, the documentation does refer to it as a special, read-only database that must be located in the same directory as the master database and that the objects contained are viewed thru the sys schema.

It is a system database.




Lynn Pettis

For better assistance in answering your questions, click here
For tips to get better help with Performance Problems, click here
For Running Totals and its variations, click here or when working with partitioned tables
For more about Tally Tables, click here
For more about Cross Tabs and Pivots, click here and here
Managing Transaction Logs

SQL Musings from the Desert Fountain Valley SQL (My Mirror Blog)
Post #496861
Posted Thursday, May 8, 2008 1:23 AM
SSC Eights!

SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, May 9, 2014 8:31 AM
Points: 861, Visits: 544

From a SQL Server Errorlog during startup :-

Starting up database 'mssqlsystemresource'.

The question is wrong - 'mssqlsystemresource' could be referred to as a system database, and I think there are arguments for and against that...

But there's no such database as 'resource'.

The question is misleading\incorrect.



Post #496906
Posted Thursday, May 8, 2008 1:30 AM
SSC-Addicted

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

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, May 25, 2012 8:08 AM
Points: 496, Visits: 508
Resourse database is not system database available directly so the answer is wrong. Correct answer should be master,model,msdb and tempdb only!
Post #496910
Posted Thursday, May 8, 2008 2:01 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 22, 2014 12:47 AM
Points: 2,840, Visits: 3,872
The question is correct.
And the provided link should be evidence enough.


Best Regards,
Chris Büttner
Post #496926
Posted Thursday, May 8, 2008 2:27 AM
SSC-Addicted

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

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:47 AM
Points: 488, Visits: 404
Christian Buettner (5/8/2008)
...
And the provided link should be evidence enough.

To take the first bit of evidence presented and then dismiss all other evidence that disagrees is a bit one-eyed. If I had submitted the Q and excluded Resource as system database with the evidence of my BOL link, would that link then be "evidence enough" to say that it isn't one?
The provided link is prima facie evidence, but conflicting evidence is now being presented.
The discussion seems to centring around "what makes a system database, and what name would it called by?"
The BOL has contradictory statements in it (surprise!). I have provided BOL and empirical evidence that it fails to be a system database. Others also have submitted info both for and against the Q's stance. Weigh up the evidence, yes; argue against it even. But please, don't dismiss it just because it disagrees with someone's viewpoint; you have to have a better reason than that.
Post #496938
Posted Thursday, May 8, 2008 2:28 AM


SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 14, 2014 8:55 AM
Points: 216, Visits: 1,361
And also the following link http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190940.aspx

Plus, Henderson K (2007), SQL Server 2005 Practical Troubleshooting The Database Engine, pp51-52.
Post #496939
Posted Thursday, May 8, 2008 2:29 AM
SSC Eights!

SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, April 14, 2014 6:47 AM
Points: 967, Visits: 450
I am not sure if resource is a system database. From the article in the question it does not cement the answer that resource is a system database.

Prasad Bhogadi
www.inforaise.com
Post #496940
Posted Thursday, May 8, 2008 2:52 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 22, 2014 12:47 AM
Points: 2,840, Visits: 3,872
brewmanz.sqlservercentral (5/8/2008)
Christian Buettner (5/8/2008)
...
And the provided link should be evidence enough.

To take the first bit of evidence presented and then dismiss all other evidence that disagrees is a bit one-eyed. If I had submitted the Q and excluded Resource as system database with the evidence of my BOL link, would that link then be "evidence enough" to say that it isn't one?
The provided link is prima facie evidence, but conflicting evidence is now being presented.
The discussion seems to centring around "what makes a system database, and what name would it called by?"
The BOL has contradictory statements in it (surprise!). I have provided BOL and empirical evidence that it fails to be a system database. Others also have submitted info both for and against the Q's stance. Weigh up the evidence, yes; argue against it even. But please, don't dismiss it just because it disagrees with someone's viewpoint; you have to have a better reason than that.

Hello brewmanz,

I agree, that the missing info about the resource database can be misleading in the link you provided.
But be honest: The article provided by the QOTD explicitly defines system databases. Your link does NOT explicitly define system databases. It only explains the compatibility view.
Therefore to me it is pretty clear that the resource database IS a system database.


Best Regards,
Chris Büttner
Post #496948
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 12345»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse