I am started using SQL Server 2012 MDS for maintaining our huge customer base. My question is whether MDS supports more than 10 million records? If so, how it is handled in excel? Excel has the number of rows limitation of 1 million.
Below is Quote from technet on same,posting relevant content here
Create Entity: Creating an entity from an Excel table is dependent on both the number of records and the number of columns, and appears to be linear in its progression. The number of attributes supported is based on SQL table limits, while the number of members will be constrained by Excel worksheet row limitations of 1M rows.
Related
Using MS Sync Framework with SqlSyncProvider with SQL Express: I know sql merge replication places limits on how many columns a table can have, but I haven't seen anything about limits with Sync Framework. What is the maximum number of tables that can be synchronized and what is the maximum number of columns in a table that can be synchronized with Sync Framework?
afaik, there is no hard limits. the columns and tables are added in a collection.
having said that, the scope configuration is stored in the scope_config table as an xml column. the scope configuration has a list of all table and columns in a scope and afaik, the xml column has a 2gb limit (i doubt you'll hit a 2gb scope configuration)
What is the maximum number of columns witin SQL Server 2008? I know at least in 2005 the limitations were related to row size, does this still apply?
Right after I define and populate this ridiculously wide table I will need to write an SSIS package against it. Are there different limitations for SSIS for number of columns than there are for SQL Server?
In essence I have a very large number of attributes about an entity that for a number of reasons will need to be stored on one table and then extracted in that same columns wide format and I want to make sure what the rules are within SQL Server 2008 and SSIS 2008.
SQL Server 2008 has a max for Wide and NonWide. Unless you've taken special steps to use sparse columns, you've got a NonWide table.
Columns per nonwide table 1,024
Columns per wide table 30,000
Row size limitations (with a caveat, see details in specs below):
Bytes per row 8,060
Maximum Capacity Specifications for SQL Server 2008
More on Wide and NonWide at MSDN.
I'm going to use a single table to aggregate historical data about our (very big) virtual infrastructure. The table will be composed of 15 to 30 fields, and I esitmate from 500 to 1000 records a day.
Why a single table? A couple of reasons:
Data is extracted to csv using powershell scripts. Then bulk load on a single table is very easy and fast.
I will use the table to connect excel and report through pivot tables. Then a single table is perfect (otherwise I should create views).
Now my question:
If I'm planning in the future to build cubes upon this table is the "single-table" choice a bad solution?
Do cubes rely on relational databases or they can be easily built upon single-table databases?
Thanks for any suggestion
Can't tell you specifically about SQL Server Analysis Services, but for OLAP you typically use denormalized and aggregated data. That means fewer tables than in a normal relational scenario. And as your data volume is not really big (365k rows/year - even small for OLAP), I don't see any problem using a single table for your data.
Can we get the benefits of the partitioning of a SQL server 2010 table when we use entity framework as the data layer?
The table will have 10 000 records per day and it will be partitioned by the date created (Ex :- Older than 30 days and new)
I'm not very skilled in SQL Server so perhaps I'm wrong but I believe that table partitioning should be transparent to queries (if we are talking about automatic partition function defined in the table) - it means that common queries should still work and even have better performance if partitioning is configured correctly. So in case of database-frist design, EF should not have any problem with this because it still works with single logical table. If you mean manual partitioning by creating new table each month then it is a big probrem with EF and you will need stored procedures to access that tables.
I have 2 link tables in a MS Access database. One of the link tables links to a table in a Sybase database and the other links to a SQL Server database.
The tables structures are same and has the same data too, barring a few rows.
I tried the 'Find unmatched rows' query wizard to compare the two tables and find the number of rows which are same (and different). But the problem is this makes the MS Access hang for huge tables (10 million+ rows).
Are there any settings that I can tweak so that Access does not hang? I am using ODBC connections to Sybase and SQL Server.
One more thing I noticed is when I right click on the SQL Server link table and click on open, it shows all the rows from the table. When I do the same for the Sybase one, it hangs and I have to close Access through Task Manager.
Some details:
Sybase version - 12.5.3
SQL Server version - 2008 R2
MS Access Version - 2003
On the face of it I would say the problem is that access is trying to do this query locally and is pulling most of the table down the wire. This is where you often get the myth that access does this all of the time when in fact it only does it on certain edge events. Is there anyway you could narrow down the data you are comparing? Maybe the table is a list of product sales and you could do one product line at a time or something like that?