Views

SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.

Popular Topics

Home

Members

Calendar

Who's On

Home » Article Discussions » Article Discussions by Author » Discuss Content Posted by Steve Jones » Views

13 posts, Page 1 of 2

1 2 »»

Views

Rate Topic

Display Mode

Topic Options

Author

Message

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

Posted Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:33 PM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 3:19 PM
Points: 31,526, Visits: 13,863

Comments posted to this topic are about the item Views

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help

Post #618362

henrik staun poulsen

Posted Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:53 PM

Ten Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 2:11 AM
Points: 1,142, Visits: 866

except if you use a Table Value UDF (User Defined Function), as this example shows:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Dynamic+SQL/65154/

Best regards,
Henrik Staun Poulsen
www.stovi.com

Post #618403

Shaun McGuile

Posted Friday, December 12, 2008 2:42 AM

Mr or Mrs. 500

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:20 AM
Points: 583, Visits: 1,060

9% chose 30,000 - these people should not be anywhere near a keyboard never mind a database. :D

31% picked 1024 - These people have no google skills. :D

54% - got it right which implies, as I was one of them, that I know more than some people.;)

6% - went for 32 these I would forgive for trying to be sensible. Like who adds more than 32 tables to a query - typing the SQL for the joins would be so fraught with risk.:P

Well we should all realise that putting 256 tables into a Select is a bad idea to start with anyway....

Does putting 20 tables into a view and then using 20 such views count as 400 tables or just 20?

--Shaun

Hiding under a desk from SSIS Implemenation Work Crazy

Post #618453

Arshad Ali-556241

Posted Friday, December 12, 2008 5:42 AM

Valued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, June 07, 2013 1:23 PM
Points: 64, Visits: 182

More details on "Maximum Capacity Specifications for SQL Server" can be found on the below given link:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx

With Thanks and Regards
Arshad Ali
Microsoft India

My Blog - http://arshadali.blogspot.com/

Post #618530

Scott Arendt

Posted Friday, December 12, 2008 6:55 AM

Hall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 6:55 AM
Points: 3,061, Visits: 1,268

Shaun McGuile (12/12/2008)

Does putting 20 tables into a view and then using 20 such views count as 400 tables or just 20?

In SQL Server 2000 (not sure about 2005 or 2008), it would count as 400. We used to have tables for each month and then views that covered an entire year and I would run into the limit often when trying to pull some data from them.

Scott

Post #618555

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

Posted Friday, December 12, 2008 7:44 AM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 3:19 PM
Points: 31,526, Visits: 13,863

Actually that's a distribution I would expect. this is a trivia question/answer, and unless you'd read Henrik's article the other day, it would be easy to have 1024, a logical number, or 30,000 stick in your head.

30,000 has been thrown around a lot as its' the limit for sparse columns, someone might remember reading that.

1024, lots of 1024 limits in computing.

32 nesting levels in a trigger, might get confused, but that seems like a low, albeit more practical to read, number of tables in a trigger.

You can google if you want for answers, but it somewhat defeats the idea. You know it or you don't. If you google, then you are semi-cheating yourself on the score.

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help

Post #618608

Jerry Hung

Posted Friday, December 12, 2008 9:52 AM

Right there with Babe

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 1:56 PM
Points: 769, Visits: 1,167

I guessed wrong (1024), such a natural number.... :P

It's really a trivia. no Google beforehand

I still remember the discussion about max # of nonclustered indexes (which is 249), and how Microsoft came to that number is just... unknown. It's not 256, or 255.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189280(SQL.90).aspx

The maximum number of nonclustered indexes that can be created per table is 249.

SQLServerNewbie

MCITP: Database Administrator SQL Server 2005

Post #618721

Shaun McGuile

Posted Monday, December 15, 2008 2:56 AM

Mr or Mrs. 500

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:20 AM
Points: 583, Visits: 1,060

My Total guess =

1 Clustered + 249 Non Clustered + 6 spare slots (for internal use) = 256 indexes :D

How's that sound Jerry?

--Shaun

Hiding under a desk from SSIS Implemenation Work Crazy

Post #619442

Anipaul

Posted Monday, December 15, 2008 3:38 AM

SSCarpal Tunnel

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 5:01 AM
Points: 4,814, Visits: 1,343

Actually you can guess with the options. There should have been options with 128 and 512 which would make this question more interesting.

Post #619455

Jon Summers

Posted Monday, January 04, 2010 4:55 AM

SSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, November 03, 2012 7:41 AM
Points: 449, Visits: 41

Books OnLine for 2008:
Tables per SELECT statement : Limited only by available resources

Regards, Jon Summers

Post #841385

« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

13 posts, Page 1 of 2

1 2 »»

Permissions