March 25, 2009 at 1:56 pm
80 = 2000 and 90 = 2005
Anyone got an explanation of why you should convert the database to 2005 and not leave as 2000.
March 25, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Access to SQL Server 2005 features and capabilities.
March 25, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I am not sure I follow your question. If you are saying why we should convert the Db to 2005 and keep compatibility level at 2000, I would suggest against it. The only reason why you want to move to SQL 2005 would be to use the features. And if we cannot use the features of SQL 2005 because your Apps that connect to the DB is not 2005 compatible, it is not worth taking the risk of upgrading it.
That is just my opinion.
But If I misunderstood your question, then please clarify.
-Roy
March 25, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Lynn Pettis (3/25/2009)
Access to SQL Server 2005 features and capabilities.
Hey Lynn, Will we be able to use the features of 2005 if the compatibility level is set as 80?
-Roy
March 25, 2009 at 2:07 pm
No. SQL Server 2005 will "act like" SQL Server 2000.
March 25, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Thanks, Thats what I thought. So my answer was not completely wrong.. 😀
-Roy
March 25, 2009 at 2:35 pm
TRACEY (3/25/2009)
80 = 2000 and 90 = 2005Anyone got an explanation of why you should convert the database to 2005 and not leave as 2000.
AS Lynn explained that's true. same with 90=2005 and 100=2008
When you upgrade to 2005 you change the compaitibility mode using the sp_dbcmptlevel
March 25, 2009 at 2:45 pm
When you upgrade to 2005 you change the compaitibility mode using the sp_dbcmptlevel
The other option is to go to the database properties options and change your compatibility level.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
March 25, 2009 at 3:02 pm
How about using this:
ALTER DATABASE database_name
SET COMPATIBILITY_LEVEL = { 80 | 90 | 100 };
Jeffrey Williams
Problems are opportunities brilliantly disguised as insurmountable obstacles.
How to post questions to get better answers faster
Managing Transaction Logs
March 25, 2009 at 3:04 pm
basically i have to tell the developer that you cannot have mode 80 on sql 2005 mode 90.
In english so he understands 🙂
I know it not a good idea now i have to convince the developer that we convert this to sql 2005 and he needs to check with his vendor if they tested his application otherwise it not going live 🙂
March 25, 2009 at 3:06 pm
These are good lynn thanks.
March 25, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Compatiblity Charts ..
2008: http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/editions-compare.aspx
Thanks.
Mohit K. Gupta, MCITP: Database Administrator (2005), My Blog, Twitter: @SQLCAN[/url].
Microsoft FTE - SQL Server PFE
* Some time its the search that counts, not the finding...
* I didn't think so, but if I was wrong, I was wrong. I'd rather do something, and make a mistake than be frightened and be doing nothing. :smooooth:[/font]
March 27, 2009 at 5:42 am
The beauty about the complevel is that you can have a SQL 10 instance that runs databases in complevel 8, 9 and 10. Meaning no matter what complevel your connecting application expects, you are always able to run a up-to-date SQL Server RDBMS (currently 10). This is a nice feature when we talk about server consolidation...
Sven
March 27, 2009 at 6:15 am
From a DBA prospective you cannot run any reports in Mgt Studio on a SQL 2000 compatibility mode database. We have one DB that is that way and they want to know details of table changes and table usage and the like. I can get some of the info with another tool but it stinks. It is funny because the software vendor certified SQL 2005 for this but they require it to be in sql 2000 mode. It gains them nothing to be running on SQL 2005 if the db cannot take advantage of SQL 2005.
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply