Showing posts with label tomove. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tomove. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Changing a 2005 db from 8.0 compatability to 9.0

I've inherited a 2005 database that is in 8.0 compatability mode. I'd like t
o
move it to 9.0 so we can do some CLR stuff. However, the upgrade advisor
won't analyze that version of SQL Server. (2005 sp1). I've looked in BOL and
I think the main thing I need to look for are the old outer join operators
(*= and =*). I've reviewed the list here:
ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/instsql9/html/d686cdf0-d11d-4dba-9ec8-
de1a5f189f25.htm
and I think the join operators are the only thing that would affect me. Does
anyone have any other common issues going from 8.0 to 9.0 that I might be
missing from that list?
Thanks in advance.Also look for TOP 100 PERCENT ... ORDER BY in views. It may already be
biting you without knowing it ;-). Other than new keywords and the
deletion of the "evil join" operators, I can't think of anything else
that's common that you'd run into.
sqlboy2000 wrote:
> I've inherited a 2005 database that is in 8.0 compatability mode. I'd like
to
> move it to 9.0 so we can do some CLR stuff. However, the upgrade advisor
> won't analyze that version of SQL Server. (2005 sp1). I've looked in BOL a
nd
> I think the main thing I need to look for are the old outer join operators
> (*= and =*). I've reviewed the list here:
> ms-help://MS.SQLCC.v9/MS.SQLSVR.v9.en/instsql9/html/d686cdf0-d11d-4dba-9ec
8-de1a5f189f25.htm
> and I think the join operators are the only thing that would affect me. Do
es
> anyone have any other common issues going from 8.0 to 9.0 that I might be
> missing from that list?
> Thanks in advance.|||We do have a few of those stupid TOP 100 percent views.
Thanks for the heads up.
"David Markle" wrote:

> Also look for TOP 100 PERCENT ... ORDER BY in views. It may already be
> biting you without knowing it ;-). Other than new keywords and the
> deletion of the "evil join" operators, I can't think of anything else
> that's common that you'd run into.
> sqlboy2000 wrote:
>