regsamp
asked on
Migrating from SQL 2000 to SQL 2008
We are moving our Intranet database that is SQL 2000 and all the coding to a new server with SQL 2008 STD. Is it better to go to SQL 2008 or SQL 2008 R2?
Also any links or help in the best method to keep everything in compatibility/native would be ideal. This is new for us so any assistance offered would be appreciated.
Also any links or help in the best method to keep everything in compatibility/native would be ideal. This is new for us so any assistance offered would be appreciated.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Yes, the physical migration by using backup and restore should work - try it and see!
If you're wondering about checking on whether something will work or not before committing to buying 2008 or 2008R2 (why not 2012 or 2014?) then you should be able to get Developer Editions - they're normally $50 from Amazon - there or on eBay, and then you can try out how your move will work.
As for the select top 100%, please eexcuse me - I missed a word or two (my bad). What I meant to say was that an order by in a view used to seem to work when used with top 100%, but no longer (in fact, it was never part of the spec either way). What you need to do now to get an order by to work is to use "select top n field from table", where n is greater than the number of rows being returned. A little crazy, but really, order by isn't supported in this way in views - your programmer should really be using a stored procedure. Articles to support? not really - just something I found when migrating a 2000 db to 2005 and then 2008. The Access front end application suddenly didn't have nicely-ordered combo-boxes any more!
hth
Mike
If you're wondering about checking on whether something will work or not before committing to buying 2008 or 2008R2 (why not 2012 or 2014?) then you should be able to get Developer Editions - they're normally $50 from Amazon - there or on eBay, and then you can try out how your move will work.
As for the select top 100%, please eexcuse me - I missed a word or two (my bad). What I meant to say was that an order by in a view used to seem to work when used with top 100%, but no longer (in fact, it was never part of the spec either way). What you need to do now to get an order by to work is to use "select top n field from table", where n is greater than the number of rows being returned. A little crazy, but really, order by isn't supported in this way in views - your programmer should really be using a stored procedure. Articles to support? not really - just something I found when migrating a 2000 db to 2005 and then 2008. The Access front end application suddenly didn't have nicely-ordered combo-boxes any more!
hth
Mike
ASKER
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5620269/migrate-from-sql-server-2000-to-2008-r2-how-to
Also do you have an article for the "If you have "order by" in a view it works in 2000 but not later: adapt by changing the select from "select " to "select 100% " and test!" We have to run this by the programmer.