More complicated use of aggregates...

Greetings all!
I am stuck with something at the moment, and that added to the cold thats got me in its icy grip is really batting my head :(
Basically I have a table of records:
Record_ID (id) | Employee_ID (pin) | Record_type (msgtype) | record_date | record_time (logtime)
What I am looking for is, for each employee_ID on a specific day, the Record_ID of the earliest record of type '5'. I've only got one date in there at the moment so thats not such a problem. My attempt was:

SELECT combined.ID
FROM combined
GROUP BY combined.pin
HAVING min(logtime);
but that didnt work, complaining that combined.id is not in the group by.

Can anyone provide any suggestions?

Thanks!
~Shiv

EDIT: Forgot to mention, I'm using MS Access...Perhaps something like this (or its variations - I'd say that interesting part is the use of a subquery):select c.employee_id, c.record_id
from combined c
where c.logtime = (select min(c1.logtime)
from combined c1
where c1.employee_id = c.employee_id
)
and c.record_type = 'S'
group by c.employee_id, c.record_id;|||Cool, I'm giving that a go so I'll let you know how it works out. It's gotta go through about just under a million records, so its taking a while!!!
~T

month name from the sql query

Hi all

i want result as month name from my query

i tried with the following query but it give result as month number
like (8)

select (month(getdate())) as expr

i want result as month name (Augest)..

give me the proper query...

from Sachinsachin shah (sachin28880@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

i want result as month name from my query
>
i tried with the following query but it give result as month number
like (8)
>
select (month(getdate())) as expr
>
i want result as month name (Augest)..
>
give me the proper query...

Look at the datename() function in Books Online.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||On Aug 16, 7:48 am, sachin shah <sachin28...@.gmail.comwrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Hi all
>
i want result as month name from my query
>
i tried with the following query but it give result as month number
like (8)
>
select (month(getdate())) as expr
>
i want result as month name (Augest)..
>
give me the proper query...
>
from Sachin

Try SELECT DATENAME(MONTH,GETDATE())sql

monitoring application performence

hi all
I'm running a sql 2000 standard edition server on win 2000 server.
one instance on a 3 gb memory, 2 cpus ,machine.
there are about 20 databases on the server; however I'm encounering a
problem with a spacific 500 mb db.
the problem is: 7 client stations located at a different city communicating
(only with)the problematic db on the server threw a single application via
iis. for the last few months the respons time is queit slow. tables are
reletivly small (the biggest is 60000 rows but the rest a only a few hunderd
each)
now... I'm trying yo isolate the problem.
my first question: is it true to say that since the rest of the applications
that are running against the other dbs are running smoothly the problem is
not at the server lelvel or at the network level?
also, opening the task mamager on the server machine I see that the cpu isnt
realy busy and that there is no paging.
I captured the a application queries with the profiler and I saw that the
cpu/ read/writes times are low.
there is no fragmentation on the indexes.
I also run the index tunning wizard with the profiler file. it indicated a
44% improvment and suggested 5 new indexes; but I still belive the problem
lays somewhere else.
and, the system guy, who is monitoring the network traffic, tells me it's
not the network as the bendwidth is 50% free.
so... where should I aim at next?
thanks,
alon.If the rest of the databases are doing fine except this one, then yes, the
problem is at the database level not at the server level.
You said, Index Tuning Wizard suggested new indexes, and the predicted
performance gain is substantial. I think you should go for it, after
testing.
To start with identify which stored procedures are running slow. Use
Profiler to identify the long running stored procedures (look at the
duration column, time is in milliseconds). once you identified the stored
procedures, try running them individually from Query Analyzer, with
'graphical execution plan' turned on. If you see index or table scans, then
the query is not written well, or there are no supporting indexes for that
query. Then try applying the indexes suggested by Index Tuning Wizard and
see if your query plan and response times improve.
Again, simply keep adding indexes is not really good for an OLTP system. if
you are trying to run report-like queries on an OLTP system, then you might
want to replicate the data to a different database, and run your queries
there. You could use transactional replication for this purpose. With
transactional replication the subscriber is only a few seconds behind the
publisher, in general.
Using Profiler, if you do find that the stored procedures and queries are
indeed running fine, the bottle neck is either the network or the
application.
Also check that there's no blockig going on in your database. You could use
sp_who or sp_who2 to see if any of the spids are getting blocked. Blocked
spid have a non-zero value in the 'blocked' column.
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
SQL Server Articles and Code Samples @. http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
"alon" <alon@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6467A9F4-A2C8-4EB8-9C2D-60286D564E6C@.microsoft.com...
> hi all
> I'm running a sql 2000 standard edition server on win 2000 server.
> one instance on a 3 gb memory, 2 cpus ,machine.
> there are about 20 databases on the server; however I'm encounering a
> problem with a spacific 500 mb db.
> the problem is: 7 client stations located at a different city
> communicating
> (only with)the problematic db on the server threw a single application
> via
> iis. for the last few months the respons time is queit slow. tables are
> reletivly small (the biggest is 60000 rows but the rest a only a few
> hunderd
> each)
> now... I'm trying yo isolate the problem.
> my first question: is it true to say that since the rest of the
> applications
> that are running against the other dbs are running smoothly the problem is
> not at the server lelvel or at the network level?
> also, opening the task mamager on the server machine I see that the cpu
> isnt
> realy busy and that there is no paging.
> I captured the a application queries with the profiler and I saw that the
> cpu/ read/writes times are low.
> there is no fragmentation on the indexes.
> I also run the index tunning wizard with the profiler file. it indicated a
> 44% improvment and suggested 5 new indexes; but I still belive the problem
> lays somewhere else.
> and, the system guy, who is monitoring the network traffic, tells me it's
> not the network as the bendwidth is 50% free.
> so... where should I aim at next?
> thanks,
> alon.
>

Monitor Connection sessions etc.

Hey all!

i've got SQL 2000 on a server with 1GB ram. JSP & CF code is accessing this server & DB's. We are finding that a lot of connections are staying persistant for a long time (especially with the JAVA Apps).

I'm currently able to monitor this using sp_who2, performance monitor and the following SQL call:

SELECT * FROM master..sysperfinfo
WHERE
(object_name = 'SQLServer:General Statistics' and counter_name = 'User Connections') OR
(object_name = 'SQLServer:Memory Manager' and counter_name = 'Connection Memory (KB)')

My questions are:

Is there a better way to monitor this?
Is there a way to terminate a session and how can i tell it's idle time?

Any performance tweaks you can offer as well would be MOST appreciated.another note here. i came into work this morning and had 108 connections to the SQL server. and it was useing abou 300KB of mem. currently it's at 103 connections and 2920 KB of mem. I've got a dual processor system with 1 GB of ram and my applications are dragging.. it only gets this way when my connections get above 100. any ideas?