@hobbit666 said in Installing MS SQL Server 2017 Express on CentOS 7.4:
This is cool, don't think management here would go for it. Too much of a M$ fanboy lol
Just tell them that this is MS' big play for SQL Server. True fanbois would just on it
If you were looking for a de facto direct replacement to MS SQL Server and just didn't want to have to "think" much about anything, the obvious choice is PostgreSQL. It is one of the world's most powerful, mature and respected database platforms. It is insanely fast, scales insanely big, is supported on the most enterprise style deployments, does relational the same way that MS SQL Server does and so forth. It is the most direct competitor. And you have loads of top end support options for it. So if you want a safe "starting point", start there. It's hard to go really wrong. But best to do an evaluation of needs as there are just so many great options
@WLS-ITGuy said in MySQL to PostgreSQL conversion:
Well, that was a thread that will fizzle out quickly
Thanks for the assist all.
LOL, sometimes that's exactly what you want. This would have been a large, horrible project. Now it's a simple "Oh good, we are all set"
@matteo-nunziati said in Pronunciations of SQL Derived Database Names and Terms:
we have a company in my town: second quadrant. the provide professional postgresql support worldwide and they pronunce it "postgres". omitting the final "ql"
That's the official pronunciation and it was originally spelled that way. The PostgreSQL spelling was added when it went open source.
You will often hear or see the term RDBMS or Relational Database Management System. This term refers to a subset of DBMS, not an alternative, and is specific to those DBMS that handle relational database formats. The term SQL is often incorrectly applied to these, but SQL is a language and relational databases are a mathematical model. While the two have a relationship (no pun intended) they are different things completely and are not directly tied together. Today, what is and is not an RDBMS is increasingly unclear as nearly all DBMS have some relational element and even the most traditional RDBMS stalwarts have begun to add non-relational engines or options.
@JaredBusch said in Files in a LANLESS system:
@scottalanmiller said in Files in a LANLESS system:
@Dashrender said in Files in a LANLESS system:
@scottalanmiller said in Files in a LANLESS system:
@Dashrender said in Files in a LANLESS system:
@scottalanmiller said in Files in a LANLESS system:
@Dashrender said in Files in a LANLESS system:
@scottalanmiller said in Files in a LANLESS system:
@Dashrender said in Files in a LANLESS system:
@scottalanmiller said in Files in a LANLESS system:
@Dashrender said in Files in a LANLESS system:
@scottalanmiller said in Files in a LANLESS system:
@Dashrender said in Files in a LANLESS system:
@scottalanmiller let's assume that we get direct application access from Word/Writer into SP or NC, how do you send a link to someone else so they know they have access? How do you register that 'link' in some way so that the correct application launches when trying to open the link?
How do you do it today? Why would it need to change at all?
Paying particular attention to Gene's wording, there would be no more files, only data in a DB. In that case, to send the information via email would mean extracting that data into some kind of usable format then emailing it.
So the contents of the file are simply sent as a file.... that's all a file normally is, a database holding text directly on it with a label on it with the filename. So.... literally nothing changes here under the hood. There is no more or less extraction than before.
You were weren't talking about getting rid of docx files and xlsx files, etc?
Yup, and still am. No files, but that doesn't mean that you can't have a file "view".
But OneDrive, etc still store those things as objects, I don't think you can edit the 'Word.doc' file directly inside the DB, you need to send that object of data to Word to edit it.
As objects, not as files. I don't need to pull the files from OneDrive to edit them. I can talk to the database directly with MS Office 2013 or later, even the online version.
Yeah Office is a bad example because of the massive integration.
Or a good example because it shows how easily it can be done and how well people can't even tell.
LOL - yeah, but you are limited to only MS based files, All other files are just stored as objects in the DB.
Are they? I'm not sure of that. But that's always going to be the case. File systems are for ad hoc, unplanned files. The real question should be... why do such files exist in your environment? When do you actually want ad hoc file types that you didn't expect?
Actually Sharepoint does not natively interface .doc files either. It only uses the new format .docx files in the manner you are saying.
Don't I know it.. I was playing with SharePoint and damn if I didn't have all kinds of problems with DOC files.
@scottalanmiller said in Help with SQL query:
@BRRABill said in Help with SQL query:
@scottalanmiller said in Help with SQL query:
If you expect this product to explode
Possible poor choice of words.
Or... intentional.
Knowing you, intentional.
@scottalanmiller said in Why Does Everyone Still Focus on Relational Databases?:
I just built out a NoSQL ElasticSearch three node cluster in the lab. Whoo!
The perfect DB setup for storing a hit counter for the number of times I've watched Tombstone!
@DustinB3403 said in Microsoft SQL Express 2005 - Complete Database Backup - help:
@coliver said in Microsoft SQL Express 2005 - Complete Database Backup - help:
@DustinB3403 said in Microsoft SQL Express 2005 - Complete Database Backup - help:
And I have a feeling the software is crap... that or I'm just doing this wrong..
You might be doing it wrong. The basic/free version is very limited, from what we saw. What are you having issues with?
Oh sorry I'm not trialing that backup software yet.
I'm using the built in tools from the application vendor to try and restore a .BAK into a clean installation.
Oh, I see.
@StrongBad said in Need to Extract PostgreSQL Schema for Clean Database:
This is what I get...
[email protected]~ 2$ pg_dump -p 5023 -n portaltest
pg_dump: specified schema "portaltest" does not exist
In this case, it was a matter of the settings during the restore.
Under GENERAL you had to select your source and destination as normal. Destination was changed so that it was the new History file. Under FILES you updated the DB and LOG files to reflect the new DB, otherwise you would over write the originals.
This is where they borked it. They didn't mention FILES only going to OPTIONS, and there is where they mentioned updating the file names. The main discovery was that you need to uncheck LEAVE Source database in the restoring state.
When I emailed them about removing the 'borked' databases I had created the called me back. I mentioned it to the fellow and we had a short discussion on the matter where he took notes and agreed that the directions were incorrect. When I got to the part about unchecking LEAVE Source database in the restoring state he mentioned that he uncheck Take tail-log backup before restore
Hope this helps.
