Restrict result rows with a database setting

I am using SQL Server 2000 SP4. Is it possible to limit the number of
returned rows in a query via some sort of database setting? We have a
customer table with over 100,000 records and are not able to modify the
application that queries this table.
If our users do not put in selection criteria, they get all 100,000 records
and subsequently crash the machine they are running from. I was wondering if
I could limit the maximum number of rows to 10,000 via a database setting? I
know I could do that via the SQL that is called, but I co not have control
over that.
Thanks for any suggestions,
Butch Smith
Hi
I guess you could try setting the configuration value of "query governor
cost limit" to a given value, but then it could have adverse effects else
where. You should look at getting the application changed to limit the time a
query takes and also making sure that an excessive number of records are not
returned.
John
"Butch" wrote:

> I am using SQL Server 2000 SP4. Is it possible to limit the number of
> returned rows in a query via some sort of database setting? We have a
> customer table with over 100,000 records and are not able to modify the
> application that queries this table.
> If our users do not put in selection criteria, they get all 100,000 records
> and subsequently crash the machine they are running from. I was wondering if
> I could limit the maximum number of rows to 10,000 via a database setting? I
> know I could do that via the SQL that is called, but I co not have control
> over that.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions,
> Butch Smith
>
>
|||You could try query govenor to limit the time a query can run for.
sp_configure 'query governor cost limit', '300'
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Butch" <smithb@.R3M0V3_CAPStntfireworks.com> wrote in message
news:%238kiT4r8GHA.2120@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I am using SQL Server 2000 SP4. Is it possible to limit the number of
>returned rows in a query via some sort of database setting? We have a
>customer table with over 100,000 records and are not able to modify the
>application that queries this table.
> If our users do not put in selection criteria, they get all 100,000
> records and subsequently crash the machine they are running from. I was
> wondering if I could limit the maximum number of rows to 10,000 via a
> database setting? I know I could do that via the SQL that is called, but I
> co not have control over that.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions,
> Butch Smith
>
|||Maybe you can try to create a view with a select top of the table and rename
the table of 100000 records. Then create instead of triggers to make the view
updatable. But the application could crash with other things after that...
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> You could try query govenor to limit the time a query can run for.
> sp_configure 'query governor cost limit', '300'
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
> positions, strategies or opinions.
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>
> "Butch" <smithb@.R3M0V3_CAPStntfireworks.com> wrote in message
> news:%238kiT4r8GHA.2120@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>
sql

Restrict result rows with a database setting

I am using SQL Server 2000 SP4. Is it possible to limit the number of
returned rows in a query via some sort of database setting? We have a
customer table with over 100,000 records and are not able to modify the
application that queries this table.
If our users do not put in selection criteria, they get all 100,000 records
and subsequently crash the machine they are running from. I was wondering if
I could limit the maximum number of rows to 10,000 via a database setting? I
know I could do that via the SQL that is called, but I co not have control
over that.
Thanks for any suggestions,
Butch SmithHi
I guess you could try setting the configuration value of "query governor
cost limit" to a given value, but then it could have adverse effects else
where. You should look at getting the application changed to limit the time
a
query takes and also making sure that an excessive number of records are not
returned.
John
"Butch" wrote:

> I am using SQL Server 2000 SP4. Is it possible to limit the number of
> returned rows in a query via some sort of database setting? We have a
> customer table with over 100,000 records and are not able to modify the
> application that queries this table.
> If our users do not put in selection criteria, they get all 100,000 record
s
> and subsequently crash the machine they are running from. I was wondering
if
> I could limit the maximum number of rows to 10,000 via a database setting?
I
> know I could do that via the SQL that is called, but I co not have control
> over that.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions,
> Butch Smith
>
>|||You could try query govenor to limit the time a query can run for.
sp_configure 'query governor cost limit', '300'
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Butch" <smithb@.R3M0V3_CAPStntfireworks.com> wrote in message
news:%238kiT4r8GHA.2120@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I am using SQL Server 2000 SP4. Is it possible to limit the number of
>returned rows in a query via some sort of database setting? We have a
>customer table with over 100,000 records and are not able to modify the
>application that queries this table.
> If our users do not put in selection criteria, they get all 100,000
> records and subsequently crash the machine they are running from. I was
> wondering if I could limit the maximum number of rows to 10,000 via a
> database setting? I know I could do that via the SQL that is called, but I
> co not have control over that.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions,
> Butch Smith
>|||Maybe you can try to create a view with a select top of the table and rename
the table of 100000 records. Then create instead of triggers to make the vie
w
updatable. But the application could crash with other things after that...
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> You could try query govenor to limit the time a query can run for.
> sp_configure 'query governor cost limit', '300'
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
> positions, strategies or opinions.
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>
> "Butch" <smithb@.R3M0V3_CAPStntfireworks.com> wrote in message
> news:%238kiT4r8GHA.2120@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>

Restrict result rows with a database setting

I am using SQL Server 2000 SP4. Is it possible to limit the number of
returned rows in a query via some sort of database setting? We have a
customer table with over 100,000 records and are not able to modify the
application that queries this table.
If our users do not put in selection criteria, they get all 100,000 records
and subsequently crash the machine they are running from. I was wondering if
I could limit the maximum number of rows to 10,000 via a database setting? I
know I could do that via the SQL that is called, but I co not have control
over that.
Thanks for any suggestions,
Butch SmithHi
I guess you could try setting the configuration value of "query governor
cost limit" to a given value, but then it could have adverse effects else
where. You should look at getting the application changed to limit the time a
query takes and also making sure that an excessive number of records are not
returned.
John
"Butch" wrote:
> I am using SQL Server 2000 SP4. Is it possible to limit the number of
> returned rows in a query via some sort of database setting? We have a
> customer table with over 100,000 records and are not able to modify the
> application that queries this table.
> If our users do not put in selection criteria, they get all 100,000 records
> and subsequently crash the machine they are running from. I was wondering if
> I could limit the maximum number of rows to 10,000 via a database setting? I
> know I could do that via the SQL that is called, but I co not have control
> over that.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions,
> Butch Smith
>
>|||You could try query govenor to limit the time a query can run for.
sp_configure 'query governor cost limit', '300'
--
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Butch" <smithb@.R3M0V3_CAPStntfireworks.com> wrote in message
news:%238kiT4r8GHA.2120@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I am using SQL Server 2000 SP4. Is it possible to limit the number of
>returned rows in a query via some sort of database setting? We have a
>customer table with over 100,000 records and are not able to modify the
>application that queries this table.
> If our users do not put in selection criteria, they get all 100,000
> records and subsequently crash the machine they are running from. I was
> wondering if I could limit the maximum number of rows to 10,000 via a
> database setting? I know I could do that via the SQL that is called, but I
> co not have control over that.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions,
> Butch Smith
>|||Maybe you can try to create a view with a select top of the table and rename
the table of 100000 records. Then create instead of triggers to make the view
updatable. But the application could crash with other things after that...
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> You could try query govenor to limit the time a query can run for.
> sp_configure 'query governor cost limit', '300'
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
> positions, strategies or opinions.
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>
> "Butch" <smithb@.R3M0V3_CAPStntfireworks.com> wrote in message
> news:%238kiT4r8GHA.2120@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >I am using SQL Server 2000 SP4. Is it possible to limit the number of
> >returned rows in a query via some sort of database setting? We have a
> >customer table with over 100,000 records and are not able to modify the
> >application that queries this table.
> >
> > If our users do not put in selection criteria, they get all 100,000
> > records and subsequently crash the machine they are running from. I was
> > wondering if I could limit the maximum number of rows to 10,000 via a
> > database setting? I know I could do that via the SQL that is called, but I
> > co not have control over that.
> >
> >
> > Thanks for any suggestions,
> >
> > Butch Smith
> >
>
>

restrict delete function on odbc connection

i have the odbc connection connected to our SQL databasse via sql user
account through MS access Frontend and having problem controling the delete
function of the account.

In SQL i am only allow the account to read, insert,update and denied delete
on the database and tables. However, the account still be able delete the
records.

Can someone let me know what am i missing in the permission granting.

Check individual permissions, groups permissions and what is important the permissions granted to the public role where every database user will be added to.

Jens K. Suessmeyer

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

Restoring state of database after running a Unit test

Sorry if this is a newbie question.
My application sends data (via TCP/IP sockets) to a 3rd party
application which dispenses the data to various tables in a SQL Server
2005 database based on its own business logic.
I am in the process of writing Unit tests for my application that
mimics the sending of this data. However on test Teardown I would like
to delete this test data so that next time I run the tests, the
database is in a known state.
I can think of a few options, none of which sound ideal to me:
1. Run the profiler on the database and note all the tables it touches
and delete the those rows in the reverse order in which it was
inserted. This is less than ideal because insertion is happening via
stored complex procedures and it would be an arduous task going
through the code of all the stored procs and coming up with a list
such the referential constraints are not violated on deletion.
2. Backup and Restore the database.This is quite a time consuming
operation and would be a huge bottleneck to do that everytime a test
suite is run.
Unfortunately rolling back is not an option for me because the
transaction was commited by that different third party application.
Is there some other mechanism by which I can tell SQL Server: "Note
the state of the database now, and essentially rollback to it when I
tell you so (in test teardown)"?
Thanks.Hi
Your best option is to restore a backup, you only need one known state
backup and you can restore consistently (use a script rather than the GUI as
this can be automated using test tools). If you don't want to do that have
copies of the MDF and LDF files and detach/copy/re-attach instead.
Unless you are testing performance and require a large amount of data in the
database, then using a smaller amount will back restoring it quicker.
John
"sprash" <sprash25@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bc7966a-638e-4ff3-9b4e-6e5972c32ec7@.u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> Sorry if this is a newbie question.
> My application sends data (via TCP/IP sockets) to a 3rd party
> application which dispenses the data to various tables in a SQL Server
> 2005 database based on its own business logic.
> I am in the process of writing Unit tests for my application that
> mimics the sending of this data. However on test Teardown I would like
> to delete this test data so that next time I run the tests, the
> database is in a known state.
> I can think of a few options, none of which sound ideal to me:
> 1. Run the profiler on the database and note all the tables it touches
> and delete the those rows in the reverse order in which it was
> inserted. This is less than ideal because insertion is happening via
> stored complex procedures and it would be an arduous task going
> through the code of all the stored procs and coming up with a list
> such the referential constraints are not violated on deletion.
> 2. Backup and Restore the database.This is quite a time consuming
> operation and would be a huge bottleneck to do that everytime a test
> suite is run.
> Unfortunately rolling back is not an option for me because the
> transaction was commited by that different third party application.
> Is there some other mechanism by which I can tell SQL Server: "Note
> the state of the database now, and essentially rollback to it when I
> tell you so (in test teardown)"?
> Thanks.

Restoring state of database after running a Unit test

Sorry if this is a newbie question.
My application sends data (via TCP/IP sockets) to a 3rd party
application which dispenses the data to various tables in a SQL Server
2005 database based on its own business logic.
I am in the process of writing Unit tests for my application that
mimics the sending of this data. However on test Teardown I would like
to delete this test data so that next time I run the tests, the
database is in a known state.
I can think of a few options, none of which sound ideal to me:
1. Run the profiler on the database and note all the tables it touches
and delete the those rows in the reverse order in which it was
inserted. This is less than ideal because insertion is happening via
stored complex procedures and it would be an arduous task going
through the code of all the stored procs and coming up with a list
such the referential constraints are not violated on deletion.
2. Backup and Restore the database.This is quite a time consuming
operation and would be a huge bottleneck to do that everytime a test
suite is run.
Unfortunately rolling back is not an option for me because the
transaction was commited by that different third party application.
Is there some other mechanism by which I can tell SQL Server: "Note
the state of the database now, and essentially rollback to it when I
tell you so (in test teardown)"?
Thanks.
Hi
Your best option is to restore a backup, you only need one known state
backup and you can restore consistently (use a script rather than the GUI as
this can be automated using test tools). If you don't want to do that have
copies of the MDF and LDF files and detach/copy/re-attach instead.
Unless you are testing performance and require a large amount of data in the
database, then using a smaller amount will back restoring it quicker.
John
"sprash" <sprash25@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bc7966a-638e-4ff3-9b4e-6e5972c32ec7@.u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> Sorry if this is a newbie question.
> My application sends data (via TCP/IP sockets) to a 3rd party
> application which dispenses the data to various tables in a SQL Server
> 2005 database based on its own business logic.
> I am in the process of writing Unit tests for my application that
> mimics the sending of this data. However on test Teardown I would like
> to delete this test data so that next time I run the tests, the
> database is in a known state.
> I can think of a few options, none of which sound ideal to me:
> 1. Run the profiler on the database and note all the tables it touches
> and delete the those rows in the reverse order in which it was
> inserted. This is less than ideal because insertion is happening via
> stored complex procedures and it would be an arduous task going
> through the code of all the stored procs and coming up with a list
> such the referential constraints are not violated on deletion.
> 2. Backup and Restore the database.This is quite a time consuming
> operation and would be a huge bottleneck to do that everytime a test
> suite is run.
> Unfortunately rolling back is not an option for me because the
> transaction was commited by that different third party application.
> Is there some other mechanism by which I can tell SQL Server: "Note
> the state of the database now, and essentially rollback to it when I
> tell you so (in test teardown)"?
> Thanks.

Restoring SQL6.5 database

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.mcse.ms ****
Hello,
I have backup data of Runtyime database, but whe I'm trying to restore it I
get folowing message: "[SQL Server] Database in use. System Administrato
r
must have exclusive use of database to run load." What should I do?
Darius
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** mcse.ms - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.mcse.ms
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Hi,
You can not load the database if any user is connected to the specific
database you are trying to load..
So before restoring kill all the process connected.
Use the below script to kill all the process connected in the database.
use master
go
declare @.x varchar(255)
select @.x = @.x + " kill " + convert(varchar(5), spid)
from master.dbo.sysprocesses
where dbid = db_id ('db_name')
exec (@.x)
go
Replace the db_name with your database name.
Thanks
Hari
MCDBA
"Darius" <darius.ram@.takas.lt> wrote in message
news:404ec4ce@.post.mcse.ms...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.mcse.ms ****
> Hello,
> I have backup data of Runtyime database, but whe I'm trying to restore it
I
> get folowing message: "[SQL Server] Database in use. System Administra
tor
> must have exclusive use of database to run load." What should I do?
> Darius
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> *** mcse.ms - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
> http://www.mcse.ms
> Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=|||If you happened to be using ISQL/w and are actaully in the database you are
trying to restore you will get this error as well.
Rand
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.

Restoring only .MDF file

Hi,
I have a backup of a database which is around 1.5 GB in size. Whenever I res
tore the database via EM I get both the MDF and the LDF file.
Because of this I need a tremendous amount of space in the hard disk.
Is there anyway, wherein I can only restore the MDF file?
Regards,
Karthik.Katrhik
Regardless of recovery model of you SQL Server you will have log file.
if you detached your database and removed the log file so use
This example detaches pubs and then attaches one file from pubs to the
current server.
EXEC sp_detach_db @.dbname = 'pubs'
EXEC sp_attach_single_file_db @.dbname = 'pubs',
@.physname = 'c:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL
Server\MSSQL\Data\pubs.mdf'Note : you will have log file created by sql
server with (if i remmember well) size of 2MB.
"Karthik" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AA2705B7-F22A-4BB8-B9CD-6064D554721B@.microsoft.com...

quote:

---

> Hi,
> I have a backup of a database which is around 1.5 GB in size. Whenever I

---

restore the database via EM I get both the MDF and the LDF file.

quote:

---

> Because of this I need a tremendous amount of space in the hard disk.
> Is there anyway, wherein I can only restore the MDF file?
> Regards,
> Karthik.

---

|||Try simply attaching the MDF and a blank LDF files
Glen Victor
-- Karthik wrote: --
Hi,
I have a backup of a database which is around 1.5 GB in size. Whenever I res
tore the database via EM I get both the MDF and the LDF file.
Because of this I need a tremendous amount of space in the hard disk.
Is there anyway, wherein I can only restore the MDF file?
Regards,
Karthik.sql

Restoring only .MDF file

Hi,
I have a backup of a database which is around 1.5 GB in size. Whenever I restore the database via EM I get both the MDF and the LDF file.
Because of this I need a tremendous amount of space in the hard disk.
Is there anyway, wherein I can only restore the MDF file?
Regards,
Karthik.Katrhik
Regardless of recovery model of you SQL Server you will have log file.
if you detached your database and removed the log file so use
This example detaches pubs and then attaches one file from pubs to the
current server.
EXEC sp_detach_db @.dbname = 'pubs'
EXEC sp_attach_single_file_db @.dbname = 'pubs',
@.physname = 'c:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL
Server\MSSQL\Data\pubs.mdf'Note : you will have log file created by sql
server with (if i remmember well) size of 2MB.
"Karthik" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AA2705B7-F22A-4BB8-B9CD-6064D554721B@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have a backup of a database which is around 1.5 GB in size. Whenever I
restore the database via EM I get both the MDF and the LDF file.
> Because of this I need a tremendous amount of space in the hard disk.
> Is there anyway, wherein I can only restore the MDF file?
> Regards,
> Karthik.|||Try simply attaching the MDF and a blank LDF files
Glen Victor
-- Karthik wrote: --
Hi,
I have a backup of a database which is around 1.5 GB in size. Whenever I restore the database via EM I get both the MDF and the LDF file.
Because of this I need a tremendous amount of space in the hard disk.
Is there anyway, wherein I can only restore the MDF file?
Regards,
Karthik.