Please help me I am at the end of my tether trying to install the Evaluation copy of SQL S

Please help me I am at the end of my tether trying to install the Evaluation
copy of SQL Server 2005.
I have installed & uninstalled numerous times but now do not seem to have
any component that allows you to navigate through the databases or execute
queries.
I used to have MySQL installed and when I first installed SQL2005 I seemed
to have it all installed OK, but could not attach the AdventureWorks data
base (loads of errors to complex for me to try and explain),
In an attempt to install the training database I have uninstalled everything
including MYSQL (I don't have the database engine icon in the systray) and
reinstalled.
I am no expert by I did a full install on the server elements as well as the
client stuff. But I can only view the SQL configuration application,
Please help I have XP Pro and a P4 dell Inspiron pc.
Thanks
Ian> I used to have MySQL installed and when I first installed SQL2005 I seemed
> to have it all installed OK, but could not attach the AdventureWorks data
> base (loads of errors to complex for me to try and explain),
There is no need for you to explain the errors. Copy/paste the error
messages into your post so that someone might be able to help.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"ian" <ian@.aol.com> wrote in message
news:xIudnVYKgNIUeKLZRVnyig@.giganews.com...
> Please help me I am at the end of my tether trying to install the
> Evaluation copy of SQL Server 2005.
>
> I have installed & uninstalled numerous times but now do not seem to have
> any component that allows you to navigate through the databases or execute
> queries.
>
> I used to have MySQL installed and when I first installed SQL2005 I seemed
> to have it all installed OK, but could not attach the AdventureWorks data
> base (loads of errors to complex for me to try and explain),
>
> In an attempt to install the training database I have uninstalled
> everything including MYSQL (I don't have the database engine icon in the
> systray) and reinstalled.
>
> I am no expert by I did a full install on the server elements as well as
> the client stuff. But I can only view the SQL configuration application,
>
> Please help I have XP Pro and a P4 dell Inspiron pc.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ian
>
>
>|||"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:O4s16C$XGHA.4324@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> I used to have MySQL installed and when I first installed SQL2005 I
>> seemed to have it all installed OK, but could not attach the
>> AdventureWorks data base (loads of errors to complex for me to try and
>> explain),
> There is no need for you to explain the errors. Copy/paste the error
> messages into your post so that someone might be able to help.
>
Thanks Dan, but I now can't as I can't get that element (the explorer
application) of SQL Server to install. I have installed every thing on the
Eval download. That is my immediate problem
Ian|||> Thanks Dan, but I now can't as I can't get that element (the explorer
> application) of SQL Server to install. I have installed every thing on the
> Eval download. That is my immediate problem
> Ian
You should have a 'SQL Server Management Studio' icon in the 'Microsoft SQL
Server 2005' program group. If you don't have that installed, you should be
able to add it without uninstalling other items.
Go to 'Add/Remove Programs and select 'Microsoft SQL Server 2005'. Click
the 'Change' button and select workstation components. Click next on the
next couple of screens until you get to tools setup. Click 'Change
Installed Components' select everything (expand as needed) and finish the
installation wizard.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"ian" <ian@.aol.com> wrote in message
news:fpGdnaHGT49rZ6LZRVnytQ@.giganews.com...
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:O4s16C$XGHA.4324@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> I used to have MySQL installed and when I first installed SQL2005 I
>> seemed to have it all installed OK, but could not attach the
>> AdventureWorks data base (loads of errors to complex for me to try and
>> explain),
>> There is no need for you to explain the errors. Copy/paste the error
>> messages into your post so that someone might be able to help.
> Thanks Dan, but I now can't as I can't get that element (the explorer
> application) of SQL Server to install. I have installed every thing on the
> Eval download. That is my immediate problem
> Ian
>|||Hi Ian
Do the setup log files in <installation directory>\90\Setup
Bootstrap\LOG\Files say anything?
John
"ian" <ian@.aol.com> wrote in message
news:fpGdnaHGT49rZ6LZRVnytQ@.giganews.com...
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:O4s16C$XGHA.4324@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> I used to have MySQL installed and when I first installed SQL2005 I
>> seemed to have it all installed OK, but could not attach the
>> AdventureWorks data base (loads of errors to complex for me to try and
>> explain),
>> There is no need for you to explain the errors. Copy/paste the error
>> messages into your post so that someone might be able to help.
> Thanks Dan, but I now can't as I can't get that element (the explorer
> application) of SQL Server to install. I have installed every thing on the
> Eval download. That is my immediate problem
> Ian
>|||Microsoft's UI for installation is awful. They obviously forgot to pay a
UI team to make it user friendly. And don't others jump in and say I'm
being overly critical because the UI really is bad, and Apple would have
made a good UI if they were in charge of releasing SQL Server (yes, it can
be done).
"ian" <ian@.aol.com> wrote in message
news:xIudnVYKgNIUeKLZRVnyig@.giganews.com...
> Please help me I am at the end of my tether trying to install the
> Evaluation copy of SQL Server 2005.
>
> I have installed & uninstalled numerous times but now do not seem to have
> any component that allows you to navigate through the databases or execute
> queries.
>
> I used to have MySQL installed and when I first installed SQL2005 I seemed
> to have it all installed OK, but could not attach the AdventureWorks data
> base (loads of errors to complex for me to try and explain),
>
> In an attempt to install the training database I have uninstalled
> everything including MYSQL (I don't have the database engine icon in the
> systray) and reinstalled.
>
> I am no expert by I did a full install on the server elements as well as
> the client stuff. But I can only view the SQL configuration application,
>
> Please help I have XP Pro and a P4 dell Inspiron pc.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ian
>
>
>

PK Index Cluster/Non Cluster

I have application that I inherited. Looks to me the indexes where set up
incorrectly. Numerous tables have Non-Cluster indexes as Primary Keys that
were set up with Identity Incremented by 1.
I was told the primary keys that are increasing in numerical value should be
a cluster index.
Is there a list of rules for best practices on setting up Cluster and
Non-Indexes?
Thanks,Most of the time yes, it probably would be clustered. But just because it's
not doesnt mean its incorrect. In a reporting server, you may want clusterin
g
done on date fields, as thats what most queries are run against and that
could greatly speed stuff up.
TIA,
ChrisR
"Joe K." wrote:

> I have application that I inherited. Looks to me the indexes where set u
p
> incorrectly. Numerous tables have Non-Cluster indexes as Primary Keys tha
t
> were set up with Identity Incremented by 1.
> I was told the primary keys that are increasing in numerical value should
be
> a cluster index.
> Is there a list of rules for best practices on setting up Cluster and
> Non-Indexes?
> Thanks,|||Here's my shortlist of reasons why identities make for excellent clustered
indexes:
(a) They're narrow - because the keys of a clustered index CIX) are also
stored in the leaf nodes of all non-clustered indexes (NCIX), the narrower
the CIX keys, the less size impact they'll have on the size of the NCIX's.
Identities can be any of the integer types, sos their size can vary, but in
general, a 4 byte integer key makes for a nice compact key.
(b) Unique - SQL Server "uniquefies" non-unique values in CIXs with 8 byte
uniquefiers. Because identities are reasonably unique, they don't suffer
from this problem.
(c) Incremental - because identity columns are generally incremental in
nature, you typically don't suffer much from fragmentation. Non-incremental
keys (eg, customername) can heavily fragment a database during insert /
update / delete operations
(d) Stable - if a CIX key gets updated, any associated NCIXs (on the same
table) also have to be updated to synchronise their CIX bookmark keys (as
described in (a) )
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Joe K." <Joe K.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7E115D53-5D47-410E-9900-FE935FE397D6@.microsoft.com...
> I have application that I inherited. Looks to me the indexes where set
> up
> incorrectly. Numerous tables have Non-Cluster indexes as Primary Keys
> that
> were set up with Identity Incremented by 1.
> I was told the primary keys that are increasing in numerical value should
> be
> a cluster index.
> Is there a list of rules for best practices on setting up Cluster and
> Non-Indexes?
> Thanks,

PK Index Cluster/Non Cluster

I have application that I inherited. Looks to me the indexes where set up
incorrectly. Numerous tables have Non-Cluster indexes as Primary Keys that
were set up with Identity Incremented by 1.
I was told the primary keys that are increasing in numerical value should be
a cluster index.
Is there a list of rules for best practices on setting up Cluster and
Non-Indexes?
Thanks,Most of the time yes, it probably would be clustered. But just because it's
not doesnt mean its incorrect. In a reporting server, you may want clustering
done on date fields, as thats what most queries are run against and that
could greatly speed stuff up.
TIA,
ChrisR
"Joe K." wrote:
> I have application that I inherited. Looks to me the indexes where set up
> incorrectly. Numerous tables have Non-Cluster indexes as Primary Keys that
> were set up with Identity Incremented by 1.
> I was told the primary keys that are increasing in numerical value should be
> a cluster index.
> Is there a list of rules for best practices on setting up Cluster and
> Non-Indexes?
> Thanks,|||Here's my shortlist of reasons why identities make for excellent clustered
indexes:
(a) They're narrow - because the keys of a clustered index CIX) are also
stored in the leaf nodes of all non-clustered indexes (NCIX), the narrower
the CIX keys, the less size impact they'll have on the size of the NCIX's.
Identities can be any of the integer types, sos their size can vary, but in
general, a 4 byte integer key makes for a nice compact key.
(b) Unique - SQL Server "uniquefies" non-unique values in CIXs with 8 byte
uniquefiers. Because identities are reasonably unique, they don't suffer
from this problem.
(c) Incremental - because identity columns are generally incremental in
nature, you typically don't suffer much from fragmentation. Non-incremental
keys (eg, customername) can heavily fragment a database during insert /
update / delete operations
(d) Stable - if a CIX key gets updated, any associated NCIXs (on the same
table) also have to be updated to synchronise their CIX bookmark keys (as
described in (a) )
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Joe K." <Joe K.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7E115D53-5D47-410E-9900-FE935FE397D6@.microsoft.com...
> I have application that I inherited. Looks to me the indexes where set
> up
> incorrectly. Numerous tables have Non-Cluster indexes as Primary Keys
> that
> were set up with Identity Incremented by 1.
> I was told the primary keys that are increasing in numerical value should
> be
> a cluster index.
> Is there a list of rules for best practices on setting up Cluster and
> Non-Indexes?
> Thanks,

PK Index Cluster/Non Cluster

I have application that I inherited. Looks to me the indexes where set up
incorrectly. Numerous tables have Non-Cluster indexes as Primary Keys that
were set up with Identity Incremented by 1.
I was told the primary keys that are increasing in numerical value should be
a cluster index.
Is there a list of rules for best practices on setting up Cluster and
Non-Indexes?
Thanks,
Most of the time yes, it probably would be clustered. But just because it's
not doesnt mean its incorrect. In a reporting server, you may want clustering
done on date fields, as thats what most queries are run against and that
could greatly speed stuff up.
TIA,
ChrisR
"Joe K." wrote:

> I have application that I inherited. Looks to me the indexes where set up
> incorrectly. Numerous tables have Non-Cluster indexes as Primary Keys that
> were set up with Identity Incremented by 1.
> I was told the primary keys that are increasing in numerical value should be
> a cluster index.
> Is there a list of rules for best practices on setting up Cluster and
> Non-Indexes?
> Thanks,
|||Here's my shortlist of reasons why identities make for excellent clustered
indexes:
(a) They're narrow - because the keys of a clustered index CIX) are also
stored in the leaf nodes of all non-clustered indexes (NCIX), the narrower
the CIX keys, the less size impact they'll have on the size of the NCIX's.
Identities can be any of the integer types, sos their size can vary, but in
general, a 4 byte integer key makes for a nice compact key.
(b) Unique - SQL Server "uniquefies" non-unique values in CIXs with 8 byte
uniquefiers. Because identities are reasonably unique, they don't suffer
from this problem.
(c) Incremental - because identity columns are generally incremental in
nature, you typically don't suffer much from fragmentation. Non-incremental
keys (eg, customername) can heavily fragment a database during insert /
update / delete operations
(d) Stable - if a CIX key gets updated, any associated NCIXs (on the same
table) also have to be updated to synchronise their CIX bookmark keys (as
described in (a) )
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Joe K." <Joe K.@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7E115D53-5D47-410E-9900-FE935FE397D6@.microsoft.com...
> I have application that I inherited. Looks to me the indexes where set
> up
> incorrectly. Numerous tables have Non-Cluster indexes as Primary Keys
> that
> were set up with Identity Incremented by 1.
> I was told the primary keys that are increasing in numerical value should
> be
> a cluster index.
> Is there a list of rules for best practices on setting up Cluster and
> Non-Indexes?
> Thanks,