SQL Clone
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 


SQL Server 2005


SQL Server 2005

Author
Message
ginni.sinha
ginni.sinha
SSC Veteran
SSC Veteran (279 reputation)SSC Veteran (279 reputation)SSC Veteran (279 reputation)SSC Veteran (279 reputation)SSC Veteran (279 reputation)SSC Veteran (279 reputation)SSC Veteran (279 reputation)SSC Veteran (279 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 279 Visits: 97
Comments posted to this topic are about the item SQL Server 2005
brewmanz
brewmanz
Mr or Mrs. 500
Mr or Mrs. 500 (561 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (561 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (561 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (561 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (561 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (561 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (561 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (561 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 561 Visits: 406
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.
Lynn Pettis
Lynn Pettis
SSC-Forever
SSC-Forever (40K reputation)SSC-Forever (40K reputation)SSC-Forever (40K reputation)SSC-Forever (40K reputation)SSC-Forever (40K reputation)SSC-Forever (40K reputation)SSC-Forever (40K reputation)SSC-Forever (40K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 40136 Visits: 38567
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.

Cool

Cool
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)
stevehindmarsh
stevehindmarsh
SSC Eights!
SSC Eights! (916 reputation)SSC Eights! (916 reputation)SSC Eights! (916 reputation)SSC Eights! (916 reputation)SSC Eights! (916 reputation)SSC Eights! (916 reputation)SSC Eights! (916 reputation)SSC Eights! (916 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 916 Visits: 584
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.



abhijeetv
abhijeetv
Mr or Mrs. 500
Mr or Mrs. 500 (573 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (573 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (573 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (573 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (573 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (573 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (573 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (573 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 573 Visits: 510
Resourse database is not system database available directly so the answer is wrong. Correct answer should be master,model,msdb and tempdb only!
Christian Buettner-167247
Christian Buettner-167247
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 3621 Visits: 3889
The question is correct.
And the provided link should be evidence enough.

Best Regards,

Chris Büttner
brewmanz
brewmanz
Mr or Mrs. 500
Mr or Mrs. 500 (561 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (561 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (561 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (561 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (561 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (561 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (561 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (561 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 561 Visits: 406
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.
humbleDBA
humbleDBA
Old Hand
Old Hand (374 reputation)Old Hand (374 reputation)Old Hand (374 reputation)Old Hand (374 reputation)Old Hand (374 reputation)Old Hand (374 reputation)Old Hand (374 reputation)Old Hand (374 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 374 Visits: 1508
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.
Prasad Bhogadi
Prasad Bhogadi
Ten Centuries
Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1321 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
Christian Buettner-167247
Christian Buettner-167247
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.6K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 3621 Visits: 3889
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
Go


Permissions

You can't post new topics.
You can't post topic replies.
You can't post new polls.
You can't post replies to polls.
You can't edit your own topics.
You can't delete your own topics.
You can't edit other topics.
You can't delete other topics.
You can't edit your own posts.
You can't edit other posts.
You can't delete your own posts.
You can't delete other posts.
You can't post events.
You can't edit your own events.
You can't edit other events.
You can't delete your own events.
You can't delete other events.
You can't send private messages.
You can't send emails.
You can read topics.
You can't vote in polls.
You can't upload attachments.
You can download attachments.
You can't post HTML code.
You can't edit HTML code.
You can't post IFCode.
You can't post JavaScript.
You can post emoticons.
You can't post or upload images.

Select a forum

































































































































































SQLServerCentral


Search