BigInt performance on SQL 64

Has anyone done some benchmarks of BigInt vs. Int on SQL Server
2000/2005 64 bit? If so I would like to know what your conclusion was.Performance in regards to what? A bigint is twice the size of an Int so it
will take up twice the memory and disk space for tables and indexes. You
really shouldn't be looking at performance to make a decision such as this.
You need to consider the data that you will be storing in that column. What
will the business rules dictate. Why use a BigInt when an Int will suffice?
Why use an Int if it can't hold your largest value?
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Will" <whbmitchell@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139525534.880875.88630@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Has anyone done some benchmarks of BigInt vs. Int on SQL Server
> 2000/2005 64 bit? If so I would like to know what your conclusion was.
>|||I have. BigInt will store a much larger number than Int will. So storing a
really big number in and Int will be much slower than with a BigInt :)
Seriously, I too would like to hear if there is any difference.
Since it is just 8 bytes instead of 4 bytes, it will be a bit slower, for
many reasons on any version because at the very least a bit more disk space
will be required. Fact is, if you need a BigInt, use it, otherwise use an
int. I wouldn't expect to do much math on a number > 2 billion, (certainly
not extensively,) and that is where a minute difference might be noticed
based on 32 or 64 bit hardware, though even on 64 bit hardware the Int
"shouldn't" be slower than the BigInt, since math would be done in the same
hardware, just probably no "tricks" to deal with the number that is bigger
than the native registers.
Do you have any specific instances where you think it was slower?
----
Louis Davidson - http://spaces.msn.com/members/drsql/
SQL Server MVP
"Arguments are to be avoided: they are always vulgar and often convincing."
(Oscar Wilde)
"Will" <whbmitchell@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139525534.880875.88630@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Has anyone done some benchmarks of BigInt vs. Int on SQL Server
> 2000/2005 64 bit? If so I would like to know what your conclusion was.
>

Bidirectionnal replication between SQL 2000 and Sybase ASE

Hello,
For political reasons, I need to havec datas stored both on a SQL Server
2000 and a Sybase ASE v12.
If data changes in SQL, it must be replicated to the Sybase server, and if
data changes in Sybase, it must be propagated to the SQL Server.
Do you know how can I reach my goal in a simple manner ?
Thanks,
Steve
Does Sybase replicate to heterogeneous data sources (like SQL Server) using
stored procs? If so:
The best way to do this is to add a column to the tables you are replicating
called ServerName, or something like this. Then assign this column a default
of @.@.servername (I believe this option is available in Sybase).
Then modify update and delete the procs to do their work if the value of
servename being passed in the proc variable is not equal to the value in the
underlying column.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Steve B." <steve_beauge@.com.msn.Swap.dotcom.and.msn> wrote in message
news:41fa438e$0$2068$626a14ce@.news.free.fr...
> Hello,
> For political reasons, I need to havec datas stored both on a SQL Server
> 2000 and a Sybase ASE v12.
> If data changes in SQL, it must be replicated to the Sybase server, and if
> data changes in Sybase, it must be propagated to the SQL Server.
> Do you know how can I reach my goal in a simple manner ?
> Thanks,
> Steve
>

Bidirectionnal replication between SQL 2000 and Sybase ASE

Hello,
For political reasons, I need to havec datas stored both on a SQL Server
2000 and a Sybase ASE v12.
If data changes in SQL, it must be replicated to the Sybase server, and if
data changes in Sybase, it must be propagated to the SQL Server.
Do you know how can I reach my goal in a simple manner ?
Thanks,
SteveDoes Sybase replicate to heterogeneous data sources (like SQL Server) using
stored procs? If so:
The best way to do this is to add a column to the tables you are replicating
called ServerName, or something like this. Then assign this column a default
of @.@.servername (I believe this option is available in Sybase).
Then modify update and delete the procs to do their work if the value of
servename being passed in the proc variable is not equal to the value in the
underlying column.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Steve B." <steve_beauge@.com.msn.Swap.dotcom.and.msn> wrote in message
news:41fa438e$0$2068$626a14ce@.news.free.fr...
> Hello,
> For political reasons, I need to havec datas stored both on a SQL Server
> 2000 and a Sybase ASE v12.
> If data changes in SQL, it must be replicated to the Sybase server, and if
> data changes in Sybase, it must be propagated to the SQL Server.
> Do you know how can I reach my goal in a simple manner ?
> Thanks,
> Steve
>

Bidirectionnal replication between SQL 2000 and Sybase ASE

Hello,
For political reasons, I need to havec datas stored both on a SQL Server
2000 and a Sybase ASE v12.
If data changes in SQL, it must be replicated to the Sybase server, and if
data changes in Sybase, it must be propagated to the SQL Server.
Do you know how can I reach my goal in a simple manner ?
Thanks,
Steve
Does Sybase replicate to heterogeneous data sources (like SQL Server) using
stored procs? If so:
The best way to do this is to add a column to the tables you are replicating
called ServerName, or something like this. Then assign this column a default
of @.@.servername (I believe this option is available in Sybase).
Then modify update and delete the procs to do their work if the value of
servename being passed in the proc variable is not equal to the value in the
underlying column.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Steve B." <steve_beauge@.com.msn.Swap.dotcom.and.msn> wrote in message
news:41fa438e$0$2068$626a14ce@.news.free.fr...
> Hello,
> For political reasons, I need to havec datas stored both on a SQL Server
> 2000 and a Sybase ASE v12.
> If data changes in SQL, it must be replicated to the Sybase server, and if
> data changes in Sybase, it must be propagated to the SQL Server.
> Do you know how can I reach my goal in a simple manner ?
> Thanks,
> Steve
>

between

SQL Server2000 SP3
Field date is smalldatetime
I have 8 rows with data='06-Aug-2003'
SELECT * FROM TEST
where data between '06-Aug-2003' and '06-Aug-2003'
Results: 0 Rows
SELECT * FROM TEST
where data>='06-Aug-2003' and data<='06-Aug-2003'
Results: 0 Rows
What can I do? (I do not want to use '06-Aug-2003' and '07-Aug-2003')What is the time portion of the field ?
What does this give you
SELECT * FROM TEST
where data between '20030806' and '20030807'
OR
SELECT * FROM TEST
where CONVERT(char(8),data,112) = '20030806'
--
Allan Mitchell (Microsoft SQL Server MVP)
MCSE,MCDBA
www.SQLDTS.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global community
for SQL Server professionals - http://www.sqlpass.org
"Dragos Hilbert" <dragos_hilbert@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eMh$KHAXDHA.652@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> SQL Server2000 SP3
> Field date is smalldatetime
> I have 8 rows with data='06-Aug-2003'
> SELECT * FROM TEST
> where data between '06-Aug-2003' and '06-Aug-2003'
> Results: 0 Rows
>
> SELECT * FROM TEST
> where data>='06-Aug-2003' and data<='06-Aug-2003'
> Results: 0 Rows
> What can I do? (I do not want to use '06-Aug-2003' and '07-Aug-2003')
>
>|||> SELECT * FROM TEST
> where data>='06-Aug-2003' and data<='06-Aug-2003'
SELECT * FROM test
WHERE data>='20030806' and data<'20030807'
(a) between can be ambiguous, I tend to avoid it for datetime queries.
(b) since datetime columns have time also, the above is converted to
midnight, so you won't likely have rows where "data" is between a day at
midnight and the same day at midnight.
(c) never use SELECT * in production code.
(d) consider changing the column name. "data" is not very descriptive at
all; I would never guess that it is a datetime column...