(local) vs. the actual name of SQL Server when using a named instance

Hello,
My question is this: in a named instance installation of a SQL Server, when
you reference the server as (local) from a Stored Procedure that accesses a
table for example, will that point to the Named Instance or will it access
the table on the actual database on the main installation?
Thank you
leo
WHere yo you name the server as (local) in a stored procedure ? You
don=B4t have to. Just use the three or two part name that should be
enough for you.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer,
sql

(local) vs. the actual name of SQL Server when using a named instance

Hello,
My question is this: in a named instance installation of a SQL Server, when
you reference the server as (local) from a Stored Procedure that accesses a
table for example, will that point to the Named Instance or will it access
the table on the actual database on the main installation?
Thank you
leoWHere yo you name the server as (local) in a stored procedure ? You
don=B4t have to. Just use the three or two part name that should be
enough for you.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer,|||Referencing (local) implies that you are creating a new connection. This
connection won't know which instance the command comes from so will connect
to the default instance.
Is this bcp or osql? Can't think of another reason for it.
If you want to connect to the same instance from an sp then use @.@.servername
and put it in [].
"Leo" wrote:
> Hello,
> My question is this: in a named instance installation of a SQL Server, when
> you reference the server as (local) from a Stored Procedure that accesses a
> table for example, will that point to the Named Instance or will it access
> the table on the actual database on the main installation?
>
> Thank you
> leo
>
>|||I am actually running an Instance of SQL server on the same machine as an
installation of SQL server. The reason for that is QA testing. When I make a
change to the database I copy it to the instance os SQL on the same machine.
I am using store procedures to run DTS packages. So I am doing a DTSRUN
command on the package. On my SQL server I was using (local) as my server.
The reason I asked was that I didn't want to go into the Instance of the SQL
and change the name of the server on the stored procedures manually. I
wanted the stored proc to pick up the name of the server it;s running on
without manual changes to the code. I was affraid that if I leave that code
unchanged as (local) that the stored proc will look for the wrong DTS
package, meaning the one on the SQL server, not the one in the instance of
SQL. I am not sure if I made this more confusing or more explained.
in short I am trying to provide the samew functionality within one physical
sever using an installation of a SQL instance, as if it was two separate
physical servers, where you can reference (local) and whenever you more a
stored proc from one server to the other you do not need to change that code
to point to the right SQL server
Thanks
Leo
"Nigel Rivett" <NigelRivett@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:15408704-EE37-4A96-97D2-1BF39A6CE5AE@.microsoft.com...
> Referencing (local) implies that you are creating a new connection. This
> connection won't know which instance the command comes from so will
connect
> to the default instance.
> Is this bcp or osql? Can't think of another reason for it.
> If you want to connect to the same instance from an sp then use
@.@.servername
> and put it in [].
> "Leo" wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > My question is this: in a named instance installation of a SQL Server,
when
> > you reference the server as (local) from a Stored Procedure that
accesses a
> > table for example, will that point to the Named Instance or will it
access
> > the table on the actual database on the main installation?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > leo
> >
> >
> >

(local) vs. the actual name of SQL Server when using a named instance

Hello,
My question is this: in a named instance installation of a SQL Server, when
you reference the server as (local) from a Stored Procedure that accesses a
table for example, will that point to the Named Instance or will it access
the table on the actual database on the main installation?
Thank you
leoWHere yo you name the server as (local) in a stored procedure ? You
don=B4t have to. Just use the three or two part name that should be
enough for you.
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer,

(Default) instance already exists (not really!)

Ok,

I haven't had this much trouble installing MS software in many moons. My end goal is to install Team Foundation Server, but to do that I need SQL Server 2005 first, then SharePoint, then TFS. At each of these steps it is appearing to be a mine field, and it is apparent that the MS Installer is doing a terrible job at uninstalling everything.

End of whine. So my situation is this, I had installed MS SQL Server Developer 2005 and found out that the Reporting Server wasn't working. Basically, because at one time or another I had FP extentions installed, and permissions were hopelessly munged. The fix on the forums was to back everything out... SQL Server, IIS, Sharepoint, and do a scorch and burn, effectively erradicating any trace that any of these existed on the disk.

This accomplished, but... now when I try to reinstall SQL Server, it claims the default instance "already exists." So... I've tried various registry hacks, tracking down any trance of instances. Here are some of things I've tried to no avail...

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=148487&SiteID=1
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;290991&sd=tech
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;290301

So... short of going beyond scorch and burn, and nuke the entire machine, what are my options? Erasing the OS and starting from scratch does not seem like an option because, it seems, that seems I'll never get anything installed if I have to keep doing this.

Ideas anyone? Your help is greatly appreciated.

-Eric

FYI -- When running RegSeeker I find nearly 300 bogus registry entries left over from the MS uninstall--someone's got to fix that.Ok, I found a possible solution. But... it is very very risky. So don't blame me if you torpedo your server using my advice. But it worked for me.

But I'm posting this in case someone else find themselves in the same bind as me.

Following the suggestion of one of the other forum posts I saw, I looked for all entries for SQL Server. I saw a zillion entries for version 9.0.242.0.

Using RegSeeker, I wacked those. So they were gone.

Next, I saw another bazillion entries for "SQL Server." I surmized that SQL Server was completely uninstalled, these should be gone as well. So I delete those as well.

Another search for "SQLServer" also turned up a bazillion entries. Most of these were classes. Taking a deep breath, I deleted all of these as well.

In all, there were many thousands of registry entries that probably should have been deleted by the uninstall, but weren't.

So far, I've managed to reinstall SQL Server 2005 Developer and all is A-OK. So problem solved (I'd knock on wood if I have any real wood in my cube).

-Ericsql

"Upgrade" from 2000 to 2005, version still says 8.0.2039

I just installed 2005 and accepted all the defaults to upgrade the default instance of 2000 as prompted. However, when I open the SQL Server Mgnt Studio, my server shows 8.0.2039 as the version which is 2000, and I can't restore a backup from another 2005 server, because it gives an error message like it still thinks its 2000. The whole installation process went fine including sp1. I looked in Services to see if there was more than one instance of SQL Server, and there isn't. Also, all my database files are still in the old 2000 (mssql\data) directory. Any ideas, solutions? Thanks.

Michael

I have the same problem. It's like the upgrade didn't totally happen. The new Management studio is installed, but the 2005 specific progs don't work. Like the surface area configure program errors when started since it can't find any 2005 servers installed.

|||

Here's the response that I received from someone else on another forum that was kind enough to reply and it also worked. I simply stopped the 2000 service, and reinstalled. You would think that the installer would do this for you, but oh well. HTH

Before you update to 2005, you have to stop the 2000 version. If you don’t, the code to start 2005 is not installed and the code for starting and stopping 2000 will remain on the server. Thus 2000 will always be started and not 2005. Hope this helps.

Try stopping 2000 and reinstalling 2005.

|||

That's correct, since files are always in use, you need to restart the services for both versions to get the full upgrade to work.

Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)

|||

So to be clear...

I don't have to uninstall either version now. All I have to do is stop all of the current SQL services that are running. Then re-insert the 2005 disc, and it will re-upgrade over itself? ( I don't want a new instace installed, I literally wanted the upgrade so that only one version would be on the machine )

Is there a way to do this without putting the disc back in? i.e. Are all of the files present since I tried to upgrade the first time. So now, I could just stop the services and use some other method to get it to reinstall all new files and services over itself? Or do I have to physically reinsert the disc to follow normal steps?

|||I did not uninstall anything. I just stopped the 2000 service, then reinserted the CD and reinstalled 2005 exactly as I did before, with the intent of upgrading (i.e. replacing) 2000. After completion, I may have had to start the MSSQLServer service manually and set to automatic, can't remember, but after that everything was just fine, and there only appears to be one instance/service (2005).|||Thanks much...I am clear now. I will try this tonight. Since I am about to do this...did you have any surprises or "gotchas" that you can warn me about? Anything that worked before then didn't work after? Also, did you do any timing studies to verify if the 2005 is faster than the 2000? I have heard that the BULK INSERTS are speed improved, but have not seen any benchmarks or other data on speed increases. Just wondering if you noticed some benefits and/or have data on the improvements. Thanks again for the help, glad you were still watching this thread even though you already got the answer elsewhere.|||

There seems to be a hitch. I stopped all of the SQL services. Pop in the disc, begin the install process.

First snafu...

The installer knows that my current install, 2005 Workgroup with SP1, is newer than the version I have on the disc, so it blocks the install. A small report window appears saying I can avoid this problem by installing from the command line and using the SKUUPGRADE=1 parameter. So, I open "Run..." from the start button. I run "F:\Setup.exe SKUUPGRADE=1" The installer begins, but...

Second snafu...

I eventually get to the part where I select the services to install. I choose all services and select the "All components will be installed" option for all of them. I tell it "default instance". Then the installer tells me that it can't continue since all of the components are already installed. Forced to exit.

Am I doing something wrong? Is there a way to just re-install without these problems?

|||

Hi Sam:

Thanks for trying to help...but, your response is not clear, you first say "That's correct" which makes me think that you agree with the info that came from the previous post, the one that says to stop SQL 2000 services and re-install 2005. But, then your post goes on to say "restart both services for both versions", which is not the same as stopping SQL 2000 then reinstalling 2005. Which is it?

Also, if you read my other posts in this thread, the "stop 2000 services and re-install 2005" does not work. The installer will not allow a "re-install" since it sees that 2005 is already installed...furthermore, when using the SKUUPGRADE=1 which is supposed to skip this problem, the installer stops since all of the programs are already installed.

Please help...I am still stuck in the same spot and not sure how to proceed. I suppose I could just uninstall all of the 2005 programs then try all this again...but I was hoping that there was an easier and less time consuming solution.

Thanks in advance.

|||

Sorry for not having a more direct answer, but can you read through this forum thread regarding SQL 2000 and 2005 on the same box and see if it applies to your situation?

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=397541&SiteID=1

Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)

|||

Sorry Sam, this doesn't seem to be the problem I am having. The problem I am having is explained in all of the previous posts in this thread. A SQL 2005 upgrade from SQL 2000 appears to have worked, but it didn't. The version number still shows 8.00.2039 and the SQL 2005 Tools say that there is no 2005 instance on the machine. The other posts here explained how to fix this, but the fix doesn't work since the installer program sees the previous SQL 2005 install on the machine, it won't allow another install to cover over it.

But, since I read the other forum, now I am worried about trying to uninstall SQL 2005 and try again.

Please help if you have any other ideas or point me in the right direction for other resources that may know what to do.

Thanks

|||I am also having the very same problems to the "T". It is also causing a new installation of Reporting Services from properly initializing on the server. It complains about a version problem.

It would seem the next logical step would be to somehow get the databases converted, but outside of doing an upgrade from the SQL Server 2005 setup disk, I cannot find any good documentation on how to do this.

Any help with this problem would be greatly appreciated. I am at wits end.

"Setup has detected one or more instances of SQL Server 2000..."

Tried to install the CTP and got a message stating that 2008 won't coexist with 2000. I had an instance of 2000 Developer Edition on here that I was testing some stuff with. I removed that, rebooted, and I still get the same message. Am I to assume that you can't even install 2008 if you've got the 2000 client tools installed, or am I missing something else?
Have a look at section 2.1.1 of the readme file, it states "To work around this issue, manually remove the registry key at HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\80, and then re-run SQL Server "Katmai" June CTP Setup." Note that this will likely break the 2000 tools so uninstall them first or better yet use VPC/VMWare to create an isolated environment. CTP's often don't play well with other versions and can be difficult to uninstall cleanly.|||Ah ha, the actual CTP ISO has an outdated readme that doesn't mention that part. I bet that'll do the trick. Thanks.
|||

Hi,

I also got the same warning message about side by side running of SQL2k and Katmai June CTP. But I could not find any note about SQL 2000 in the readme documents of the installation.

|||Yeah, the readme file that's included with the installation is slightly out of date. I think this is the one you need: http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/Downloads/DownloadDetails.aspx?DownloadID=6834

|||

Hi David,

Thanks for the link. Great help!

"Setup has detected one or more instances of SQL Server 2000..."

Tried to install the CTP and got a message stating that 2008 won't coexist with 2000. I had an instance of 2000 Developer Edition on here that I was testing some stuff with. I removed that, rebooted, and I still get the same message. Am I to assume that you can't even install 2008 if you've got the 2000 client tools installed, or am I missing something else?
Have a look at section 2.1.1 of the readme file, it states "To work around this issue, manually remove the registry key at HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\80, and then re-run SQL Server "Katmai" June CTP Setup." Note that this will likely break the 2000 tools so uninstall them first or better yet use VPC/VMWare to create an isolated environment. CTP's often don't play well with other versions and can be difficult to uninstall cleanly.|||Ah ha, the actual CTP ISO has an outdated readme that doesn't mention that part. I bet that'll do the trick. Thanks.
|||

Hi,

I also got the same warning message about side by side running of SQL2k and Katmai June CTP. But I could not find any note about SQL 2000 in the readme documents of the installation.

|||Yeah, the readme file that's included with the installation is slightly out of date. I think this is the one you need: http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/Downloads/DownloadDetails.aspx?DownloadID=6834

|||

Hi David,

Thanks for the link. Great help!

"Open Table" NOT WORKING. Can someone HELP!

In my instance of "sql server 2005" I right click on a table and select "Open Table" then I get the error message "Object reference not set to..." Then has been happening since I installed I have tryed searching groups and posting to get a solution. I have load the adventure works data base and get the same error when performing "open table". Can someone from MS please respond. Also if Open Table works can you edit the data directly in the results pane?

I had very similar problem. The problem was gone after I installed SP2.|||

Have you tried to attempt from another client's machine against this server?

Also test and try using SP2 on SQL 2005, if it is not a SQL 2005 instance then make sure to have latest service pack on SQL 2000 too.

|||

I am sorry but I should have been more specific about what happened in my case. Here is the story:

The instance of SQL 2005 is on machine A and I had no problem in accessing the tables from machine A. The problem was with machine B on which I was running Management Studio to access the SQL server on machine A. I could connect, open the database, display columns of the tables, but whenever I tried to open a table to browse data or modify the table, I got the error. I installed SQL 2005 SP2 on machine B and the problem was gone. Apparently something was wrong with the instance of Management Studio on machine B. It worked fine flawlessly for a very long time. I have no clue what caused the problem for SSMS.

"Open Table" NOT WORKING. Can someone HELP!

In my instance of "sql server 2005" I right click on a table and select "Open Table" then I get the error message "Object reference not set to..." Then has been happening since I installed I have tryed searching groups and posting to get a solution. I have load the adventure works data base and get the same error when performing "open table". Can someone from MS please respond. Also if Open Table works can you edit the data directly in the results pane?

I had very similar problem. The problem was gone after I installed SP2.|||

Have you tried to attempt from another client's machine against this server?

Also test and try using SP2 on SQL 2005, if it is not a SQL 2005 instance then make sure to have latest service pack on SQL 2000 too.

|||

I am sorry but I should have been more specific about what happened in my case. Here is the story:

The instance of SQL 2005 is on machine A and I had no problem in accessing the tables from machine A. The problem was with machine B on which I was running Management Studio to access the SQL server on machine A. I could connect, open the database, display columns of the tables, but whenever I tried to open a table to browse data or modify the table, I got the error. I installed SQL 2005 SP2 on machine B and the problem was gone. Apparently something was wrong with the instance of Management Studio on machine B. It worked fine flawlessly for a very long time. I have no clue what caused the problem for SSMS.

"Open Table" NOT WORKING. Can someone HELP!

In my instance of "sql server 2005" I right click on a table and select "Open Table" then I get the error message "Object reference not set to..." Then has been happening since I installed I have tryed searching groups and posting to get a solution. I have load the adventure works data base and get the same error when performing "open table". Can someone from MS please respond. Also if Open Table works can you edit the data directly in the results pane?

I had very similar problem. The problem was gone after I installed SP2.|||

Have you tried to attempt from another client's machine against this server?

Also test and try using SP2 on SQL 2005, if it is not a SQL 2005 instance then make sure to have latest service pack on SQL 2000 too.

|||

I am sorry but I should have been more specific about what happened in my case. Here is the story:

The instance of SQL 2005 is on machine A and I had no problem in accessing the tables from machine A. The problem was with machine B on which I was running Management Studio to access the SQL server on machine A. I could connect, open the database, display columns of the tables, but whenever I tried to open a table to browse data or modify the table, I got the error. I installed SQL 2005 SP2 on machine B and the problem was gone. Apparently something was wrong with the instance of Management Studio on machine B. It worked fine flawlessly for a very long time. I have no clue what caused the problem for SSMS.

"Object reference not set to an instance of an object" error

Hi,guys
I met a problem, the error message is "Object reference not set to an instance of an object." ,which indicating the * row has this problem. I really don't understand, please help me!
Bellow is my code:

private void BindTypeData(){
string query = "select * from tblFacilityType";
sqlDataAdapter = new SqlDataAdapter(query,sqlConnection);
ds = new DataSet();
sqlDataAdapter.Fill(ds,"tblFacilityType");
* FacilityDataGrid.DataSource = ds.Tables["tblFacilityType"];
FacilityDataGrid.DataBind();
}

Thanks first!

feiMake sure that sqlConnection and FacilityDataGrid are instantiated somewhere else.|||hi,jason
I've checked, it is there. But i still have the same problem!

public class __FacilityType : System.Web.UI.UserControl
{
protected DataSet ds;
protected SqlConnection sqlConnection;
protected SqlDataAdapter sqlDataAdapter;
protected SqlCommand sqlSelectCommand;
protected SqlCommand sqlInsertCommand;
protected Panel FacilityTypePanel;
protected DataGrid FacilityTypeDataGrid;
protected SqlDataReader reader;

private void Page_Load(object sender, System.EventArgs e)
{
// Put user code to initialize the page here
if(!Page.IsPostBack){
BindTypeData();
}
}
//Todo: bind data for the facility list datagrid
private void BindTypeData(){
string query = "select * from tblFacilityType";
sqlDataAdapter = new SqlDataAdapter(query,sqlConnection);
ds = new DataSet();
sqlDataAdapter.Fill(ds,"tblFacilityType");
FacilityTypeDataGrid.DataSource = ds.Tables["tblFacilityType"];
FacilityTypeDataGrid.DataBind();
}|||Where and how are u instantiating sqlConnection?

"Named Pipes Provider: Could not open a connection to SQL Server [53]", but only on th

My connection string (to a remote instance of SQL Server Exress 2005) is exactly the same when the web files are located on my local machine or my remote machine, and while it works fine when I use the local web files, I get the following error when I use the remote files:

"Named Pipes Provider: Could not open a connection to SQL Server [53]"

As you can see, since it works from the local version, I've setup SQL to accept remote connections via TCP/IP and Named Pipes. I'm using IIS7 on the local, and IIS6 on the remote, in case that makes a difference. I have other sites setup the same way, which work fine.

Any thoughts?

Open the configuration manager and set SQL Server to allow remote connections.
This is off by default on SQL Server Express Edition.

WesleyB

Visit my SQL Server weblog @. http://dis4ea.blogspot.com

|||Thank you for responding, although as you can see in my question, I point out that this is clearly set up, as I am connecting successfully from my local machine.

However, I should note that I have resolved the problem by replicating the database.
|||

Oops, I didn't read that little sentence, sorry :-)

WesleyB

Visit my SQL Server weblog @. http://dis4ea.blogspot.com

<MachineName>\NETSDK installation

I downloaded something that installed an SQL instance of <Machine
Name>NETSDK. It contains Northwind, Pubs, and other sample databases. Does
anyone know how I got this? For the life of me I can't remember.
Marty
If you installed .NET SDK (not just .NET framework), that is when you might
have also installed MSDE. But it would be installed automatically. It is
only when you choose to install .NET tutorial.
"Marty" <Marty@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ADD3968D-7B7C-4456-9FEE-50A61C040810@.microsoft.com...
> I downloaded something that installed an SQL instance of <Machine
> Name>NETSDK. It contains Northwind, Pubs, and other sample databases. Does
> anyone know how I got this? For the life of me I can't remember.
> Marty
|||Is .NET SDK part of MSDE? If not, where can I get it?
Thanks for your help
"Norman Yuan" wrote:

> If you installed .NET SDK (not just .NET framework), that is when you might
> have also installed MSDE. But it would be installed automatically. It is
> only when you choose to install .NET tutorial.
> "Marty" <Marty@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:ADD3968D-7B7C-4456-9FEE-50A61C040810@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||"Marty" <Marty@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:595F40A2-ED7C-4A39-AD93-B6D76B1E111C@.microsoft.com...
> Is .NET SDK part of MSDE? If not, where can I get it?
> Thanks for your help
>
NetSDK is the name of your MSDE instance. That name was used because the
scripts set up to create your sample databases (Pubs, Northwind, etc.) were
written to expect that instance name.
As you say those databases have been created, it looks as if everything is
as it should be.
Peter [MVP Visual Developer]
Jack of all trades, master of none.
|||But where did it come from? The the best of my knowledge, MSDE made an
instance called <MachineName>. Where did <MachineName>\NETSDK come from?
"Peter van der Goes" wrote:

> "Marty" <Marty@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:595F40A2-ED7C-4A39-AD93-B6D76B1E111C@.microsoft.com...
> NetSDK is the name of your MSDE instance. That name was used because the
> scripts set up to create your sample databases (Pubs, Northwind, etc.) were
> written to expect that instance name.
> As you say those databases have been created, it looks as if everything is
> as it should be.
> --
> Peter [MVP Visual Developer]
> Jack of all trades, master of none.
>
>
|||When installing SQL Server/MSDE, you can choose to use INSTANCE name or not
to. Your "<MachineName\NetSDK" instance on MSDE IS from your installation
with or without your awareness. As I said, in previous reply, it is most
likely installed when you set up .NET tutorial. from .NET document. Of
course you can choose to install it without instance name in the
expenctation that .NET tutorial not working.
"Marty" <Marty@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:394A46D6-F165-4A8C-9F1D-6219828A3205@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> But where did it come from? The the best of my knowledge, MSDE made an
> instance called <MachineName>. Where did <MachineName>\NETSDK come from?
> "Peter van der Goes" wrote:
were[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
|||No, I didn't. When I installed MSDE I used the command line: setup SAPWD=
<password> SecurityMode=SQL. That's it. And it's not just an instance. I
contains databases.
"Norman Yuan" wrote:

> When installing SQL Server/MSDE, you can choose to use INSTANCE name or not
> to. Your "<MachineName\NetSDK" instance on MSDE IS from your installation
> with or without your awareness. As I said, in previous reply, it is most
> likely installed when you set up .NET tutorial. from .NET document. Of
> course you can choose to install it without instance name in the
> expenctation that .NET tutorial not working.
> "Marty" <Marty@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:394A46D6-F165-4A8C-9F1D-6219828A3205@.microsoft.com...
> were
> is
>
>
|||There is another argument for the command line setup:
INSTANCENAME="InstanceName". If you did not specify instance name and you
get <MachineName>\NETSDK, then it can only be explained by that you used the
MSDE coming with .NET SDK or VisualStudio.NET. If your MSDE is directed
downloaded from MS site or from MS Office Pro/Access, the installation would
not add "NetSDK" instance name automatically.
BTW, If you do not like the instance name, you can uninstall and reinstall
the MSDE.
"Marty" <Marty@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:46041F11-611A-4F8D-8B84-67E1D963FB17@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> No, I didn't. When I installed MSDE I used the command line: setup SAPWD=
> <password> SecurityMode=SQL. That's it. And it's not just an instance. I
> contains databases.
>
> "Norman Yuan" wrote:
not[vbcol=seagreen]
installation[vbcol=seagreen]
from?[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
etc.)[vbcol=seagreen]
everything[vbcol=seagreen]
|||It was downloaded from MS. But I installed something else and I don't know
what. Add/Remove programs shows MSDE and MSDE (NETSDK). I must have installed
something else because there are two entries but I only installed MSDE once.
"Norman Yuan" wrote:

> There is another argument for the command line setup:
> INSTANCENAME="InstanceName". If you did not specify instance name and you
> get <MachineName>\NETSDK, then it can only be explained by that you used the
> MSDE coming with .NET SDK or VisualStudio.NET. If your MSDE is directed
> downloaded from MS site or from MS Office Pro/Access, the installation would
> not add "NetSDK" instance name automatically.
> BTW, If you do not like the instance name, you can uninstall and reinstall
> the MSDE.
> "Marty" <Marty@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:46041F11-611A-4F8D-8B84-67E1D963FB17@.microsoft.com...
> not
> installation
> from?
> the
> etc.)
> everything
>
>
|||For the public, although roblem has already been solved via IM: Those
databases can be downloaded at Microsoft under the folling link:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
"Marty" <Marty@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ADD3968D-7B7C-4456-9FEE-50A61C040810@.microsoft.com...
>I downloaded something that installed an SQL instance of <Machine
> Name>NETSDK. It contains Northwind, Pubs, and other sample databases. Does
> anyone know how I got this? For the life of me I can't remember.
> Marty

ê, ç, á, ã, ó,á

Anybody, by chance, does have or did it already elaborate some script that
substitutes all the special characters of a base of Customers for instance
(ê, ç, á, ã, ó,á...), and does it can me to help as doing that?You can create a table with these special characters and with which
character you want it replaced.
For example:
CREATE TABLE CharacterReplacements
(OriginalChar nchar(1) not null primary key
,ReplacementChar nchar(1) not null
)
INSERT INTO CharacterReplacements VALUES (N'ê',N'e')
INSERT INTO CharacterReplacements VALUES (N'ç',N'c')
Declare @.mytext nvarchar(100)
Set @.mytext='Comment ça va?'
SELECT @.mytext = Replace(@.mytext, OriginalChar, ReplacementChar)
FROM CharacterReplacements
SELECT @.mytext
Hope this helps,
Gert-Jan
Frank Dulk wrote:
> Anybody, by chance, does have or did it already elaborate some script that
> substitutes all the special characters of a base of Customers for instance
> (ê, ç, á, ã, ó,á...), and does it can me to help as doing that?