From accessd at shaw.ca  Sat Jan  2 05:03:52 2016
From: accessd at shaw.ca (Jim Lawrence)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 04:03:52 -0700 (MST)
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL on Azure
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR06MB1584FB4DFDF371082C48C1FACAFD0@VI1PR06MB1584.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <364323554.46104324.1451732632920.JavaMail.root@shaw.ca>

Thanks Gustav.

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gustav Brock" <gustav at cactus.dk>
To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>, "Access Developers discussion and problem solving" <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 4:32:25 AM
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL on Azure

Hi all

Syncfusion has a new e-book (119 pages) out, this time on:

    SQL on Azure
    https://www.syncfusion.com/resources/techportal/details/ebooks/sqlazure

It covers quite a few topics - both for "SQL Server on Azure VMs" as well as "Azure SQL Database":

 1. Introduction to SQL on Azure
 2. Installing and Configuring SQL Server on Azure VMs
 3. Migration to SQL Server on Azure VM
 4. Performance Considerations for SQL Server on Azure VMs
 5. Business Continuity Solutions for SQL Server on Azure VMs
 6. Introduction to Azure SQL Database (PaaS)
 7. Provisioning, Managing, and Migrating to Azure SQL Database
 8. Performance Considerations for Azure SQL Database
 9. Security in Azure SQL Database
10. Business Continuity with Azure SQL Database

/gustav

_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com


From newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz  Wed Jan 13 12:40:18 2016
From: newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz (David Emerson)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 07:40:18 +1300
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Field missing in Linked SQL Table/View
Message-ID: <000901d14e31$dab60120$90220360$@dalyn.co.nz>

Hi Listers,

 

I have an SQL 2012 database that belongs to another application which I have
little control over.  I am allowed to create views of the tables.  I have
created a view of a particular table which just selects a few of the fields
from the table.  I have then linked the view to my Access 2010 database.

 

The unusual thing is that one of the fields does not appear in the linked
table in Access.  It is definitely in the view and appears when I run the
view.

 

I have tried linking directly to the SQL table and this includes all the
fields except for the same field missing from the view.

 

I have changed the view and relinked it - all of the changes show in the
linked table except the same field doesn't show.

 

There is nothing unusual I can see about the field.  It is a nvarchar(25).
The type is a user defined data type but so are a number of other fields
that all appear in the linked table.

 

Has anyone come across this before?

 

Regards

David Emerson
Dalyn Software Ltd
Wellington, New Zealand

 

 

 


From paul.hartland at googlemail.com  Wed Jan 13 13:31:55 2016
From: paul.hartland at googlemail.com (Paul Hartland)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 19:31:55 +0000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Field missing in Linked SQL Table/View
In-Reply-To: <000901d14e31$dab60120$90220360$@dalyn.co.nz>
References: <000901d14e31$dab60120$90220360$@dalyn.co.nz>
Message-ID: <CALGJE96a0-ghkVuWoa=RK4dEVwB+PBLdCyTbFgnc1ry6+CEdSA@mail.gmail.com>

Just off hand it sounds like a permissions thing, do you use the same logon
to run the view in SQL server as you are using for the linked tables to
Access ?

On 13 January 2016 at 18:40, David Emerson <newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz> wrote:

> Hi Listers,
>
>
>
> I have an SQL 2012 database that belongs to another application which I
> have
> little control over.  I am allowed to create views of the tables.  I have
> created a view of a particular table which just selects a few of the fields
> from the table.  I have then linked the view to my Access 2010 database.
>
>
>
> The unusual thing is that one of the fields does not appear in the linked
> table in Access.  It is definitely in the view and appears when I run the
> view.
>
>
>
> I have tried linking directly to the SQL table and this includes all the
> fields except for the same field missing from the view.
>
>
>
> I have changed the view and relinked it - all of the changes show in the
> linked table except the same field doesn't show.
>
>
>
> There is nothing unusual I can see about the field.  It is a nvarchar(25).
> The type is a user defined data type but so are a number of other fields
> that all appear in the linked table.
>
>
>
> Has anyone come across this before?
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> David Emerson
> Dalyn Software Ltd
> Wellington, New Zealand
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>


-- 
Paul Hartland
paul.hartland at googlemail.com

From newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz  Wed Jan 13 14:02:42 2016
From: newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz (David Emerson)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:02:42 +1300
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Field missing in Linked SQL Table/View
In-Reply-To: <CALGJE96a0-ghkVuWoa=RK4dEVwB+PBLdCyTbFgnc1ry6+CEdSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <000901d14e31$dab60120$90220360$@dalyn.co.nz>
	<CALGJE96a0-ghkVuWoa=RK4dEVwB+PBLdCyTbFgnc1ry6+CEdSA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001101d14e3d$5ddd4990$1997dcb0$@dalyn.co.nz>

Hi Paul,

Can permissions be set on a field?  I have no problem linking to the table.

Regards

David

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-SQLServer [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On
Behalf Of Paul Hartland
Sent: Thursday, 14 January 2016 8:32 a.m.
To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Field missing in Linked SQL Table/View

Just off hand it sounds like a permissions thing, do you use the same logon
to run the view in SQL server as you are using for the linked tables to
Access ?

On 13 January 2016 at 18:40, David Emerson <newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz> wrote:

> Hi Listers,
>
> I have an SQL 2012 database that belongs to another application which 
> I have little control over.  I am allowed to create views of the 
> tables.  I have created a view of a particular table which just 
> selects a few of the fields from the table.  I have then linked the 
> view to my Access 2010 database.
>
> The unusual thing is that one of the fields does not appear in the 
> linked table in Access.  It is definitely in the view and appears when 
> I run the view.
>
> I have tried linking directly to the SQL table and this includes all 
> the fields except for the same field missing from the view.
>
> I have changed the view and relinked it - all of the changes show in 
> the linked table except the same field doesn't show.
>
> There is nothing unusual I can see about the field.  It is a nvarchar(25).
> The type is a user defined data type but so are a number of other 
> fields that all appear in the linked table.
>
> Has anyone come across this before?
>
> Regards
>
> David Emerson
> Dalyn Software Ltd
> Wellington, New Zealand


From stuart at lexacorp.com.pg  Thu Jan 14 02:29:04 2016
From: stuart at lexacorp.com.pg (Stuart McLachlan)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 18:29:04 +1000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Field missing in Linked SQL Table/View
In-Reply-To: <001101d14e3d$5ddd4990$1997dcb0$@dalyn.co.nz>
References: <000901d14e31$dab60120$90220360$@dalyn.co.nz>,
	<CALGJE96a0-ghkVuWoa=RK4dEVwB+PBLdCyTbFgnc1ry6+CEdSA@mail.gmail.com>,
	<001101d14e3d$5ddd4990$1997dcb0$@dalyn.co.nz>
Message-ID: <56975C50.31930.2E6282B9@stuart.lexacorp.com.pg>

Yes.

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms180341%28v=sql.105%29.aspx

and more detail:

https://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/2124/filtering-sql-server-columns-using-column-level-
permissions/



On 14 Jan 2016 at 9:02, David Emerson wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> 
> Can permissions be set on a field?  I have no problem linking to the
> table.
> 
> Regards
> 
> David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dba-SQLServer
> [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> Hartland Sent: Thursday, 14 January 2016 8:32 a.m. To: Discussion
> concerning MS SQL Server Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Field missing in
> Linked SQL Table/View
> 
> Just off hand it sounds like a permissions thing, do you use the same
> logon to run the view in SQL server as you are using for the linked
> tables to Access ?
> 
> On 13 January 2016 at 18:40, David Emerson <newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Listers,
> >
> > I have an SQL 2012 database that belongs to another application
> > which I have little control over.  I am allowed to create views of
> > the tables.  I have created a view of a particular table which just
> > selects a few of the fields from the table.  I have then linked the
> > view to my Access 2010 database.
> >
> > The unusual thing is that one of the fields does not appear in the
> > linked table in Access.  It is definitely in the view and appears
> > when I run the view.
> >
> > I have tried linking directly to the SQL table and this includes all
> > the fields except for the same field missing from the view.
> >
> > I have changed the view and relinked it - all of the changes show in
> > the linked table except the same field doesn't show.
> >
> > There is nothing unusual I can see about the field.  It is a
> > nvarchar(25). The type is a user defined data type but so are a
> > number of other fields that all appear in the linked table.
> >
> > Has anyone come across this before?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > David Emerson
> > Dalyn Software Ltd
> > Wellington, New Zealand
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> 
> 



From newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz  Thu Jan 14 03:00:22 2016
From: newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz (David Emerson)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 22:00:22 +1300
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Field missing in Linked SQL Table/View
In-Reply-To: <56975C50.31930.2E6282B9@stuart.lexacorp.com.pg>
References: <000901d14e31$dab60120$90220360$@dalyn.co.nz>,
	<CALGJE96a0-ghkVuWoa=RK4dEVwB+PBLdCyTbFgnc1ry6+CEdSA@mail.gmail.com>,
	<001101d14e3d$5ddd4990$1997dcb0$@dalyn.co.nz>
	<56975C50.31930.2E6282B9@stuart.lexacorp.com.pg>
Message-ID: <006f01d14eaa$0099eeb0$01cdcc10$@dalyn.co.nz>

Thanks Stuart - I have passed your links to the developers.

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-SQLServer [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On
Behalf Of Stuart McLachlan
Sent: Thursday, 14 January 2016 9:29 p.m.
To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Field missing in Linked SQL Table/View

Yes.

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms180341%28v=sql.105%29.aspx

and more detail:

https://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/2124/filtering-sql-server-columns-usi
ng-column-level-
permissions/



On 14 Jan 2016 at 9:02, David Emerson wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> 
> Can permissions be set on a field?  I have no problem linking to the 
> table.
> 
> Regards
> 
> David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dba-SQLServer
> [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Paul 
> Hartland Sent: Thursday, 14 January 2016 8:32 a.m. To: Discussion 
> concerning MS SQL Server Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Field missing in 
> Linked SQL Table/View
> 
> Just off hand it sounds like a permissions thing, do you use the same 
> logon to run the view in SQL server as you are using for the linked 
> tables to Access ?
> 
> On 13 January 2016 at 18:40, David Emerson <newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Listers,
> >
> > I have an SQL 2012 database that belongs to another application 
> > which I have little control over.  I am allowed to create views of 
> > the tables.  I have created a view of a particular table which just 
> > selects a few of the fields from the table.  I have then linked the 
> > view to my Access 2010 database.
> >
> > The unusual thing is that one of the fields does not appear in the 
> > linked table in Access.  It is definitely in the view and appears 
> > when I run the view.
> >
> > I have tried linking directly to the SQL table and this includes all 
> > the fields except for the same field missing from the view.
> >
> > I have changed the view and relinked it - all of the changes show in 
> > the linked table except the same field doesn't show.
> >
> > There is nothing unusual I can see about the field.  It is a 
> > nvarchar(25). The type is a user defined data type but so are a 
> > number of other fields that all appear in the linked table.
> >
> > Has anyone come across this before?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > David Emerson
> > Dalyn Software Ltd
> > Wellington, New Zealand
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com


From paul.hartland at googlemail.com  Thu Jan 14 07:46:05 2016
From: paul.hartland at googlemail.com (Paul Hartland)
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 13:46:05 +0000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Field missing in Linked SQL Table/View
In-Reply-To: <006f01d14eaa$0099eeb0$01cdcc10$@dalyn.co.nz>
References: <000901d14e31$dab60120$90220360$@dalyn.co.nz>
	<CALGJE96a0-ghkVuWoa=RK4dEVwB+PBLdCyTbFgnc1ry6+CEdSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<001101d14e3d$5ddd4990$1997dcb0$@dalyn.co.nz>
	<56975C50.31930.2E6282B9@stuart.lexacorp.com.pg>
	<006f01d14eaa$0099eeb0$01cdcc10$@dalyn.co.nz>
Message-ID: <CALGJE97CizvoBL3DnvY0mXdOcGEv5mWA+hdsFG622czDxHJJ8Q@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry for delay, but see you got an answer, think can remember what version
i first saw that you can have permissions down to field level, but i had
come across this before, hope you get it sorted soon
On 14 Jan 2016 09:00, "David Emerson" <newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz> wrote:

> Thanks Stuart - I have passed your links to the developers.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dba-SQLServer [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On
> Behalf Of Stuart McLachlan
> Sent: Thursday, 14 January 2016 9:29 p.m.
> To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server
> Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Field missing in Linked SQL Table/View
>
> Yes.
>
> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms180341%28v=sql.105%29.aspx
>
> and more detail:
>
>
> https://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/2124/filtering-sql-server-columns-usi
> ng-column-level-
> permissions/
>
>
>
> On 14 Jan 2016 at 9:02, David Emerson wrote:
>
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Can permissions be set on a field?  I have no problem linking to the
> > table.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > David
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dba-SQLServer
> > [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> > Hartland Sent: Thursday, 14 January 2016 8:32 a.m. To: Discussion
> > concerning MS SQL Server Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Field missing in
> > Linked SQL Table/View
> >
> > Just off hand it sounds like a permissions thing, do you use the same
> > logon to run the view in SQL server as you are using for the linked
> > tables to Access ?
> >
> > On 13 January 2016 at 18:40, David Emerson <newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Listers,
> > >
> > > I have an SQL 2012 database that belongs to another application
> > > which I have little control over.  I am allowed to create views of
> > > the tables.  I have created a view of a particular table which just
> > > selects a few of the fields from the table.  I have then linked the
> > > view to my Access 2010 database.
> > >
> > > The unusual thing is that one of the fields does not appear in the
> > > linked table in Access.  It is definitely in the view and appears
> > > when I run the view.
> > >
> > > I have tried linking directly to the SQL table and this includes all
> > > the fields except for the same field missing from the view.
> > >
> > > I have changed the view and relinked it - all of the changes show in
> > > the linked table except the same field doesn't show.
> > >
> > > There is nothing unusual I can see about the field.  It is a
> > > nvarchar(25). The type is a user defined data type but so are a
> > > number of other fields that all appear in the linked table.
> > >
> > > Has anyone come across this before?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > David Emerson
> > > Dalyn Software Ltd
> > > Wellington, New Zealand
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dba-SQLServer mailing list
> > dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> > http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>

From newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz  Thu Jan 14 16:02:15 2016
From: newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz (David Emerson)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:02:15 +1300
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Field missing in Linked SQL Table/View
In-Reply-To: <56975C50.31930.2E6282B9@stuart.lexacorp.com.pg>
References: <000901d14e31$dab60120$90220360$@dalyn.co.nz>,
	<CALGJE96a0-ghkVuWoa=RK4dEVwB+PBLdCyTbFgnc1ry6+CEdSA@mail.gmail.com>,
	<001101d14e3d$5ddd4990$1997dcb0$@dalyn.co.nz>
	<56975C50.31930.2E6282B9@stuart.lexacorp.com.pg>
Message-ID: <004a01d14f17$3b1cf290$b156d7b0$@dalyn.co.nz>

Stuart - This helped solve the problem.  The fields had user defined types.
The developer needed to assign the correct permissions for the types.  This
allowed the fields based on the types to be visible in the linked tables in
access.

Regards

David Emerson
Dalyn Software Ltd
Wellington, New Zealand


-----Original Message-----
From: dba-SQLServer [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On
Behalf Of Stuart McLachlan
Sent: Thursday, 14 January 2016 9:29 p.m.
To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Field missing in Linked SQL Table/View

Yes.

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms180341%28v=sql.105%29.aspx

and more detail:

https://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/2124/filtering-sql-server-columns-usi
ng-column-level-
permissions/



On 14 Jan 2016 at 9:02, David Emerson wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> 
> Can permissions be set on a field?  I have no problem linking to the 
> table.
> 
> Regards
> 
> David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dba-SQLServer
> [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Paul 
> Hartland Sent: Thursday, 14 January 2016 8:32 a.m. To: Discussion 
> concerning MS SQL Server Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Field missing in 
> Linked SQL Table/View
> 
> Just off hand it sounds like a permissions thing, do you use the same 
> logon to run the view in SQL server as you are using for the linked 
> tables to Access ?
> 
> On 13 January 2016 at 18:40, David Emerson <newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Listers,
> >
> > I have an SQL 2012 database that belongs to another application 
> > which I have little control over.  I am allowed to create views of 
> > the tables.  I have created a view of a particular table which just 
> > selects a few of the fields from the table.  I have then linked the 
> > view to my Access 2010 database.
> >
> > The unusual thing is that one of the fields does not appear in the 
> > linked table in Access.  It is definitely in the view and appears 
> > when I run the view.
> >
> > I have tried linking directly to the SQL table and this includes all 
> > the fields except for the same field missing from the view.
> >
> > I have changed the view and relinked it - all of the changes show in 
> > the linked table except the same field doesn't show.
> >
> > There is nothing unusual I can see about the field.  It is a 
> > nvarchar(25). The type is a user defined data type but so are a 
> > number of other fields that all appear in the linked table.
> >
> > Has anyone come across this before?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > David Emerson
> > Dalyn Software Ltd
> > Wellington, New Zealand


From stuart at lexacorp.com.pg  Thu Jan 14 16:13:18 2016
From: stuart at lexacorp.com.pg (Stuart McLachlan)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 08:13:18 +1000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Field missing in Linked SQL Table/View
In-Reply-To: <004a01d14f17$3b1cf290$b156d7b0$@dalyn.co.nz>
References: <000901d14e31$dab60120$90220360$@dalyn.co.nz>,
	<56975C50.31930.2E6282B9@stuart.lexacorp.com.pg>,
	<004a01d14f17$3b1cf290$b156d7b0$@dalyn.co.nz>
Message-ID: <56981D7E.10536.31551E3C@stuart.lexacorp.com.pg>

Yep, SQL Server can be locked down fairly well and basically nothing is acccessible unless a 
user has been granted rights to it.  including functions and UDTs  

In a complex database, you sometimes need to tunnel way down to find out where there is a 
missing permission  

BTDT  :)

-- 
Stuart
 
On 15 Jan 2016 at 11:02, David Emerson wrote:

> Stuart - This helped solve the problem.  The fields had user defined
> types. The developer needed to assign the correct permissions for the
> types.  This allowed the fields based on the types to be visible in
> the linked tables in access.
> 
> Regards
> 
> David Emerson
> Dalyn Software Ltd
> Wellington, New Zealand
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dba-SQLServer
> [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of
> Stuart McLachlan Sent: Thursday, 14 January 2016 9:29 p.m. To:
> Discussion concerning MS SQL Server Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Field
> missing in Linked SQL Table/View
> 
> Yes.
> 
> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms180341%28v=sql.105%29.as
> px
> 
> and more detail:
> 
> https://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/2124/filtering-sql-server-colum
> ns-usi ng-column-level- permissions/
> 
> 
> 
> On 14 Jan 2016 at 9:02, David Emerson wrote:
> 
> > Hi Paul,
> > 
> > Can permissions be set on a field?  I have no problem linking to the
> > table.
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > David
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dba-SQLServer
> > [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of
> > Paul Hartland Sent: Thursday, 14 January 2016 8:32 a.m. To:
> > Discussion concerning MS SQL Server Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer]
> > Field missing in Linked SQL Table/View
> > 
> > Just off hand it sounds like a permissions thing, do you use the
> > same logon to run the view in SQL server as you are using for the
> > linked tables to Access ?
> > 
> > On 13 January 2016 at 18:40, David Emerson <newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Listers,
> > >
> > > I have an SQL 2012 database that belongs to another application
> > > which I have little control over.  I am allowed to create views of
> > > the tables.  I have created a view of a particular table which
> > > just selects a few of the fields from the table.  I have then
> > > linked the view to my Access 2010 database.
> > >
> > > The unusual thing is that one of the fields does not appear in the
> > > linked table in Access.  It is definitely in the view and appears
> > > when I run the view.
> > >
> > > I have tried linking directly to the SQL table and this includes
> > > all the fields except for the same field missing from the view.
> > >
> > > I have changed the view and relinked it - all of the changes show
> > > in the linked table except the same field doesn't show.
> > >
> > > There is nothing unusual I can see about the field.  It is a
> > > nvarchar(25). The type is a user defined data type but so are a
> > > number of other fields that all appear in the linked table.
> > >
> > > Has anyone come across this before?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > David Emerson
> > > Dalyn Software Ltd
> > > Wellington, New Zealand
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> 
> 



From rockysmolin at bchacc.com  Mon Jan 18 19:36:07 2016
From: rockysmolin at bchacc.com (Rocky Smolin)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:36:07 -0800
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Upgrade to SQL
Message-ID: <9915403A7D424995B3DA9BCBA75DBE26@HAL9007>

Dear Lists(s):
 
The guy who acquired my product want to make a front end compatible with SQL
server (and of course upgrade the back end as well). But he wants to keep
both version of the product - SQL and Access.
 
I told him it really means two FEs because the SQL version is so much
different than the Access version.
 
The app has something around 200 forms and subforms, on the order of 250
queries, about 150 tables about 1/2 of them in the back end, 1/2 in the
front, and lots and lots and lots of code. 
 
He wants to know if one FE can be devised to support both Access BE and SQL
BE.
 
I told him about the conditional compile command which could compile just
the statements you'd want based on a switch.  But given the number of
differences in code between the two versions I cautioned him that it would
be an awkward program to maintain.
 
I've never done that kind of conversion before so I'm wondering just how
practical (or not) would it be to have one FE to handle both an Access and a
SQL back end?
 
MTIA
 
Rocky
 
 

From df.waters at outlook.com  Mon Jan 18 20:08:44 2016
From: df.waters at outlook.com (Dan Waters)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 20:08:44 -0600
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Upgrade to SQL
In-Reply-To: <9915403A7D424995B3DA9BCBA75DBE26@HAL9007>
References: <9915403A7D424995B3DA9BCBA75DBE26@HAL9007>
Message-ID: <BLU176-DS2059B106D260B85A25A734F6C10@phx.gbl>

Hi Rocky,

I have code which does what you are describing.  The FE retrieves
information from a config file to learn if the BE is SQL or Access.  If
needed, one of two sets of table links (one is Access the other is ODBC)
gets named correctly, the other gets a prefix to make it not usable.  In my
situation, the two BE's each have the same set of identically named tables -
yours doesn't.  Still, I'll send you this code and perhaps you can get
something out of it.  However, I'll have to wait till Wednesday - hope that
will work OK.

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-SQLServer [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On
Behalf Of Rocky Smolin
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 7:36 PM
To: dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com; 'Off Topic'
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Upgrade to SQL

Dear Lists(s):
 
The guy who acquired my product want to make a front end compatible with SQL
server (and of course upgrade the back end as well). But he wants to keep
both version of the product - SQL and Access.
 
I told him it really means two FEs because the SQL version is so much
different than the Access version.
 
The app has something around 200 forms and subforms, on the order of 250
queries, about 150 tables about 1/2 of them in the back end, 1/2 in the
front, and lots and lots and lots of code. 
 
He wants to know if one FE can be devised to support both Access BE and SQL
BE.
 
I told him about the conditional compile command which could compile just
the statements you'd want based on a switch.  But given the number of
differences in code between the two versions I cautioned him that it would
be an awkward program to maintain.
 
I've never done that kind of conversion before so I'm wondering just how
practical (or not) would it be to have one FE to handle both an Access and a
SQL back end?
 
MTIA
 
Rocky
 
 
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com



From rockysmolin at bchacc.com  Mon Jan 18 20:24:32 2016
From: rockysmolin at bchacc.com (Rocky Smolin)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 18:24:32 -0800
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Upgrade to SQL
In-Reply-To: <BLU176-DS2059B106D260B85A25A734F6C10@phx.gbl>
References: <9915403A7D424995B3DA9BCBA75DBE26@HAL9007>
	<BLU176-DS2059B106D260B85A25A734F6C10@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <92244A39693E4F748C76672428866EE0@HAL9007>

Thanks Dan.  It's just in the planning stage at the moment.  SO no hurry on
the code.  But if you send it, I'll forward to the developer to have on
hand.

They have to make a strategic decision to go for this upgrade.  As you know,
it ain't a spit and a lick.  And will take some dough as well to finance
that development.  And it puts them into a different market segment which
will mean some different marketing, sales, and support issues.  

Best,

Rocky Smolin
Beach Access Software
858-259-4334
www.bchacc.com
www.e-z-mrp.com
Skype: rocky.smolin
 




-----Original Message-----
From: dba-SQLServer [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On
Behalf Of Dan Waters
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 6:09 PM
To: 'Discussion concerning MS SQL Server'
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Upgrade to SQL

Hi Rocky,

I have code which does what you are describing.  The FE retrieves
information from a config file to learn if the BE is SQL or Access.  If
needed, one of two sets of table links (one is Access the other is ODBC)
gets named correctly, the other gets a prefix to make it not usable.  In my
situation, the two BE's each have the same set of identically named tables -
yours doesn't.  Still, I'll send you this code and perhaps you can get
something out of it.  However, I'll have to wait till Wednesday - hope that
will work OK.

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-SQLServer [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On
Behalf Of Rocky Smolin
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 7:36 PM
To: dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com; 'Off Topic'
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Upgrade to SQL

Dear Lists(s):
 
The guy who acquired my product want to make a front end compatible with SQL
server (and of course upgrade the back end as well). But he wants to keep
both version of the product - SQL and Access.
 
I told him it really means two FEs because the SQL version is so much
different than the Access version.
 
The app has something around 200 forms and subforms, on the order of 250
queries, about 150 tables about 1/2 of them in the back end, 1/2 in the
front, and lots and lots and lots of code. 
 
He wants to know if one FE can be devised to support both Access BE and SQL
BE.
 
I told him about the conditional compile command which could compile just
the statements you'd want based on a switch.  But given the number of
differences in code between the two versions I cautioned him that it would
be an awkward program to maintain.
 
I've never done that kind of conversion before so I'm wondering just how
practical (or not) would it be to have one FE to handle both an Access and a
SQL back end?
 
MTIA
 
Rocky
 
 
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com


_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com



From stuart at lexacorp.com.pg  Mon Jan 18 20:43:06 2016
From: stuart at lexacorp.com.pg (Stuart McLachlan)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:43:06 +1000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Upgrade to SQL
In-Reply-To: <BLU176-DS2059B106D260B85A25A734F6C10@phx.gbl>
References: <9915403A7D424995B3DA9BCBA75DBE26@HAL9007>,
	<BLU176-DS2059B106D260B85A25A734F6C10@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <569DA2BA.17550.D9F95C0@stuart.lexacorp.com.pg>

If you just link the SQL Server tables using ODBC and the same table structures in both 
Access and SQL Server, you shouldn't need to make any changes to the FE apart from the 
links.

I have a couple of apps which have code to switch links to a local Access BE, a network BE 
or an SQL Server instance.   No conditional compiles or anythiing else.

 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dba-SQLServer
> [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Rocky
> Smolin Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 7:36 PM To:
> dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com; 'Off Topic' Subject:
> [dba-SQLServer] Upgrade to SQL
> 
> Dear Lists(s):
> 
> The guy who acquired my product want to make a front end compatible
> with SQL server (and of course upgrade the back end as well). But he
> wants to keep both version of the product - SQL and Access.
> 
> I told him it really means two FEs because the SQL version is so much
> different than the Access version.
> 
> The app has something around 200 forms and subforms, on the order of
> 250 queries, about 150 tables about 1/2 of them in the back end, 1/2
> in the front, and lots and lots and lots of code. 
> 
> He wants to know if one FE can be devised to support both Access BE
> and SQL BE.
> 
> I told him about the conditional compile command which could compile
> just the statements you'd want based on a switch.  But given the
> number of differences in code between the two versions I cautioned him
> that it would be an awkward program to maintain.
> 
> I've never done that kind of conversion before so I'm wondering just
> how practical (or not) would it be to have one FE to handle both an
> Access and a SQL back end?
> 
> MTIA
> 
> Rocky
> 


From tinanfields at torchlake.com  Wed Jan 20 10:07:14 2016
From: tinanfields at torchlake.com (Tina Norris Fields)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:07:14 -0500
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] How RDBMSs work
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJO1hqCghyYWmqGG_H3bTrX5HFbjB-F6EN-1bnXa-Xx6x8-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEPJO1hqCghyYWmqGG_H3bTrX5HFbjB-F6EN-1bnXa-Xx6x8-g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <569FB0B2.8000805@torchlake.com>

Okay, got started on this article.  Bookmarked it so I can come back to 
it.  I'm in the search algorithms section.  Oh my!  Gives a whole new 
perspective to the construction of decision trees.  Thanks, Arthur.  I'm 
learning.
TNF

Tina Norris Fields
tinanfields-at-torchlake-dot-com
231-322-2787

On 08/22/15 3:44 PM, Arthur Fuller wrote:
> We are all pretty familiar with the "outer skin" of an RDBMS, but until I
> read this
> <http://coding-geek.com/how-databases-work/?utm_source=dbweekly&utm_medium=email>,
> I really didn't know much about the innards. Now I know a little more about
> what goes on under the hood.
>


From fuller.artful at gmail.com  Tue Jan 26 14:05:23 2016
From: fuller.artful at gmail.com (Arthur Fuller)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:05:23 -0500
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Support for Filter clause?
Message-ID: <CAEPJO1gDvDYYe9rLHbkziHpRBxX2Tb1_95B2Q0KwhzzNYrE+wA@mail.gmail.com>

The SQL standard and Postgres support the FILTER clause, as in:

SELECT

  COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE sal < 10000)

      AS test1,

  COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE dept > 10)

      AS test2,

  COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE hiredate > (SYSDATE - 60))

      AS test3,

  COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE grade = 1)

      AS test4

FROM employees;


The latest version of MS-SQL I have installed is 2012. Does anyone
using something more recent know if the syntax above is supported?


-- 
Arthur

From paul.hartland at googlemail.com  Wed Jan 27 00:59:19 2016
From: paul.hartland at googlemail.com (Paul Hartland)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 06:59:19 +0000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Support for Filter clause?
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJO1gDvDYYe9rLHbkziHpRBxX2Tb1_95B2Q0KwhzzNYrE+wA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEPJO1gDvDYYe9rLHbkziHpRBxX2Tb1_95B2Q0KwhzzNYrE+wA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALGJE97MpJX-E3iXb9t+EUMTSX+OxiEvksm8DipYNoADm-syGw@mail.gmail.com>

Never used that, we only have 2000 & 2005/2008 sql servers here at work,
even though we have upto 2014 express installed as management studio, will
have to look at that at home
On 26 Jan 2016 20:06, "Arthur Fuller" <fuller.artful at gmail.com> wrote:

> The SQL standard and Postgres support the FILTER clause, as in:
>
> SELECT
>
>   COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE sal < 10000)
>
>       AS test1,
>
>   COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE dept > 10)
>
>       AS test2,
>
>   COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE hiredate > (SYSDATE - 60))
>
>       AS test3,
>
>   COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE grade = 1)
>
>       AS test4
>
> FROM employees;
>
>
> The latest version of MS-SQL I have installed is 2012. Does anyone
> using something more recent know if the syntax above is supported?
>
>
> --
> Arthur
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>

From stuart at lexacorp.com.pg  Fri Jan 29 02:24:50 2016
From: stuart at lexacorp.com.pg (Stuart McLachlan)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 18:24:50 +1000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Support for Filter clause?
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJO1gDvDYYe9rLHbkziHpRBxX2Tb1_95B2Q0KwhzzNYrE+wA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEPJO1gDvDYYe9rLHbkziHpRBxX2Tb1_95B2Q0KwhzzNYrE+wA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56AB21D2.4367.D06C3D@stuart.lexacorp.com.pg>

Nope, Definitely not in 2014 - it throws an error.

And it doesn't appear to be  implemented in the current 2016 CTP.  It's  still listed as a "future 
keyword which should  be avoided as an identifier" if you tunnel down in the 2016 
documentation.   

(Actually, they haven't implemented any new keywords since 2008 according to that 
Keywords list).


-- 
Stuart
 

On 26 Jan 2016 at 15:05, Arthur Fuller wrote:

> The SQL standard and Postgres support the FILTER clause, as in:
> 
> SELECT
> 
>   COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE sal < 10000)
> 
>       AS test1,
> 
>   COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE dept > 10)
> 
>       AS test2,
> 
>   COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE hiredate > (SYSDATE - 60))
> 
>       AS test3,
> 
>   COUNT(*) FILTER (WHERE grade = 1)
> 
>       AS test4
> 
> FROM employees;
> 
> 
> The latest version of MS-SQL I have installed is 2012. Does anyone
> using something more recent know if the syntax above is supported?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Arthur
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> 
> 



From fuller.artful at gmail.com  Fri Jan 29 05:06:01 2016
From: fuller.artful at gmail.com (Arthur Fuller)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:06:01 -0500
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Support for Filter clause?
In-Reply-To: <56AB21D2.4367.D06C3D@stuart.lexacorp.com.pg>
References: <CAEPJO1gDvDYYe9rLHbkziHpRBxX2Tb1_95B2Q0KwhzzNYrE+wA@mail.gmail.com>
	<56AB21D2.4367.D06C3D@stuart.lexacorp.com.pg>
Message-ID: <CAEPJO1hyT7N6ASNR+dzdKXkaAj4Ym=GDAK7oyNNXnQ0+PnxjDw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for tunnelling down, Stuart.

A.

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:24 AM, Stuart McLachlan <stuart at lexacorp.com.pg>
wrote:

> Nope, Definitely not in 2014 - it throws an error.
>
> And it doesn't appear to be  implemented in the current 2016 CTP.  It's
> still listed as a "future
> keyword which should  be avoided as an identifier" if you tunnel down in
> the 2016
> documentation.
>
> (Actually, they haven't implemented any new keywords since 2008 according
> to that
> Keywords list).

From fuller.artful at gmail.com  Fri Jan 29 12:22:33 2016
From: fuller.artful at gmail.com (Arthur Fuller)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:22:33 -0500
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] The point of 5NF and BCNF
Message-ID: <CAEPJO1gPgbVb8Tfq=c7GJiDF7hYyVVEt-z5Jckcgxi_WZuYJBQ@mail.gmail.com>

I confess that I'm growing a bit tired of this topic, but I've recently
read a dozen or so topics that suggest that 3NF (third normal form) is as
far as you need to take your normalization design. I emphatically disagree,
and pose the suggestion that BCNF (Boyce-Codd Normal Form) and 5th Normal
Form are the intelligent paths to follow when designing databases.

Let us consider an entry such as "London". The first one that comes up in
my broweser, given that it knows where I live. is London, Ontario, Canada,
with about a dozen entries. Then comes London, England, including (way
cool) a  site for renting apartments in London, England.

In a 3NF implementaition, it would be possible to select London, Denmark,
both of which individual choices make sense, but not in the real world.
There is no London in Denmark. So the choice facing the developer is a) on
the front end, refresh the dropdown box to show only the recognized cities
in Denmark, or b) to let the user play fast and loose with the rules.
Nither choice is acceptable to me. I want London, Ontario to be
distinguished from London, England -- and that's why we have BCNF and/or
5NF.

-- 
Arthur

From gustav at cactus.dk  Fri Jan 29 12:50:05 2016
From: gustav at cactus.dk (Gustav Brock)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 18:50:05 +0000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] The point of 5NF and BCNF
Message-ID: <VI1PR06MB15849A02F988EBCEF10C634ECADB0@VI1PR06MB1584.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>

Hi Arthur

Problem is that ?as far as you need? is a soft statement, so ?what you need? is based on an opinion.
Thus the discussion can go on forever.

A practical example of an issue, that may force you to something else than what you think is your need, is postal codes. If you wish to validate these and look up the associated city or town name on an international scale, you must have access to all countries? postal codes and cities. Not only is this a major and potentially costly task, but it is also dynamic. So, if your application is not targeted this task, you will probably settle with the information entered and believe it is true; why, for example, should a customer give you a delivery address with a wrong postal code/city combination? You will move the validation to the customer.

/gustav


Fra: Arthur Fuller<mailto:fuller.artful at gmail.com>
Sendt: 29. januar 2016 19:23
Til: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server<mailto:dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Emne: [dba-SQLServer] The point of 5NF and BCNF

I confess that I'm growing a bit tired of this topic, but I've recently
read a dozen or so topics that suggest that 3NF (third normal form) is as
far as you need to take your normalization design. I emphatically disagree,
and pose the suggestion that BCNF (Boyce-Codd Normal Form) and 5th Normal
Form are the intelligent paths to follow when designing databases.

Let us consider an entry such as "London". The first one that comes up in
my broweser, given that it knows where I live. is London, Ontario, Canada,
with about a dozen entries. Then comes London, England, including (way
cool) a  site for renting apartments in London, England.

In a 3NF implementaition, it would be possible to select London, Denmark,
both of which individual choices make sense, but not in the real world.
There is no London in Denmark. So the choice facing the developer is a) on
the front end, refresh the dropdown box to show only the recognized cities
in Denmark, or b) to let the user play fast and loose with the rules.
Nither choice is acceptable to me. I want London, Ontario to be
distinguished from London, England -- and that's why we have BCNF and/or
5NF.

--
Arthur


From df.waters at outlook.com  Fri Jan 29 14:40:05 2016
From: df.waters at outlook.com (Dan Waters)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:40:05 -0600
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] The point of 5NF and BCNF
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJO1gPgbVb8Tfq=c7GJiDF7hYyVVEt-z5Jckcgxi_WZuYJBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEPJO1gPgbVb8Tfq=c7GJiDF7hYyVVEt-z5Jckcgxi_WZuYJBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BLU176-DS10733C379AA29946ED53CFF6DB0@phx.gbl>

Hi Arthur,

I haven't looked at 'normal forms' for tables for a long while.

However, in any situation like the one you describe where you are trying to
record a location, then you will need a tblCountries, tblStates (or
provinces or similar), and tblCities.  I don't know what form level this
would be, but it is necessary.  And, you may want 3 lookup tables to support
this scheme.

Good Luck!
Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-SQLServer [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On
Behalf Of Arthur Fuller
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 12:23 PM
To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] The point of 5NF and BCNF

I confess that I'm growing a bit tired of this topic, but I've recently read
a dozen or so topics that suggest that 3NF (third normal form) is as far as
you need to take your normalization design. I emphatically disagree, and
pose the suggestion that BCNF (Boyce-Codd Normal Form) and 5th Normal Form
are the intelligent paths to follow when designing databases.

Let us consider an entry such as "London". The first one that comes up in my
broweser, given that it knows where I live. is London, Ontario, Canada, with
about a dozen entries. Then comes London, England, including (way
cool) a  site for renting apartments in London, England.

In a 3NF implementaition, it would be possible to select London, Denmark,
both of which individual choices make sense, but not in the real world.
There is no London in Denmark. So the choice facing the developer is a) on
the front end, refresh the dropdown box to show only the recognized cities
in Denmark, or b) to let the user play fast and loose with the rules.
Nither choice is acceptable to me. I want London, Ontario to be
distinguished from London, England -- and that's why we have BCNF and/or
5NF.

--
Arthur
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com



From fuller.artful at gmail.com  Fri Jan 29 15:27:15 2016
From: fuller.artful at gmail.com (Arthur Fuller)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:27:15 -0500
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] The point of 5NF and BCNF
In-Reply-To: <BLU176-DS10733C379AA29946ED53CFF6DB0@phx.gbl>
References: <CAEPJO1gPgbVb8Tfq=c7GJiDF7hYyVVEt-z5Jckcgxi_WZuYJBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BLU176-DS10733C379AA29946ED53CFF6DB0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <CAEPJO1gekw0hui7H0PiN6nqsMeAy1zKn5QawwDWbN2tNi6RcdA@mail.gmail.com>

Gustav,

We've been friends for decades, but you've got this one all wrong. The
point of 5NF is to eliminate the problems  your model introduces. Let me
try to express it another way. There is only one London, England, and there
is only one London, Ontario, Canada. These are distinct entities. We could
in the FE reprsent them with an amalgam of three fields concatenated, but
the point is that London, England is a different object than London,
Ontario, It is not required to ask the user for the ancillary fields, nor
should they be stored. That is what BCNF and 5NF are all about. There is
only one London, Ontario. Canada. We do not need to store the nation and
the province.

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Dan Waters <df.waters at outlook.com> wrote:

> Hi Arthur,
>
> I haven't looked at 'normal forms' for tables for a long while.
>
> However, in any situation like the one you describe where you are trying to
> record a location, then you will need a tblCountries, tblStates (or
> provinces or similar), and tblCities.  I don't know what form level this
> would be, but it is necessary.  And, you may want 3 lookup tables to
> support
> this scheme.
>
> Good Luck!
> Dan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dba-SQLServer [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On
> Behalf Of Arthur Fuller
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 12:23 PM
> To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server
> Subject: [dba-SQLServer] The point of 5NF and BCNF
>
> I confess that I'm growing a bit tired of this topic, but I've recently
> read
> a dozen or so topics that suggest that 3NF (third normal form) is as far as
> you need to take your normalization design. I emphatically disagree, and
> pose the suggestion that BCNF (Boyce-Codd Normal Form) and 5th Normal Form
> are the intelligent paths to follow when designing databases.
>
> Let us consider an entry such as "London". The first one that comes up in
> my
> broweser, given that it knows where I live. is London, Ontario, Canada,
> with
> about a dozen entries. Then comes London, England, including (way
> cool) a  site for renting apartments in London, England.
>
> In a 3NF implementaition, it would be possible to select London, Denmark,
> both of which individual choices make sense, but not in the real world.
> There is no London in Denmark. So the choice facing the developer is a) on
> the front end, refresh the dropdown box to show only the recognized cities
> in Denmark, or b) to let the user play fast and loose with the rules.
> Nither choice is acceptable to me. I want London, Ontario to be
> distinguished from London, England -- and that's why we have BCNF and/or
> 5NF.
>
> --
> Arthur
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>


-- 
Arthur

From darryl at whittleconsulting.com.au  Sun Jan 31 18:19:21 2016
From: darryl at whittleconsulting.com.au (Darryl Collins)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 00:19:21 +0000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] The point of 5NF and BCNF
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR06MB15849A02F988EBCEF10C634ECADB0@VI1PR06MB1584.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <VI1PR06MB15849A02F988EBCEF10C634ECADB0@VI1PR06MB1584.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <ME1PR01MB019460E22771A6FB0E0F3C6DFCDE0@ME1PR01MB0194.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>

This is a fair point. Actually dealing the American websites can be a right PITA as they often require some crazy US centric data entry to continue / buy / proceed / whatever.  Which is totally useless and meaningless for anyone outside of the country (and that is much of the planet too I might add).

Post / zip codes are a great example, as are Social security numbers.  Ironically you can often put in a fake one (or a seemingly looking real one) and continue which must screw their data up.

Anyway, I can feel rant mode ramping up so I will sign off about now..

Like all of these things I can see pros and cons on both sides.  Love what I learn here though.

Cheers
Darryl


 



-----Original Message-----
From: dba-SQLServer [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Gustav Brock
Sent: Saturday, 30 January 2016 5:50 AM
To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] The point of 5NF and BCNF

Hi Arthur

Problem is that ?as far as you need? is a soft statement, so ?what you need? is based on an opinion.
Thus the discussion can go on forever.

A practical example of an issue, that may force you to something else than what you think is your need, is postal codes. If you wish to validate these and look up the associated city or town name on an international scale, you must have access to all countries? postal codes and cities. Not only is this a major and potentially costly task, but it is also dynamic. So, if your application is not targeted this task, you will probably settle with the information entered and believe it is true; why, for example, should a customer give you a delivery address with a wrong postal code/city combination? You will move the validation to the customer.

/gustav


Fra: Arthur Fuller<mailto:fuller.artful at gmail.com>
Sendt: 29. januar 2016 19:23
Til: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server<mailto:dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Emne: [dba-SQLServer] The point of 5NF and BCNF

I confess that I'm growing a bit tired of this topic, but I've recently read a dozen or so topics that suggest that 3NF (third normal form) is as far as you need to take your normalization design. I emphatically disagree, and pose the suggestion that BCNF (Boyce-Codd Normal Form) and 5th Normal Form are the intelligent paths to follow when designing databases.

Let us consider an entry such as "London". The first one that comes up in my broweser, given that it knows where I live. is London, Ontario, Canada, with about a dozen entries. Then comes London, England, including (way
cool) a  site for renting apartments in London, England.

In a 3NF implementaition, it would be possible to select London, Denmark, both of which individual choices make sense, but not in the real world.
There is no London in Denmark. So the choice facing the developer is a) on the front end, refresh the dropdown box to show only the recognized cities in Denmark, or b) to let the user play fast and loose with the rules.
Nither choice is acceptable to me. I want London, Ontario to be distinguished from London, England -- and that's why we have BCNF and/or 5NF.

--
Arthur

_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com