Books online downloads for ver 6.5/6.0/4

Dear all
Where can I download Sql Server Books Online for any versions of 6.5 or 6.0 or 4.
thanksDid you check the Smithsonian?

On a slightly more serious note, those are so old that they've been unsupported for years. I'm pretty sure that I still have all of them, but that still leads me to wonder what possible good they might do you.

At this point they're so badly out of date that Microsoft might even be willing to give them to you. Have you asked them for a copy?

-PatP

blonde to write query or design fault

Dear All,

Im wondering if its the design that needs to be changed or I simply cant put this together.

I have 3 tables.

1. people (peopId, peopFName, peopSName etc.)
2. codes (codeId, codeName)
3. codedPeople(codePeopleId, peopId, codeId)

Codes represent different skills of people, example the sort of job functions theyve held in their employment. Like:

t-CEO,
t-CFO
t-Founder
etc.

people, clearly holds data about people.

CodedPeople holds data about which people are coded. So person1 can be coded as t-CEO as well t-Founder, and person2 coded as t-CFO

What I need is a query that returns all distinct people records and takes a number of codeNames as input. So if I throw in t-CEO OR t-Founder I get person1, again if I define t-CEO AND t-Founder I get person1.

However when I add t-CEO OR t-CFO I get person1 and person2 but when the query takes t-CEO AND t-CFO I get no result.

I cant seem to come up with anything that would give me a good starting point. Is there a design fault here? All opinions are much appreciated, thanks in advance!"the query takes t-CEO AND t-CFO I get no result."

Is that wrong? No person is t-CEO AND t-CFO in your example.

Please tell us what you want the result to be.|||Thanks for getting back!

Ok, so I have 3 codes and 2 people in the database. (In reality its about 250 different codes and about 10,000 people, growth is about 5000 / year)

I coded person1 as a technology-Chief Executive Officer and also as a technology-Founder (t-CFO, t-Founder)

I also coded person2 as a technology-Chief Financial Officer (t-CFO)

I want to write a query that takes codes as parameters:

t-CEO AND t-Founder = returns person1 (as hes coded as a t-CEO and t-Founder)
t-CEO OR t-CFO = returns person1 and person2 (as person1 is coded as t-CEO and person2 is coded as t-CFO)

t-CEO AND t-CFO = returns no result ( as no person in the db is coded as both a t-CEO and also a t-CFO)

t-CFO or t-Founder = returns person1 and person2 (as person1 is coded as a t-Founder and person2 is coded as a t-CFO)

Am I describing it correctly?

Of course the query need to be flexible as Ill using it from ASP.NET dropping in the parameters so codeName Like t-CEO OR codeName Like t-Founder

I have:

SELECT people.peopId, peopFName, peopSName, peopPhoneHome, peopPhoneMobile, peopEmail, codes.codeId, codename
FROM people INNER JOIN codedPeople ON people.peopId = codedPeople.peopId
INNER JOIN codes ON codes.codeId = codedPeople.codeId
WHERE ( ( codeName LIKE 't-CEO' ) OR ( codeName LIKE 't-CFO' ) )
ORDER BY peopSName, peopFName

But thats useless!|||Let me correct that, I have mixed up the similar codes of t-CEO and t-CFO, the correct one is:

Thanks for getting back!

Ok, so I have 3 codes and 2 people in the database. (In reality its about 250 different codes and about 10,000 people, growth is about 5000 / year)

I coded person1 as a technology-Chief Executive Officer and also as a technology-Founder (t-CEO, t-Founder)

I also coded person2 as a technology-Chief Financial Officer (t-CFO)

I want to write a query that takes codes as parameters:

t-CEO AND t-Founder = returns person1 (as hes coded as a t-CEO and t-Founder)
t-CEO OR t-CFO = returns person1 and person2 (as person1 is coded as t-CEO and person2 is coded as t-CFO)

t-CEO AND t-CFO = returns no result ( as no person in the db is coded as both a t-CEO and also a t-CFO)

t-CFO OR t-Founder = returns person1 and person2 (as person1 is coded as a t-Founder and person2 is coded as a t-CFO)

Am I describing it correctly?

Of course the query need to be flexible as Ill using it from ASP.NET dropping in the parameters so codeName Like t-CEO OR codeName Like t-Founder

I have:

SELECT people.peopId, peopFName, peopSName, peopPhoneHome, peopPhoneMobile, peopEmail, codes.codeId, codename
FROM people INNER JOIN codedPeople ON people.peopId = codedPeople.peopId
INNER JOIN codes ON codes.codeId = codedPeople.codeId
WHERE ( ( codeName LIKE 't-CEO' ) OR ( codeName LIKE 't-CFO' ) )
ORDER BY peopSName, peopFName

But thats useless!

Blocking issue

Dear Sir/Madam,
I have run the sp_who2, and found that a process is blocking others processes.
But after I checked the blocker process, it is a SELECT query, which suppose
wouldn't lock any pages/tables, am I right? So, what is happening?
Many thanks!
Yours sincerely,
Henry
SELECT query needs to get read locks in SQL Server unless you are in read
uncommitted isolation. Please read the "Understanding Locking in SQL Server"
section in the Books Online.
Wei Xiao
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C18EC8B-1573-4BB3-8EB0-EFD74AAEB4D1@.microsoft.com...
> Dear Sir/Madam,
> I have run the sp_who2, and found that a process is blocking others
processes.
> But after I checked the blocker process, it is a SELECT query, which
suppose
> wouldn't lock any pages/tables, am I right? So, what is happening?
> Many thanks!
> Yours sincerely,
> Henry
|||To add more details, using the default settings for SQLServer, Select
statements get a short read lock. This lock lasts a very short time unless
the select is in a trasaction with Holdlock. In that case the read locks (
called shared locks) are held for the duration of the transaction. These
shared locks will prevent anyone from updating the rows.
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C18EC8B-1573-4BB3-8EB0-EFD74AAEB4D1@.microsoft.com...
> Dear Sir/Madam,
> I have run the sp_who2, and found that a process is blocking others
processes.
> But after I checked the blocker process, it is a SELECT query, which
suppose
> wouldn't lock any pages/tables, am I right? So, what is happening?
> Many thanks!
> Yours sincerely,
> Henry
|||Also, again with the defaults, is to check whether or not you have IMPLICIT
TRANSACTIONs on. If so, you do not need to explicitly specify a BEGIN
TRANSACTION statement to initiate one and one is usually initiated with most
statements, including READ operations.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C18EC8B-1573-4BB3-8EB0-EFD74AAEB4D1@.microsoft.com...
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have run the sp_who2, and found that a process is blocking others
processes.
But after I checked the blocker process, it is a SELECT query, which suppose
wouldn't lock any pages/tables, am I right? So, what is happening?
Many thanks!
Yours sincerely,
Henry
|||It depends upon what transaction isolation level you are running under. The
transaction isolation level will determine what types of locks are issued
and how long the locks are held. If you are running under serializable, this
is what I would expect. See the BOL for the transaction isolation level
topics.
If these queries are being issued from an object managed by COM+, you may be
going down into the wormhole where all queries are issued under the
serializable transaction isolation level, regardless of what level you
specify in your query. Microsoft has several KB articles about this. It
depends upon how the object is written, whether transactions are used, ad
nauseum. I don't remember the exact rules off the top of my head, but it
essentially dumbs down everything so that you are assured of not hurting
yourself with concurrency issues.
"Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C18EC8B-1573-4BB3-8EB0-EFD74AAEB4D1@.microsoft.com...
> Dear Sir/Madam,
> I have run the sp_who2, and found that a process is blocking others
> processes.
> But after I checked the blocker process, it is a SELECT query, which
> suppose
> wouldn't lock any pages/tables, am I right? So, what is happening?
> Many thanks!
> Yours sincerely,
> Henry

Blocking issue

Dear Sir/Madam,
I have run the sp_who2, and found that a process is blocking others processes.
But after I checked the blocker process, it is a SELECT query, which suppose
wouldn't lock any pages/tables, am I right? So, what is happening?
Many thanks!
Yours sincerely,
Henry :)SELECT query needs to get read locks in SQL Server unless you are in read
uncommitted isolation. Please read the "Understanding Locking in SQL Server"
section in the Books Online.
--
Wei Xiao
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C18EC8B-1573-4BB3-8EB0-EFD74AAEB4D1@.microsoft.com...
> Dear Sir/Madam,
> I have run the sp_who2, and found that a process is blocking others
processes.
> But after I checked the blocker process, it is a SELECT query, which
suppose
> wouldn't lock any pages/tables, am I right? So, what is happening?
> Many thanks!
> Yours sincerely,
> Henry :)|||To add more details, using the default settings for SQLServer, Select
statements get a short read lock. This lock lasts a very short time unless
the select is in a trasaction with Holdlock. In that case the read locks (
called shared locks) are held for the duration of the transaction. These
shared locks will prevent anyone from updating the rows.
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C18EC8B-1573-4BB3-8EB0-EFD74AAEB4D1@.microsoft.com...
> Dear Sir/Madam,
> I have run the sp_who2, and found that a process is blocking others
processes.
> But after I checked the blocker process, it is a SELECT query, which
suppose
> wouldn't lock any pages/tables, am I right? So, what is happening?
> Many thanks!
> Yours sincerely,
> Henry :)|||Also, again with the defaults, is to check whether or not you have IMPLICIT
TRANSACTIONs on. If so, you do not need to explicitly specify a BEGIN
TRANSACTION statement to initiate one and one is usually initiated with most
statements, including READ operations.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C18EC8B-1573-4BB3-8EB0-EFD74AAEB4D1@.microsoft.com...
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have run the sp_who2, and found that a process is blocking others
processes.
But after I checked the blocker process, it is a SELECT query, which suppose
wouldn't lock any pages/tables, am I right? So, what is happening?
Many thanks!
Yours sincerely,
Henry :)|||It depends upon what transaction isolation level you are running under. The
transaction isolation level will determine what types of locks are issued
and how long the locks are held. If you are running under serializable, this
is what I would expect. See the BOL for the transaction isolation level
topics.
If these queries are being issued from an object managed by COM+, you may be
going down into the wormhole where all queries are issued under the
serializable transaction isolation level, regardless of what level you
specify in your query. Microsoft has several KB articles about this. It
depends upon how the object is written, whether transactions are used, ad
nauseum. I don't remember the exact rules off the top of my head, but it
essentially dumbs down everything so that you are assured of not hurting
yourself with concurrency issues.
"Henry" <Henry@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C18EC8B-1573-4BB3-8EB0-EFD74AAEB4D1@.microsoft.com...
> Dear Sir/Madam,
> I have run the sp_who2, and found that a process is blocking others
> processes.
> But after I checked the blocker process, it is a SELECT query, which
> suppose
> wouldn't lock any pages/tables, am I right? So, what is happening?
> Many thanks!
> Yours sincerely,
> Henry :)