My understanding is there will almost certainly be some form of 'free' SQL Server 2008.  In the meantime, you can download the SQL Server 2008 CTP, which is the Developer...

Simon may be a rookie in this forum, but he has given a comprehensive and correct answer to the problem.

Jon,

It looks like you are now getting process details using sp_who and sp_who2, which is often what you need to do.  This is because the process display in SQL Server...

I really don't like any of the responses that suggest switching between an active and a passive table while you reload the passive table.  As stated in the first post,...

We run DTS in a scheduled job.  Some job owners are sysadmins and some are not.  The biggest problem is file permissions - you need to check everything using the...

I think people are trying to distinguish between standard SQL Server backup and restore (native mode) and using vendor products (Litespeed, Redgate, BMC, etc) to do backups.

We use some 'generic maintenance' scripts to do backups, integrity checks, index rebuilds, etc on our servers.  They do not use maintenance plans mainly because maint plans are limited in what...

Every now and then I try out the Microsoft search process to see it has improved.  So far I always go back to Google.

Even when searching for items on the...

Another factor to add to Colin's list.  When SQL starts and wants to allocate AWE memory, the amount you ask for must be availabe.  If you ask for too much,...

"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance".  Educating staff so they can write efficient applications is the most cost-effective way to go, but what about the applications they wrote...

Our standard is to rename the sa account.  Use ALTER USER sa WITH NAME = 'something'.  This makes it impossible for anyone to log on using an account name of sa. ...

Back in the mid-90s when SANS were new and mainly used just for mainframes, a major bank had a very little problem with one of their SANs.  A microcode upgrade...

There are a few threads in this forum about upgrading to SQL Server 2005.  It is worth searching for them as there are a lot of posts about the issues...

Either way would work.  Effectively you are doing a vertical partition on your data, so use the normal design criteria for checking if this is worthwhile.  FTS would not care...

If you do not want SQL to spend time doing a data type conversion for every row in the query, you should make the 80 into a character string ...=...