|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:46 PM
Points: 193,
Visits: 327
|
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Addicted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:43 PM
Points: 407,
Visits: 73
|
|
Hi I am unable to find the sp or command like sp_update_schedule i have searched it in sql 2005 & 2000 but there is no procedure with this name
i got the procedure sp_update_jobschedule with @name parameter
Regards,
Yousaf khan
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:46 PM
Points: 193,
Visits: 327
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ten Centuries
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 20, 2013 4:06 PM
Points: 1,409,
Visits: 2,027
|
|
Good question!
Jason Shadonix MCTS, SQL 2005
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:46 PM
Points: 193,
Visits: 327
|
|
Thanks Jason. And yes, it IS addictive. I can't get enough of this site.
|
|
|
|
|
SSCommitted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:03 PM
Points: 1,563,
Visits: 1,718
|
|
another good question with bad answer choices unfortunately.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178560(SQL.90).aspx says: "sp_update_jobschedule is provided for backward compatibility only" so it still works, just Microsoft in their infinite wisdom decided to change it along with a number of other low level plumbing items in SQL Server between 2000 and 2005. Seeing how many people selected sp_update_jobschedue looks like I'm not the only one who fell into the trap, and I try not to cheat when answering these questions, just go on the knowledge that's already in my head.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:46 PM
Points: 193,
Visits: 327
|
|
The point of the question was to get folks to learn about the fact that while sp_update_jobschedule is available, it is not the best answer, as it is only available for backward compatibility purposes. That's why the question included the critical phrase "(even beyond SQL Server 2008)", which was intended to trigger the notion that a change is in the air.
Chris, folks on my team had the same reaction, so I've been expecting this for a few weeks. I really appreciate the feedback. And as someone who has also felt "duped" by bad answer choices, I am wholly appreciative of your concerns. However, I hope you'll agree that the ability to manipulate schedules independent of jobs is a great feature in SQL Server 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
SSCarpal Tunnel
       
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 1:35 AM
Points: 4,789,
Visits: 1,336
|
|
After a long time a excellent question... :)
|
|
|
|
|
UDP Broadcaster
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:57 PM
Points: 1,491,
Visits: 3,008
|
|
Good question, pointing out the change in stored procedure name.
Not to sound as though a direct update of system tables ever would be a good idea, I do wonder if updating msdb.dbo.sysjobschedules.next_run_time would have made the job run at 21:00. Again, I ask only for insight as to the under-the-hood operation of the scheduler.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Dedicated
           
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 10:52 AM
Points: 31,431,
Visits: 13,740
|
|
jdshabat has a great point in that he devised the question to show the change.
Chris, you are tackling the questions correctly, use your memory and see if you know. However if you get it wrong, it's not a competition in that you aren't competent. It's a competition in that if you know the trivia here, you get it right.
I doubt many people know this, but the point of the QOD here is to bring it to your attention that this proc has been introduced as the new way to manage schedules.
Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest
 Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
|
|
|
|