We are in the process of migrating an application from an
Oracle data base to a SQL Server data base.
My DBA is telling me that with SQL Server he will not be
able to do a backup & restore at the 'alias' level like
he can now do with Oracle. He says he will have to do
an entire data base backup.
Is this true?In our current environment with our databases on Oracle,
we have one physical db for 1099 tax info. When it comes
to keeping the tax years separate, we set up different
aliases for each year...1099_01, 1099_02, etc. By doing
this, we are able to backup and restore at the alias
level. In case there is a problem with a
certain 'alias', we are able to restore just that
specific alias and not the entire db.
We would like to be able to do the same thing using SQL
Server, but it sounds like we may not be able to.
Any suggestions'
>--Original Message--
>Yes,
>Assuming you mean a database backup. He can also copy
out individual tables using something like DTS or BCP if
required.
>He can also do file or filegroup backups to subset
things if the db is very large, but frequently full db
backups are more than sufficient.
>What are you trying to achieve?
>Mike John
>"Don" <Don@.nomail.com> wrote in message news:08ed01c38211
$b2eb5d10$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
>> We are in the process of migrating an application from
an
>> Oracle data base to a SQL Server data base.
>> My DBA is telling me that with SQL Server he will not
be
>> able to do a backup & restore at the 'alias' level
like
>> he can now do with Oracle. He says he will have to
do
>> an entire data base backup.
>> Is this true?
>.
>
Showing posts with label dba. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dba. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Daily file processing help
Hello DBA's:
I need to extract a particular file from our AS 400 system on a daily basis and do some processing on it. Also I want to do the daily processing only on those records that have been added/updated since the initial load.
Here is the approach and possible implementation.
Approach
I have the DB2 source data containing 10 columns (Col1 to Col5 together form the key) and the rest are attributes. I am interested only in the key and two attributes. So I load my table with only Col1 to Col7 ( 5 for key and the two attributes). I then do my processing on this table.
Here is the implementation given by a member of dbforums -
You'll then have to deal with 3 potential actions,
INSERT: New records on the file.
DELETES: Records that don't exists.
UPDATES: Records that are on the file, but attributes have changed.
You had given me this code template.
CREATE TABLE myTable99 (
Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
, CONSTRAINT myTable99_pk PRIMARY KEY (Col1, Col2))
CREATE TABLE myTable00 (
Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
, CONSTRAINT myTable00_pk PRIMARY KEY (Col1, Col2))
GO
INSERT INTO myTable99(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL
SELECT '1','2','d','e','f' UNION ALL
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL
SELECT '1','4','j','k','l'
--DELETED
INSERT INTO myTable00(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','2','x','y','z' UNION ALL -- UPDATE (My comment - Instead of an update I want to insert a new record)
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '2','3','a','b','c' --INSERT
GO
SELECT * FROM myTable99
SELECT * FROM myTable00
GO
--DO DELETES FIRST (My comment - Before deleting, I want to copy the rows that I am going to delete on a separate table to maintain history. Then I want to delete from a). I don't get the logic. If the rows of the old extract are not in new extract then delete them. So shouldn't it be <> instead of =. why the where clause condition)
DELETE FROM a
FROM myTable99 a
LEFT JOIN myTable00 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
WHERE b.Col1 IS NULL AND b.Col2 IS NULL
-- INSERT (My comment - I don't get the logic of the where. If the rows of the old extract are not in new extract then delete them. So shouldn't it be <> instead of =)
INSERT INTO myTable99(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT a.Col1, a.Col2, a.Col3, a.Col4, a.Col5
FROM myTable00 a
LEFT JOIN myTable99 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
WHERE b.Col1 IS NULL AND b.Col2 IS NULL
-- UPDATE
UPDATE a
SET Col3 = b.Col3
, Col4 = b.Col4
, Col5 = b.Col5
FROM myTable99 a
INNER JOIN myTable00 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
AND ( a.Col3 <> b.Col3
OR a.Col4 <> b.Col4
OR a.Col5 <> b.Col5)
GO
----
Can anybody look at My comments and answer them or revise this code template if need be?
Brett Kaiser - I sent you an e-mail on this. Can you respond to it when time permits.
ThanksVivek,
Did you test it? Run it I mean?
I worked with a guy named Vivek once...
First the DELETE's. You know why you want to delete first, correct?
If yes, and you want to retain history, create an identical historical table called:
CREATE TABLE myTable99_H (
HIST_ADD_DT datetime DEFAULT GetDate()
, Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
With no constraints..it is history after all, and is inheriting the constarints from the base table
As far as the logic...if you look it's a LEFT OUTER JOIN between the 2 tables WHERE the key DOESN'T exist in the other (NOT NULL)
Got it?
Second, INSERTS...
Same logic as to why (NOT NULL)
Well did you cut and paste the code in to QA?
It should run for you no problems and should be a good example...|||Brett,
Yes it works. Sorry about that friend. I should have tested it in QA before. Thanks. Just a one more thing - I want to do the daily processing only on those records that have been updated/inserted. My daily processing involves checking if those attribute columns Col6 and Col 7 are present in this other file. If they are present than I need to say myTable99 records is Yes - it is present.
So I don't want to check on the attributes that have not changed. Would you suggest using a flag/status field for this purpose? Is there any other way?
Thanks
Vivek
1. Instead of deleting the row first, I have to move that row to a history table and then delete it. So is this correct for Delete -
CREATE TABLE myTable99_H (
HIST_ADD_DT datetime DEFAULT GetDate()
, Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
INSERT INTO myTable99_H(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT a.Col1, a.Col2, a.Col3, a.Col4, a.Col5
FROM myTable99 a
LEFT JOIN myTable00 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
WHERE b.Col1 IS NULL AND b.Col2 IS NULL
Then do the delete
DELETE FROM a
FROM myTable99 a
LEFT JOIN myTable00 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
WHERE b.Col1 IS NULL AND b.Col2 IS NULL
Originally posted by Brett Kaiser
Vivek,
Did you test it? Run it I mean?
I worked with a guy named Vivek once...
First the DELETE's. You know why you want to delete first, correct?
If yes, and you want to retain history, create an identical historical table called:
CREATE TABLE myTable99_H (
HIST_ADD_DT datetime DEFAULT GetDate()
, Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
With no constraints..it is history after all, and is inheriting the constarints from the base table
As far as the logic...if you look it's a LEFT OUTER JOIN between the 2 tables WHERE the key DOESN'T exist in the other (NOT NULL)
Got it?
Second, INSERTS...
Same logic as to why (NOT NULL)
Well did you cut and paste the code in to QA?
It should run for you no problems and should be a good example...|||I don't worry about it...it's like picking up sand with tweazers...
As long as you keep history of deletes AND updates with triggers, you will always have a total view of the "life" of the data as it "grows up" (and potentially dies - DELETE).
You can then determine with SQL what happened when and where (and if you add the right columns, by whom).
BUT...
You van look up the COLUMNS_UPDATED syntax in the Trigger
I don't use it, so sorry...
Go to BOL and look up CREATE TRIGGER in the index...
BUT...I'm perfectly happy with my method of tracking and retaining history...|||Brett,
I agree that your method is good. I would do the same.
My daily processing involves checking if those attribute columns Col6 and Col 7 are present in this other file. If they are present than I need to say myTable99 records is Yes - it is present.
So I don't want to check on the attributes that have not changed. That is the records with NO CHANGE shouldn't undergo any processing. Only those that have been updated/inserted should be processed.
Would you suggest using a flag/status field for this purpose? Is there any other way?
Thanks
Vivek|||OK, So you're saying, any rows that are identical you want to bypass?|||Yes. Any rows that are identical should be bypassed. I have already done the processing on these rows. So I don't want to do it again. Only updates/inserts should be processed.|||And DELETES...
But if Col1 and 2 or Key
and in the update I say col3 <> col3
Or col4 <> col4
isn't the extension of the col6 <> col6
or col7 <> col7
You're losing me...
Because that would do what you're asking...|||Brett,
Let me make it simple...
CREATE TABLE myTable99 (
Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
, CONSTRAINT myTable99_pk PRIMARY KEY (Col1, Col2))
CREATE TABLE myTable00 (
Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
, CONSTRAINT myTable00_pk PRIMARY KEY (Col1, Col2))
GO
INSERT INTO myTable99(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','2','d','e','f' UNION ALL --UPDATED
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL -- --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','4','j','k','l'
--DELETED
--This was my initial load...I check if Col4 or Col5 or Col6 (Name fields) are present in a Name file containing a list of names. If they are then I output the record plus the Name record from the Name file into a different table. That is my processing. I have a stored proc that does this. So now during the day this file gets updated in the source system. So the next day what I have is -
INSERT INTO myTable00(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','2','x','y','z' UNION ALL -- UPDATE (My comment - Instead of an update I want to insert a new record)
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '2','3','a','b','c' --INSERT
GO
Select * FROM myTable00.
I compare this with myTable99, do the deletes,updates and inserts like you said to get the appropriate contents of Table00 to Table99. Are you with me till this point. So now my Table99 next day looks like -
1','1','a','b','c' --NO CHANGE (So today I don't have to check this record with the Name file.)
'1','2','x','y','z' -- UPDATE ( I have to check this record with Name File)
'1','3','g','h','i' --NO CHANGE (No check. If I check and output with Name record then duplicate row)
'2','3','a','b','c' --INSERT (Check)
Have I made it clear now?
Let me know what you think. Appreciate your help.
Vivek|||Originally posted by vivek_vdc
INSERT INTO myTable00(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','2','x','y','z' UNION ALL -- UPDATE (My comment - Instead of an update I want to insert a new record)
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '2','3','a','b','c' --INSERT
GO
Clear as mud...but I've got way too much time invested...
You can't do that..see the bold...you're pk is col1 and col2...they can'r appear more than once like your sample suggestions...
again, unless it's too murky in here...
I need to extract a particular file from our AS 400 system on a daily basis and do some processing on it. Also I want to do the daily processing only on those records that have been added/updated since the initial load.
Here is the approach and possible implementation.
Approach
I have the DB2 source data containing 10 columns (Col1 to Col5 together form the key) and the rest are attributes. I am interested only in the key and two attributes. So I load my table with only Col1 to Col7 ( 5 for key and the two attributes). I then do my processing on this table.
Here is the implementation given by a member of dbforums -
You'll then have to deal with 3 potential actions,
INSERT: New records on the file.
DELETES: Records that don't exists.
UPDATES: Records that are on the file, but attributes have changed.
You had given me this code template.
CREATE TABLE myTable99 (
Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
, CONSTRAINT myTable99_pk PRIMARY KEY (Col1, Col2))
CREATE TABLE myTable00 (
Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
, CONSTRAINT myTable00_pk PRIMARY KEY (Col1, Col2))
GO
INSERT INTO myTable99(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL
SELECT '1','2','d','e','f' UNION ALL
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL
SELECT '1','4','j','k','l'
--DELETED
INSERT INTO myTable00(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','2','x','y','z' UNION ALL -- UPDATE (My comment - Instead of an update I want to insert a new record)
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '2','3','a','b','c' --INSERT
GO
SELECT * FROM myTable99
SELECT * FROM myTable00
GO
--DO DELETES FIRST (My comment - Before deleting, I want to copy the rows that I am going to delete on a separate table to maintain history. Then I want to delete from a). I don't get the logic. If the rows of the old extract are not in new extract then delete them. So shouldn't it be <> instead of =. why the where clause condition)
DELETE FROM a
FROM myTable99 a
LEFT JOIN myTable00 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
WHERE b.Col1 IS NULL AND b.Col2 IS NULL
-- INSERT (My comment - I don't get the logic of the where. If the rows of the old extract are not in new extract then delete them. So shouldn't it be <> instead of =)
INSERT INTO myTable99(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT a.Col1, a.Col2, a.Col3, a.Col4, a.Col5
FROM myTable00 a
LEFT JOIN myTable99 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
WHERE b.Col1 IS NULL AND b.Col2 IS NULL
-- UPDATE
UPDATE a
SET Col3 = b.Col3
, Col4 = b.Col4
, Col5 = b.Col5
FROM myTable99 a
INNER JOIN myTable00 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
AND ( a.Col3 <> b.Col3
OR a.Col4 <> b.Col4
OR a.Col5 <> b.Col5)
GO
----
Can anybody look at My comments and answer them or revise this code template if need be?
Brett Kaiser - I sent you an e-mail on this. Can you respond to it when time permits.
ThanksVivek,
Did you test it? Run it I mean?
I worked with a guy named Vivek once...
First the DELETE's. You know why you want to delete first, correct?
If yes, and you want to retain history, create an identical historical table called:
CREATE TABLE myTable99_H (
HIST_ADD_DT datetime DEFAULT GetDate()
, Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
With no constraints..it is history after all, and is inheriting the constarints from the base table
As far as the logic...if you look it's a LEFT OUTER JOIN between the 2 tables WHERE the key DOESN'T exist in the other (NOT NULL)
Got it?
Second, INSERTS...
Same logic as to why (NOT NULL)
Well did you cut and paste the code in to QA?
It should run for you no problems and should be a good example...|||Brett,
Yes it works. Sorry about that friend. I should have tested it in QA before. Thanks. Just a one more thing - I want to do the daily processing only on those records that have been updated/inserted. My daily processing involves checking if those attribute columns Col6 and Col 7 are present in this other file. If they are present than I need to say myTable99 records is Yes - it is present.
So I don't want to check on the attributes that have not changed. Would you suggest using a flag/status field for this purpose? Is there any other way?
Thanks
Vivek
1. Instead of deleting the row first, I have to move that row to a history table and then delete it. So is this correct for Delete -
CREATE TABLE myTable99_H (
HIST_ADD_DT datetime DEFAULT GetDate()
, Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
INSERT INTO myTable99_H(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT a.Col1, a.Col2, a.Col3, a.Col4, a.Col5
FROM myTable99 a
LEFT JOIN myTable00 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
WHERE b.Col1 IS NULL AND b.Col2 IS NULL
Then do the delete
DELETE FROM a
FROM myTable99 a
LEFT JOIN myTable00 b
ON a.Col1 = b.Col1
AND a.Col2 = b.Col2
WHERE b.Col1 IS NULL AND b.Col2 IS NULL
Originally posted by Brett Kaiser
Vivek,
Did you test it? Run it I mean?
I worked with a guy named Vivek once...
First the DELETE's. You know why you want to delete first, correct?
If yes, and you want to retain history, create an identical historical table called:
CREATE TABLE myTable99_H (
HIST_ADD_DT datetime DEFAULT GetDate()
, Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
With no constraints..it is history after all, and is inheriting the constarints from the base table
As far as the logic...if you look it's a LEFT OUTER JOIN between the 2 tables WHERE the key DOESN'T exist in the other (NOT NULL)
Got it?
Second, INSERTS...
Same logic as to why (NOT NULL)
Well did you cut and paste the code in to QA?
It should run for you no problems and should be a good example...|||I don't worry about it...it's like picking up sand with tweazers...
As long as you keep history of deletes AND updates with triggers, you will always have a total view of the "life" of the data as it "grows up" (and potentially dies - DELETE).
You can then determine with SQL what happened when and where (and if you add the right columns, by whom).
BUT...
You van look up the COLUMNS_UPDATED syntax in the Trigger
I don't use it, so sorry...
Go to BOL and look up CREATE TRIGGER in the index...
BUT...I'm perfectly happy with my method of tracking and retaining history...|||Brett,
I agree that your method is good. I would do the same.
My daily processing involves checking if those attribute columns Col6 and Col 7 are present in this other file. If they are present than I need to say myTable99 records is Yes - it is present.
So I don't want to check on the attributes that have not changed. That is the records with NO CHANGE shouldn't undergo any processing. Only those that have been updated/inserted should be processed.
Would you suggest using a flag/status field for this purpose? Is there any other way?
Thanks
Vivek|||OK, So you're saying, any rows that are identical you want to bypass?|||Yes. Any rows that are identical should be bypassed. I have already done the processing on these rows. So I don't want to do it again. Only updates/inserts should be processed.|||And DELETES...
But if Col1 and 2 or Key
and in the update I say col3 <> col3
Or col4 <> col4
isn't the extension of the col6 <> col6
or col7 <> col7
You're losing me...
Because that would do what you're asking...|||Brett,
Let me make it simple...
CREATE TABLE myTable99 (
Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
, CONSTRAINT myTable99_pk PRIMARY KEY (Col1, Col2))
CREATE TABLE myTable00 (
Col1 char(1)
, Col2 char(1)
, Col3 char(1)
, Col4 char(1)
, Col5 char(1)
, CONSTRAINT myTable00_pk PRIMARY KEY (Col1, Col2))
GO
INSERT INTO myTable99(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','2','d','e','f' UNION ALL --UPDATED
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL -- --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','4','j','k','l'
--DELETED
--This was my initial load...I check if Col4 or Col5 or Col6 (Name fields) are present in a Name file containing a list of names. If they are then I output the record plus the Name record from the Name file into a different table. That is my processing. I have a stored proc that does this. So now during the day this file gets updated in the source system. So the next day what I have is -
INSERT INTO myTable00(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','2','x','y','z' UNION ALL -- UPDATE (My comment - Instead of an update I want to insert a new record)
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '2','3','a','b','c' --INSERT
GO
Select * FROM myTable00.
I compare this with myTable99, do the deletes,updates and inserts like you said to get the appropriate contents of Table00 to Table99. Are you with me till this point. So now my Table99 next day looks like -
1','1','a','b','c' --NO CHANGE (So today I don't have to check this record with the Name file.)
'1','2','x','y','z' -- UPDATE ( I have to check this record with Name File)
'1','3','g','h','i' --NO CHANGE (No check. If I check and output with Name record then duplicate row)
'2','3','a','b','c' --INSERT (Check)
Have I made it clear now?
Let me know what you think. Appreciate your help.
Vivek|||Originally posted by vivek_vdc
INSERT INTO myTable00(Col1,Col2,Col3,Col4,Col5)
SELECT '1','1','a','b','c' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '1','2','x','y','z' UNION ALL -- UPDATE (My comment - Instead of an update I want to insert a new record)
SELECT '1','3','g','h','i' UNION ALL --NO CHANGE
SELECT '2','3','a','b','c' --INSERT
GO
Clear as mud...but I've got way too much time invested...
You can't do that..see the bold...you're pk is col1 and col2...they can'r appear more than once like your sample suggestions...
again, unless it's too murky in here...
Friday, February 17, 2012
DAB
We have about 9TB of data and I am looking to see how
many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have
way of finding out?
One good one or a whole bunch of not so good ones.
--=20
Keith
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =
news:1b0ab01c44fd4$cb4dc870$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have about 9TB of data and I am looking to see how=20
> many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have=20
> way of finding out?
|||The DBA workload is likely to be dependent on factors other than simply the
size of your data. For example: the number of servers, users, developers and
development projects you need to support; the number and complexity of your
DB applications; whether you have to support features such as data loads,
replication, data warehouses or web servers, etc.
How do you manage the database administration today? If you don't already
have a DBA then hire someone with experience who can help you identify the
workload that is required - it's not something that can really be determined
from an online discussion.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Thanks, We do have nine DBAs now and about 90 servers,and
about Ten applications.
>--Original Message--
>The DBA workload is likely to be dependent on factors
other than simply the
>size of your data. For example: the number of servers,
users, developers and
>development projects you need to support; the number and
complexity of your
>DB applications; whether you have to support features
such as data loads,
>replication, data warehouses or web servers, etc.
>How do you manage the database administration today? If
you don't already
>have a DBA then hire someone with experience who can
help you identify the
>workload that is required - it's not something that can
really be determined
>from an online discussion.
>--
>David Portas
>SQL Server MVP
>--
>
>.
>
|||Hi,
The database size is not the determining factor here.How do you define
'support'? Is your DBA responsible only when someone cannot access the
databases or the server?Or, in addition, is he/she responsible for some
development,data modelling,setup or maintenance(administrative) work
too?Thus once you decide their course of work, do a estimation of the number
of hours per week/month/year they are supposed to work and whether you need
a DBA or groups of DBA for each above mentioned roles.The mentioned roles
could differ from company to company.If you dont know what all you want your
DBA to do, then consult with someone who does this kinds of staffing
business, like Microsoft Consulting Services or someone who is topnotch in
your location.You can also refer the Operations guide which should be
heldful in defining roles for the DBA:
'SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide'
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...n/sqlops0.mspx
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1b0ab01c44fd4$cb4dc870$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have about 9TB of data and I am looking to see how
> many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have
> way of finding out?
many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have
way of finding out?
One good one or a whole bunch of not so good ones.
--=20
Keith
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =
news:1b0ab01c44fd4$cb4dc870$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have about 9TB of data and I am looking to see how=20
> many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have=20
> way of finding out?
|||The DBA workload is likely to be dependent on factors other than simply the
size of your data. For example: the number of servers, users, developers and
development projects you need to support; the number and complexity of your
DB applications; whether you have to support features such as data loads,
replication, data warehouses or web servers, etc.
How do you manage the database administration today? If you don't already
have a DBA then hire someone with experience who can help you identify the
workload that is required - it's not something that can really be determined
from an online discussion.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Thanks, We do have nine DBAs now and about 90 servers,and
about Ten applications.
>--Original Message--
>The DBA workload is likely to be dependent on factors
other than simply the
>size of your data. For example: the number of servers,
users, developers and
>development projects you need to support; the number and
complexity of your
>DB applications; whether you have to support features
such as data loads,
>replication, data warehouses or web servers, etc.
>How do you manage the database administration today? If
you don't already
>have a DBA then hire someone with experience who can
help you identify the
>workload that is required - it's not something that can
really be determined
>from an online discussion.
>--
>David Portas
>SQL Server MVP
>--
>
>.
>
|||Hi,
The database size is not the determining factor here.How do you define
'support'? Is your DBA responsible only when someone cannot access the
databases or the server?Or, in addition, is he/she responsible for some
development,data modelling,setup or maintenance(administrative) work
too?Thus once you decide their course of work, do a estimation of the number
of hours per week/month/year they are supposed to work and whether you need
a DBA or groups of DBA for each above mentioned roles.The mentioned roles
could differ from company to company.If you dont know what all you want your
DBA to do, then consult with someone who does this kinds of staffing
business, like Microsoft Consulting Services or someone who is topnotch in
your location.You can also refer the Operations guide which should be
heldful in defining roles for the DBA:
'SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide'
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...n/sqlops0.mspx
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1b0ab01c44fd4$cb4dc870$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have about 9TB of data and I am looking to see how
> many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have
> way of finding out?
DAB
We have about 9TB of data and I am looking to see how
many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have
way of finding out?One good one or a whole bunch of not so good ones.
-- Keith
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =news:1b0ab01c44fd4$cb4dc870$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have about 9TB of data and I am looking to see how > many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have > way of finding out?|||The DBA workload is likely to be dependent on factors other than simply the
size of your data. For example: the number of servers, users, developers and
development projects you need to support; the number and complexity of your
DB applications; whether you have to support features such as data loads,
replication, data warehouses or web servers, etc.
How do you manage the database administration today? If you don't already
have a DBA then hire someone with experience who can help you identify the
workload that is required - it's not something that can really be determined
from an online discussion.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Thanks, We do have nine DBAs now and about 90 servers,and
about Ten applications.
>--Original Message--
>The DBA workload is likely to be dependent on factors
other than simply the
>size of your data. For example: the number of servers,
users, developers and
>development projects you need to support; the number and
complexity of your
>DB applications; whether you have to support features
such as data loads,
>replication, data warehouses or web servers, etc.
>How do you manage the database administration today? If
you don't already
>have a DBA then hire someone with experience who can
help you identify the
>workload that is required - it's not something that can
really be determined
>from an online discussion.
>--
>David Portas
>SQL Server MVP
>--
>
>.
>|||Hi,
The database size is not the determining factor here.How do you define
'support'? Is your DBA responsible only when someone cannot access the
databases or the server?Or, in addition, is he/she responsible for some
development,data modelling,setup or maintenance(administrative) work
too?Thus once you decide their course of work, do a estimation of the number
of hours per week/month/year they are supposed to work and whether you need
a DBA or groups of DBA for each above mentioned roles.The mentioned roles
could differ from company to company.If you dont know what all you want your
DBA to do, then consult with someone who does this kinds of staffing
business, like Microsoft Consulting Services or someone who is topnotch in
your location.You can also refer the Operations guide which should be
heldful in defining roles for the DBA:
'SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide'
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlops0.mspx
--
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1b0ab01c44fd4$cb4dc870$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have about 9TB of data and I am looking to see how
> many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have
> way of finding out?
many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have
way of finding out?One good one or a whole bunch of not so good ones.
-- Keith
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =news:1b0ab01c44fd4$cb4dc870$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have about 9TB of data and I am looking to see how > many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have > way of finding out?|||The DBA workload is likely to be dependent on factors other than simply the
size of your data. For example: the number of servers, users, developers and
development projects you need to support; the number and complexity of your
DB applications; whether you have to support features such as data loads,
replication, data warehouses or web servers, etc.
How do you manage the database administration today? If you don't already
have a DBA then hire someone with experience who can help you identify the
workload that is required - it's not something that can really be determined
from an online discussion.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Thanks, We do have nine DBAs now and about 90 servers,and
about Ten applications.
>--Original Message--
>The DBA workload is likely to be dependent on factors
other than simply the
>size of your data. For example: the number of servers,
users, developers and
>development projects you need to support; the number and
complexity of your
>DB applications; whether you have to support features
such as data loads,
>replication, data warehouses or web servers, etc.
>How do you manage the database administration today? If
you don't already
>have a DBA then hire someone with experience who can
help you identify the
>workload that is required - it's not something that can
really be determined
>from an online discussion.
>--
>David Portas
>SQL Server MVP
>--
>
>.
>|||Hi,
The database size is not the determining factor here.How do you define
'support'? Is your DBA responsible only when someone cannot access the
databases or the server?Or, in addition, is he/she responsible for some
development,data modelling,setup or maintenance(administrative) work
too?Thus once you decide their course of work, do a estimation of the number
of hours per week/month/year they are supposed to work and whether you need
a DBA or groups of DBA for each above mentioned roles.The mentioned roles
could differ from company to company.If you dont know what all you want your
DBA to do, then consult with someone who does this kinds of staffing
business, like Microsoft Consulting Services or someone who is topnotch in
your location.You can also refer the Operations guide which should be
heldful in defining roles for the DBA:
'SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide'
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sqlops0.mspx
--
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1b0ab01c44fd4$cb4dc870$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> We have about 9TB of data and I am looking to see how
> many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have
> way of finding out?
DAB
We have about 9TB of data and I am looking to see how
many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have
way of finding out?One good one or a whole bunch of not so good ones.
--=20
Keith
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =
news:1b0ab01c44fd4$cb4dc870$a601280a@.phx
.gbl...
> We have about 9TB of data and I am looking to see how=20
> many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have=20
> way of finding out?|||The DBA workload is likely to be dependent on factors other than simply the
size of your data. For example: the number of servers, users, developers and
development projects you need to support; the number and complexity of your
DB applications; whether you have to support features such as data loads,
replication, data warehouses or web servers, etc.
How do you manage the database administration today? If you don't already
have a DBA then hire someone with experience who can help you identify the
workload that is required - it's not something that can really be determined
from an online discussion.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Thanks, We do have nine DBAs now and about 90 servers,and
about Ten applications.
>--Original Message--
>The DBA workload is likely to be dependent on factors
other than simply the
>size of your data. For example: the number of servers,
users, developers and
>development projects you need to support; the number and
complexity of your
>DB applications; whether you have to support features
such as data loads,
>replication, data warehouses or web servers, etc.
>How do you manage the database administration today? If
you don't already
>have a DBA then hire someone with experience who can
help you identify the
>workload that is required - it's not something that can
really be determined
>from an online discussion.
>--
>David Portas
>SQL Server MVP
>--
>
>.
>|||Hi,
The database size is not the determining factor here.How do you define
'support'? Is your DBA responsible only when someone cannot access the
databases or the server?Or, in addition, is he/she responsible for some
development,data modelling,setup or maintenance(administrative) work
too?Thus once you decide their course of work, do a estimation of the number
of hours per week/month/year they are supposed to work and whether you need
a DBA or groups of DBA for each above mentioned roles.The mentioned roles
could differ from company to company.If you dont know what all you want your
DBA to do, then consult with someone who does this kinds of staffing
business, like Microsoft Consulting Services or someone who is topnotch in
your location.You can also refer the Operations guide which should be
heldful in defining roles for the DBA:
'SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide'
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...in/sqlops0.mspx
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1b0ab01c44fd4$cb4dc870$a601280a@.phx
.gbl...
> We have about 9TB of data and I am looking to see how
> many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have
> way of finding out?
many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have
way of finding out?One good one or a whole bunch of not so good ones.
--=20
Keith
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message =
news:1b0ab01c44fd4$cb4dc870$a601280a@.phx
.gbl...
> We have about 9TB of data and I am looking to see how=20
> many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have=20
> way of finding out?|||The DBA workload is likely to be dependent on factors other than simply the
size of your data. For example: the number of servers, users, developers and
development projects you need to support; the number and complexity of your
DB applications; whether you have to support features such as data loads,
replication, data warehouses or web servers, etc.
How do you manage the database administration today? If you don't already
have a DBA then hire someone with experience who can help you identify the
workload that is required - it's not something that can really be determined
from an online discussion.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Thanks, We do have nine DBAs now and about 90 servers,and
about Ten applications.
>--Original Message--
>The DBA workload is likely to be dependent on factors
other than simply the
>size of your data. For example: the number of servers,
users, developers and
>development projects you need to support; the number and
complexity of your
>DB applications; whether you have to support features
such as data loads,
>replication, data warehouses or web servers, etc.
>How do you manage the database administration today? If
you don't already
>have a DBA then hire someone with experience who can
help you identify the
>workload that is required - it's not something that can
really be determined
>from an online discussion.
>--
>David Portas
>SQL Server MVP
>--
>
>.
>|||Hi,
The database size is not the determining factor here.How do you define
'support'? Is your DBA responsible only when someone cannot access the
databases or the server?Or, in addition, is he/she responsible for some
development,data modelling,setup or maintenance(administrative) work
too?Thus once you decide their course of work, do a estimation of the number
of hours per week/month/year they are supposed to work and whether you need
a DBA or groups of DBA for each above mentioned roles.The mentioned roles
could differ from company to company.If you dont know what all you want your
DBA to do, then consult with someone who does this kinds of staffing
business, like Microsoft Consulting Services or someone who is topnotch in
your location.You can also refer the Operations guide which should be
heldful in defining roles for the DBA:
'SQL Server 2000 Operations Guide'
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...in/sqlops0.mspx
Dinesh
SQL Server MVP
--
--
SQL Server FAQ at
http://www.tkdinesh.com
<anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1b0ab01c44fd4$cb4dc870$a601280a@.phx
.gbl...
> We have about 9TB of data and I am looking to see how
> many DBA we need to support that data ,Does any one have
> way of finding out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)