"Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:z_SSi.59295$Um6.46164@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>I just made a major addition to the data in our database (SQL 7 with an
>Access 2000 front end). The users had been working with a set of 66,000
>Word documents, having to open each to view when needed. I converted these
>docs to RTF format, and brought the RTF codes into the database itself.
>Each former Word doc is now stored in a single Text field in the record;
>and there is an additional Text field which is the text of the document in
>plain text format. (The average document is about 1,000 characters, and the
>average document with RTF codes is about 1,000-1,500 characters.)
>
> As a result, my database went from being about 600 MB in size to a little
> over a gig. Still not huge; but significant increase from it's original
> size.
>
> Since there's a big jump in the size, I was wondering if there's anything
> I need to do maintenance-wise to help the database use the new data.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Neil
>

>> Since there's a big jump in the size, I was wondering if there's anything
>> I need to do maintenance-wise to help the database use the new data.
>
> That's still very small as far as SQL databases go.

>
> Not sure how access documents, but a decent index on that (some sort of
> ID, unique name or something) will make things work well most likely.

>
> (BTW, you may want to look into upgrading the DB to use something like SQL
> Express edition. More modern, better supported and may be a bit faster,
> especially on a Windows 2003 box.)

>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Neil
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Greg Moore
> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
> Email: sql (at) greenms.com
> http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
>
>

"Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:bTXSi.7102$Pv2.3736@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>
>>> Since there's a big jump in the size, I was wondering if there's
>>> anything
>>> I need to do maintenance-wise to help the database use the new data.
>>
>> That's still very small as far as SQL databases go.
>
> Right. I just meant that it was almost double the original size. Wasn't
> sure if there was any kind of maintenance that should be done.

>
>>
>> Not sure how access documents, but a decent index on that (some sort of
>> ID, unique name or something) will make things work well most likely.
>
> Yes, each record has a unique ID for the record. These two fields are just
> two of many fields in the record.
>
>>
>> (BTW, you may want to look into upgrading the DB to use something like
>> SQL Express edition. More modern, better supported and may be a bit
>> faster, especially on a Windows 2003 box.)
>
> SQL Express? I thought SQL Express was the new version of SQL
> Desktop/MSDE. Maybe I'm wrong.

>
> We're using the full version of SQL 7, and are upgrading to SQL 2005.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Neil

"Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:G0hTi.54$nN3.12@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> (BTW, you may want to look into upgrading the DB to use something like
>>>> SQL Express edition. More modern, better supported and may be a bit
>>>> faster, especially on a Windows 2003 box.)
>>>
>>> SQL Express? I thought SQL Express was the new version of SQL
>>> Desktop/MSDE. Maybe I'm wrong.
>>
>> It is. For many smaller applications, it's a great choice. For a 1 gig
>> database, I'd certainly consider it.
>>
>
> Isn't there a limitation on the number of users that can access the
> database? I thought that it was something like 10 users or something.
>

>

>>> (BTW, you may want to look into upgrading the DB to use something like
>>> SQL Express edition. More modern, better supported and may be a bit
>>> faster, especially on a Windows 2003 box.)
>>
>> SQL Express? I thought SQL Express was the new version of SQL
>> Desktop/MSDE. Maybe I'm wrong.
>
> It is. For many smaller applications, it's a great choice. For a 1 gig
> database, I'd certainly consider it.
>

> No, and there never has been. That's a misunderstanding of the old
> query governer built into MSDE (whcih permitted only 5 or 6 (I've seen
> both numbers)) of queries to run at the same time before things were
> slowed down on purpose).
>
> SQL Server Express 2005 does not have that limit. Rather it is limited in
> DB size (2GB), CPU (1) and memory (I believe 1GB). But within those
> parameters it operates at full-speed and works very well.

"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns99D2F206743A5Yazorman@127.0.0.1...
> Greg D. Moore (Strider) (mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com) writes:
>> No, and there never has been. That's a misunderstanding of the old
>> query governer built into MSDE (whcih permitted only 5 or 6 (I've seen
>> both numbers)) of queries to run at the same time before things were
>> slowed down on purpose).
>>
>> SQL Server Express 2005 does not have that limit. Rather it is limited
>> in
>> DB size (2GB), CPU (1) and memory (I believe 1GB). But within those
>> parameters it operates at full-speed and works very well.
>
> But keep in mind that SQL Express does not come with SQL Agent, which can
> be a killer for Neil if he wants to schedule backsup and that.

>
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
>
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:13hrn2sbia0lt74@corp.supernews.com...
> "Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:G0hTi.54$nN3.12@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>> (BTW, you may want to look into upgrading the DB to use something like
>>>>> SQL Express edition. More modern, better supported and may be a bit
>>>>> faster, especially on a Windows 2003 box.)
>>>>
>>>> SQL Express? I thought SQL Express was the new version of SQL
>>>> Desktop/MSDE. Maybe I'm wrong.
>>>
>>> It is. For many smaller applications, it's a great choice. For a 1 gig
>>> database, I'd certainly consider it.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't there a limitation on the number of users that can access the
>> database? I thought that it was something like 10 users or something.
>>
>
> No, and there never has been. That's a misunderstanding of the old query
> governer built into MSDE (whcih permitted only 5 or 6 (I've seen both
> numbers)) of queries to run at the same time before things were slowed
> down on purpose).
>
> SQL Server Express 2005 does not have that limit. Rather it is limited in
> DB size (2GB), CPU (1) and memory (I believe 1GB). But within those
> parameters it operates at full-speed and works very well.
>
>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Greg Moore
> SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
> Email: sql (at) greenms.com
> http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
>
>

"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns99D2F206743A5Yazorman@127.0.0.1...
> Greg D. Moore (Strider) (mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com) writes:
>> No, and there never has been. That's a misunderstanding of the old
>> query governer built into MSDE (whcih permitted only 5 or 6 (I've seen
>> both numbers)) of queries to run at the same time before things were
>> slowed down on purpose).
>>
>> SQL Server Express 2005 does not have that limit. Rather it is limited
>> in
>> DB size (2GB), CPU (1) and memory (I believe 1GB). But within those
>> parameters it operates at full-speed and works very well.
>
> But keep in mind that SQL Express does not come with SQL Agent, which can
> be a killer for Neil if he wants to schedule backsup and that.
>
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
>
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx