Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 


Resource Database


Resource Database

Author
Message
bitbucket-25253
bitbucket-25253
SSCertifiable
SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 5689 Visits: 25280
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
EL Jerry
EL Jerry
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame (3.9K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.9K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.9K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.9K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.9K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.9K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.9K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.9K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 3914 Visits: 1337
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

To better understand your help request, please follow these best practices.
george sibbald
george sibbald
SSCertifiable
SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.3K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 6330 Visits: 13687
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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Jones
Cliff Jones
SSCarpal Tunnel
SSCarpal Tunnel (4.1K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.1K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.1K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.1K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.1K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.1K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.1K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.1K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 4069 Visits: 3648
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.
bitbucket-25253
bitbucket-25253
SSCertifiable
SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)SSCertifiable (5.7K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 5689 Visits: 25280
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
Koen Verbeeck
Koen Verbeeck
SSCoach
SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)SSCoach (16K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 16455 Visits: 13207
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 SQLKover.

MCSA SQL Server 2012 - MCSE Business Intelligence
Britt Cluff
Britt Cluff
SSCommitted
SSCommitted (1.7K reputation)SSCommitted (1.7K reputation)SSCommitted (1.7K reputation)SSCommitted (1.7K reputation)SSCommitted (1.7K reputation)SSCommitted (1.7K reputation)SSCommitted (1.7K reputation)SSCommitted (1.7K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1693 Visits: 253
Good question. Thanks for submitting.

http://brittcluff.blogspot.com/
Neha05
Neha05
SSC-Addicted
SSC-Addicted (466 reputation)SSC-Addicted (466 reputation)SSC-Addicted (466 reputation)SSC-Addicted (466 reputation)SSC-Addicted (466 reputation)SSC-Addicted (466 reputation)SSC-Addicted (466 reputation)SSC-Addicted (466 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 466 Visits: 60
Nice question!
bamshankar2004
bamshankar2004
Mr or Mrs. 500
Mr or Mrs. 500 (584 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (584 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (584 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (584 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (584 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (584 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (584 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (584 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 584 Visits: 88
A Very good addition in the post.
vandana.1103
vandana.1103
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie (6 reputation)Forum Newbie (6 reputation)Forum Newbie (6 reputation)Forum Newbie (6 reputation)Forum Newbie (6 reputation)Forum Newbie (6 reputation)Forum Newbie (6 reputation)Forum Newbie (6 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 6 Visits: 104
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.
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