Bugs / Comments Concerning SQL Server 7

Bugs / Comments Concerning SQL Server 7

Post by Randy Minde » Sun, 03 Oct 1999 04:00:00

Could someone possibly verify this and notify Microsoft as needed:

1) When modifying a trigger, click the Apply button to save changes.  The OK
button no longer works.

2) Add a field to a table that contains one or more triggers.  Now select
"Design Table" on that table and click the Triggers button.  All the
triggers are gone from view.  They still exist but they don't appear in the

3) Create a trigger named whatever (it does not matter) in some table.  In
this trigger create a cursor named "TCursor".  Now create a trigger in some
other table.  In that trigger, create a cursor named "TCursor".  Set this up
so that when the first trigger fires, the second triggers fires as well.
When the second trigger fires, you will get an error indicating that
"TCursor" is already open.  I am assuming (hoping) this is a bug and not

4) WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY are we forced to work in modal dialoges (editors)
when creating triggers and sp's?  Hasn't anyone at microsoft ever created a
trigger or sp and realized what a pain this is?

5) In Table Design mode in the Enterprise Manager, the Enter key stops
working on occassion.   It is very irregular but it is not unusual.

6) Question:  Is it possible to change the tab stops in the trigger and sp


Bugs / Comments Concerning SQL Server 7

Post by Neil Pik » Mon, 04 Oct 1999 04:00:00

Randy - do you have SP1 applied?  This fixed lots of bugs.  Some of the issues
you mention need you to manually refresh.  The modal stuff is a big issue, and
I'm afraid it won't be fixed any time soon....

 Neil Pike MVP/MCSE.  Protech Computing Ltd
 (Please reply only to newsgroups)
 For SQL FAQ entries see

 or www.ntfaq.com/sql.html (+ ntfaq download)
 or http://www.swynk.com/faq/sql/sqlserverfaq.asp
 or http://www.sql-server.co.uk


1. Large database - Comments/Concerns

I have a very simple data model I want to implement in Sybase. Basically
3 tables, two of which will be large. For the moment, my analysis
indicates that:
Table A has 1:many with table B. Table C is a small lookup table, and is
essentially inconsequential (couple of thousand records).

Table A will have about 1 million records at about (300 Meg).
Table B will have on average about 7500 records for each record in Table
A. This gives a huge number of 7.5Billion records in one table, at a
projected size of about 1.5 Terrabytes.

Table B will grow at about 3million records per day.

I have been involved with big databases before, but not quite this big
... ;-)

There are pro's and cons in breaking up table B. It is posible to split
it both "vertically" and "horizontally". This would mess up what is
essentially a very simple data model, and would make a number of queries
very complex, but it could be done. I am reluctant to do that, as I am
more comfortable looking after simple and big, than complex and still
big. The next easiest logical break point in table B would be to split
it into 5 tables corresponding to groups of similarly typed records in
Table A. The problem is that these groups are not similarly sized, and I
would still end up with a table of about 4 billion records. Splitting it
further poses horrible issues.

I have looked through the (Solaris) specifications, and we seem to be in
good order, but I am looking for some more subjective things.

What are the initial reactions / concerns / comments?


2. Unix Authentication?

3. Security Concerns?: SQL Server and IIS on Same Server

4. driver

5. Driver bug concerning GUID (uniqueidentifier) fields

6. FoxPro 2.5 for DOS

7. Oracle9i possibly has a bug concerning constraint name

8. Analyst/DBA in Milwaukee area

9. Possible bug concerning child windows in FOXWIN 2.5

10. Bug in SQLServer concerning views and GROUP BY??

11. Question concerning SQL Server Profiler and traces

12. SQL Server Error Concerning Primary Key

13. 2nd try: SQL server network access restrictions, pls SQL gurus comment it