Professional Web Applications Themes

Conversion from SQL 7.0 to SQL 2000. - Microsoft SQL / MS SQL Server

I am looking to upgrade a database from SQL 7.0 to SQL 2000. The application that uses the database is written in VB 6.0 using ADO. Will I have problems with SQL that used JOIN syntax "where emp.empid = dept.empid"? An associate read that these must be changed to ANSI syntax using INNER, OUTER, ect. is this true? Are there any other issues I need to look out for?...

  1. #1

    Default Conversion from SQL 7.0 to SQL 2000.

    I am looking to upgrade a database from SQL 7.0 to SQL
    2000. The application that uses the database is written in
    VB 6.0 using ADO. Will I have problems with SQL that used
    JOIN syntax "where emp.empid = dept.empid"? An associate
    read that these must be changed to ANSI syntax using
    INNER, OUTER, ect. is this true? Are there any other
    issues I need to look out for?
    Lori Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Conversion from SQL 7.0 to SQL 2000.

    Some months ago we also put our SQL server 7 database to 2000 and a *lot* of
    joins are used in the application and no problem was detected at all.
    Everything was backward compatible.

    Peter

    "Lori" <lwagner6ford.com> wrote in message
    news:0a4401c341a1$e8bd8360$a001280aphx.gbl...
    > I am looking to upgrade a database from SQL 7.0 to SQL
    > 2000. The application that uses the database is written in
    > VB 6.0 using ADO. Will I have problems with SQL that used
    > JOIN syntax "where emp.empid = dept.empid"? An associate
    > read that these must be changed to ANSI syntax using
    > INNER, OUTER, ect. is this true? Are there any other
    > issues I need to look out for?

    Peter Notebaert Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Conversion from SQL 7.0 to SQL 2000.

    Lori,

    No.There is no change in syntax between 7 and 2000.If the query is not
    optimised thats another concern, not related to the upgrade.The major things
    you should be concerned after a upgrade is to update the statistics and to
    repopulate the FT catalogs (if you use any ).Also, make sure that the
    database compatibility level, sp_dbcmptlevel, is showing 80.

    --
    Dinesh.
    SQL Server FAQ at
    [url]http://www.tkdinesh.com[/url]

    "Lori" <lwagner6ford.com> wrote in message
    news:0a4401c341a1$e8bd8360$a001280aphx.gbl...
    > I am looking to upgrade a database from SQL 7.0 to SQL
    > 2000. The application that uses the database is written in
    > VB 6.0 using ADO. Will I have problems with SQL that used
    > JOIN syntax "where emp.empid = dept.empid"? An associate
    > read that these must be changed to ANSI syntax using
    > INNER, OUTER, ect. is this true? Are there any other
    > issues I need to look out for?

    Dinesh.T.K Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Conversion from Publisher 2000 to 2003
    By Brandi in forum Web Design
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 30th, 02:11 AM
  2. Distiller - "Word 2000" Tracked changes do not show up in distiller conversion
    By Kevin_Blaksley@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Acrobat Windows
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 1st, 05:06 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 19th, 04:07 PM
  4. access 97 to 2000 conversion issue - combo box blank
    By Tom R in forum Microsoft Access
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 4th, 04:58 PM
  5. CDO for Windows 2000 vs CDO for Exchange 2000
    By in forum ASP.NET General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 11th, 12:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139