<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://sqlblog.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Search results matching tags 'Administration', 'Planning', and 'SQL Server'</title><link>http://sqlblog.com/search/SearchResults.aspx?o=DateDescending&amp;tag=Administration,Planning,SQL+Server&amp;orTags=0</link><description>Search results matching tags 'Administration', 'Planning', and 'SQL Server'</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.1)</generator><item><title>Using linked servers, OPENROWSET and OPENQUERY</title><link>http://sqlblog.com/blogs/buck_woody/archive/2010/03/16/using-linked-servers-openrowset-and-openquery.aspx</link><pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:41:33 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:23448</guid><dc:creator>BuckWoody</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;SQL Server has a few mechanisms to reach out to another server (even another server type) and query data from within a Transact-SQL statement. Among them are a set of stored credentials and information (called a &lt;a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190479.aspx" target="_blank"&gt;Linked Server&lt;/a&gt;), a statement that uses a linked server called called &lt;a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188427.aspx" target="_blank"&gt;OPENQUERY&lt;/a&gt;, another called &lt;a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190312.aspx" target="_blank"&gt;OPENROWSET&lt;/a&gt;, and one called &lt;a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179856.aspx" target="_blank"&gt;OPENDATASOURCE&lt;/a&gt;. This post isn’t about those particular functions or statements – hit the links for more if you’re new to those topics.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;I’m actually more concerned about where I see these used than the particular method. In many cases, a Linked server isn’t another Relational Database Management System (RDMBS) like Oracle or DB2 (which is possible with a linked server), but another SQL Server. My concern is that linked servers are the new Data Transformation Services (DTS) from SQL Server 2000 – something that was designed for one purpose but which is being morphed into something much more.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;In the case of DTS, most of us turned that feature into a full-fledged job system. What was designed as a simple data import and export system has been pressed into service doing logic, routing and timing. And of course we all know how painful it was to move off of a complex DTS system onto SQL Server Integration Services.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;In the case of linked servers, what should be used as a method of running a simple query or two on another server where you have occasional connection or need a quick import of a small data set is morphing into a full federation strategy. In some cases I’ve seen a complex web of linked servers, and when credentials, names or anything else changes there are huge problems.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;Now don’t get me wrong – linked servers and &lt;a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188721.aspx" target="_blank"&gt;other forms of distributing queries&lt;/a&gt; is a fantastic set of tools that we have to move data around. I’m just saying that when you start having lots of workarounds and when things get really complicated, you might want to step back a little and ask if there’s a better way. Are you able to tolerate some latency? Perhaps you’re &lt;a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345108(SQL.90).aspx" target="_blank"&gt;able to use Service Broker&lt;/a&gt;. Would you like to be platform-independent on the data source? &lt;a href="http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/mikegriffin/middle_tier12232005054629AM/middle_tier.aspx" target="_blank"&gt;Perhaps a middle-tier might make more sense&lt;/a&gt;, abstracting the queries there and sending them to the proper server. Designed properly, I’ve seen these systems scale further and be more resilient than loading up on linked servers.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Know Your Product Specifications</title><link>http://sqlblog.com/blogs/buck_woody/archive/2010/01/13/know-your-product-specifications.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:57:01 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:21010</guid><dc:creator>BuckWoody</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;As the Data Professional in your organization, the rest of the org looks to you to ensure that the system can handle what the business requires. To do that, you need to know two things: what the business requires, and what SQL Server can do.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;But of course there’s a bit more to it than that. Knowing the business side of the requirements – well, I teach an entire course on that. But knowing what SQL Server can do is something you can find out on your own.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;SQL Server comes in &lt;em&gt;versions&lt;/em&gt;, which are released based on date, and &lt;em&gt;editions&lt;/em&gt;, which are based on features and capabilities. It’s that last part that I want to focus on today.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;As Microsoft SQL Server matures, you’re going to see even more separation between what each edition of SQL Server can do and where it should be used. In the past, most folks have only focused on three editions – Express (the “free” one), Standard, and Enterprise. The rule of thumb was that if Standard was good enough at the moment, put it in. And it is true (and a good thing) that you can upgrade from one edition to another fairly easily.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;But as time goes on, we should spend a little more time understanding what each edition does, what it’s features and capabilities are, and where and when we should put them in. As I study this information, I’ll throw in my 2 cents and you can as well based on what you see. One thing I’ve found so far is that once I have the business requirements, there’s a mix of what I can write in code and what might already be included in a different edition. It’s important to look long and hard at that choice – writing a feature on my own is certainly cheaper in the short term than moving to a “higher” edition, but in some cases it makes sense to let Microsoft handle that lifting.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;These links are ones that you should bookmark and take a peek at periodically. They are the “header” links for more information on those features and capabilities:&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;SQL Server 2008: &lt;a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143287.aspx"&gt;http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143287.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;SQL Server 2008 R2: &lt;a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143287(SQL.105).aspx"&gt;http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143287(SQL.105).aspx&lt;/a&gt;&amp;#160;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;In addition, you might start learning a little more about SQL Azure. I’ll talk more about that later.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>