Our IT production support team stores miscellaneous SQL scripts for support
items on a SharePoint server (WSS 3). However, to edit these scripts, the
user must save a local copy of the file, make the change and then re-upload
it, ensuring the name is the same. This triggers SharePoint to create a new
version of that script.
Is there an easier way to integrate the SQL 2005 Management Studio with
Sharepoint - maybe make it more like you are using SourceSafe, where you
have a project file with scripts in it and you can right click to Check Out,
Check In, etc?
Hi,
I noticed that you also have a post regarding this issue in
microsoft.public.sharepoint.windowsservices and our professional there will
assist you under that post. For further communications, please directly
reply to him.
Thanks for using Microsoft Managed Newsgroup. Have a nice day!
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
================================================== ===
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications
If you are using Outlook Express, please make sure you clear the check box
"Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
================================================== ====
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
================================================== ====
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
================================================== ====
Showing posts with label stores. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stores. Show all posts
Monday, March 12, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Integer field question
Hi
I need to create a table with an integer column that stores 2-byte
numbers in the range 0..65535, and forms part of the table's primary
key. Which data type should I pick?
I'm torn between:
(1) smallint - right size, but this is a signed type. So if a user
does a query for col > 60000, it won't work ..
(2) int - can hold number range correctly, but this is 4 bytes. I
could end up with 2 rows which are unique according to the primary
key, but having the same value for the first 2 bytes. Could fix with
an additional table constraint, but I wonder if there is a neater
way..
Can anyone recommend the best method to do this ?
thanks,
Neil
I don't think there's any simple way to do it. Int with a check constraint
to limit to numbers <= 65535 will solve it databasewise, but perhaps the
check constraint is not necessary if the middle-tier or GUI limits input to
2 bytes anyway?
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
|||On 3 Mar, 09:39, "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibi...@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote:
> I don't think there's any simple way to do it. Int with a check constraint
> to limit to numbers <= 65535 will solve it databasewise, but perhaps the
> check constraint is not necessary if the middle-tier or GUI limits input to
> 2 bytes anyway?
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP,www.replicationanswers.com
OK, thanks for the answer. Yes, the GUI will validate user input.
I will go for the "int" option.
I need to create a table with an integer column that stores 2-byte
numbers in the range 0..65535, and forms part of the table's primary
key. Which data type should I pick?
I'm torn between:
(1) smallint - right size, but this is a signed type. So if a user
does a query for col > 60000, it won't work ..
(2) int - can hold number range correctly, but this is 4 bytes. I
could end up with 2 rows which are unique according to the primary
key, but having the same value for the first 2 bytes. Could fix with
an additional table constraint, but I wonder if there is a neater
way..
Can anyone recommend the best method to do this ?
thanks,
Neil
I don't think there's any simple way to do it. Int with a check constraint
to limit to numbers <= 65535 will solve it databasewise, but perhaps the
check constraint is not necessary if the middle-tier or GUI limits input to
2 bytes anyway?
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
|||On 3 Mar, 09:39, "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibi...@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote:
> I don't think there's any simple way to do it. Int with a check constraint
> to limit to numbers <= 65535 will solve it databasewise, but perhaps the
> check constraint is not necessary if the middle-tier or GUI limits input to
> 2 bytes anyway?
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP,www.replicationanswers.com
OK, thanks for the answer. Yes, the GUI will validate user input.
I will go for the "int" option.
Integer field question
Hi
I need to create a table with an integer column that stores 2-byte
numbers in the range 0..65535, and forms part of the table's primary
key. Which data type should I pick?
I'm torn between:
(1) smallint - right size, but this is a signed type. So if a user
does a query for col > 60000, it won't work ..
(2) int - can hold number range correctly, but this is 4 bytes. I
could end up with 2 rows which are unique according to the primary
key, but having the same value for the first 2 bytes. Could fix with
an additional table constraint, but I wonder if there is a neater
way..
Can anyone recommend the best method to do this ?
thanks,
NeilI don't think there's any simple way to do it. Int with a check constraint
to limit to numbers <= 65535 will solve it databasewise, but perhaps the
check constraint is not necessary if the middle-tier or GUI limits input to
2 bytes anyway?
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com|||On 3 Mar, 09:39, "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibi...@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote:
> I don't think there's any simple way to do it. Int with a check constraint
> to limit to numbers <= 65535 will solve it databasewise, but perhaps the
> check constraint is not necessary if the middle-tier or GUI limits input t
o
> 2 bytes anyway?
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP,www.replicationanswers.com
OK, thanks for the answer. Yes, the GUI will validate user input.
I will go for the "int" option.
I need to create a table with an integer column that stores 2-byte
numbers in the range 0..65535, and forms part of the table's primary
key. Which data type should I pick?
I'm torn between:
(1) smallint - right size, but this is a signed type. So if a user
does a query for col > 60000, it won't work ..
(2) int - can hold number range correctly, but this is 4 bytes. I
could end up with 2 rows which are unique according to the primary
key, but having the same value for the first 2 bytes. Could fix with
an additional table constraint, but I wonder if there is a neater
way..
Can anyone recommend the best method to do this ?
thanks,
NeilI don't think there's any simple way to do it. Int with a check constraint
to limit to numbers <= 65535 will solve it databasewise, but perhaps the
check constraint is not necessary if the middle-tier or GUI limits input to
2 bytes anyway?
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com|||On 3 Mar, 09:39, "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibi...@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote:
> I don't think there's any simple way to do it. Int with a check constraint
> to limit to numbers <= 65535 will solve it databasewise, but perhaps the
> check constraint is not necessary if the middle-tier or GUI limits input t
o
> 2 bytes anyway?
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP,www.replicationanswers.com
OK, thanks for the answer. Yes, the GUI will validate user input.
I will go for the "int" option.
Integer field question
Hi
I need to create a table with an integer column that stores 2-byte
numbers in the range 0..65535, and forms part of the table's primary
key. Which data type should I pick?
I'm torn between:
(1) smallint - right size, but this is a signed type. So if a user
does a query for col > 60000, it won't work ..
(2) int - can hold number range correctly, but this is 4 bytes. I
could end up with 2 rows which are unique according to the primary
key, but having the same value for the first 2 bytes. Could fix with
an additional table constraint, but I wonder if there is a neater
way..
Can anyone recommend the best method to do this ?
thanks,
NeilI don't think there's any simple way to do it. Int with a check constraint
to limit to numbers <= 65535 will solve it databasewise, but perhaps the
check constraint is not necessary if the middle-tier or GUI limits input to
2 bytes anyway?
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com|||On 3 Mar, 09:39, "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibi...@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote:
> I don't think there's any simple way to do it. Int with a check constraint
> to limit to numbers <= 65535 will solve it databasewise, but perhaps the
> check constraint is not necessary if the middle-tier or GUI limits input to
> 2 bytes anyway?
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP,www.replicationanswers.com
OK, thanks for the answer. Yes, the GUI will validate user input.
I will go for the "int" option.
I need to create a table with an integer column that stores 2-byte
numbers in the range 0..65535, and forms part of the table's primary
key. Which data type should I pick?
I'm torn between:
(1) smallint - right size, but this is a signed type. So if a user
does a query for col > 60000, it won't work ..
(2) int - can hold number range correctly, but this is 4 bytes. I
could end up with 2 rows which are unique according to the primary
key, but having the same value for the first 2 bytes. Could fix with
an additional table constraint, but I wonder if there is a neater
way..
Can anyone recommend the best method to do this ?
thanks,
NeilI don't think there's any simple way to do it. Int with a check constraint
to limit to numbers <= 65535 will solve it databasewise, but perhaps the
check constraint is not necessary if the middle-tier or GUI limits input to
2 bytes anyway?
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com|||On 3 Mar, 09:39, "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibi...@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote:
> I don't think there's any simple way to do it. Int with a check constraint
> to limit to numbers <= 65535 will solve it databasewise, but perhaps the
> check constraint is not necessary if the middle-tier or GUI limits input to
> 2 bytes anyway?
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP,www.replicationanswers.com
OK, thanks for the answer. Yes, the GUI will validate user input.
I will go for the "int" option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)