New to SQL Server

I am new to sql server, mostly work with an other product build by a company
in california. We can call it "company O"
We had a application written for our company. The version of SQL Server is
2000. They created all the objects owned by dbo. When I asked why, I was
told this is what Microsoft recommends. My question is why should the
objects be owned by dbo and not use the a model like
schema/username.objectname
Can some one explain why use the dbo as the owner of the objects in a
database vrs have a schema and then grant permissions on the objects in the
schema?In SQL Server 2000, schemas don't work that way. Having everything owned by
dbo makes it much easier to manage. SQL Server 2005 properly implements
schemas such that what you're talking about does make sense.
Adam Machanic
Pro SQL Server 2005, available now
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=457
--
"jbwest77" <jbwest77@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C71EE4D-A6F0-42BE-A48E-693830152596@.microsoft.com...
>I am new to sql server, mostly work with an other product build by a
>company
> in california. We can call it "company O"
> We had a application written for our company. The version of SQL Server
> is
> 2000. They created all the objects owned by dbo. When I asked why, I was
> told this is what Microsoft recommends. My question is why should the
> objects be owned by dbo and not use the a model like
> schema/username.objectname
> Can some one explain why use the dbo as the owner of the objects in a
> database vrs have a schema and then grant permissions on the objects in
> the
> schema?|||On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:48:01 -0800, "jbwest77"
<jbwest77@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>I am new to sql server, mostly work with an other product build by a company
>in california. We can call it "company O"
>We had a application written for our company. The version of SQL Server is
>2000. They created all the objects owned by dbo. When I asked why, I was
>told this is what Microsoft recommends. My question is why should the
>objects be owned by dbo and not use the a model like
>schema/username.objectname
>Can some one explain why use the dbo as the owner of the objects in a
>database vrs have a schema and then grant permissions on the objects in the
>schema?
It's just always been that way, and various tools and defaults are
very awkward if you try to use ownership other than dbo.
If things are finally better in Yukon, then we'll just have to break
old habits!
So, I'd say that at least on this issue, so far I wouldn't hold it
against your developers.
J.|||In SQL Server 2000 you can implement the schema/username.objectname that you
mentioned, more exactly the username. You can create a user, like finance,
and give ownership of the objects to that user. We have several applications
like that and we do not have any problem.
If you want to implement schemas Oracle-style then we have SQL Server 2005.
Ben Nevarez
"jbwest77" <jbwest77@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1C71EE4D-A6F0-42BE-A48E-693830152596@.microsoft.com...
>I am new to sql server, mostly work with an other product build by a
>company
> in california. We can call it "company O"
> We had a application written for our company. The version of SQL Server
> is
> 2000. They created all the objects owned by dbo. When I asked why, I was
> told this is what Microsoft recommends. My question is why should the
> objects be owned by dbo and not use the a model like
> schema/username.objectname
> Can some one explain why use the dbo as the owner of the objects in a
> database vrs have a schema and then grant permissions on the objects in
> the
> schema?|||Thanks for the input.
"Ben Nevarez" wrote:
> In SQL Server 2000 you can implement the schema/username.objectname that you
> mentioned, more exactly the username. You can create a user, like finance,
> and give ownership of the objects to that user. We have several applications
> like that and we do not have any problem.
> If you want to implement schemas Oracle-style then we have SQL Server 2005.
> Ben Nevarez
>
> "jbwest77" <jbwest77@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1C71EE4D-A6F0-42BE-A48E-693830152596@.microsoft.com...
> >I am new to sql server, mostly work with an other product build by a
> >company
> > in california. We can call it "company O"
> >
> > We had a application written for our company. The version of SQL Server
> > is
> > 2000. They created all the objects owned by dbo. When I asked why, I was
> > told this is what Microsoft recommends. My question is why should the
> > objects be owned by dbo and not use the a model like
> > schema/username.objectname
> > Can some one explain why use the dbo as the owner of the objects in a
> > database vrs have a schema and then grant permissions on the objects in
> > the
> > schema?
>
>

New SP2?

Today, Microsoft published a new SQL Server 2005 SP2 Build (9.0.3042.1) but with no Information, what has changed since the Original Build 9.0.3042.0. Do you have more Information? Thanks in advance.

Please see Ed's post listed here:

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1312501&SiteID=1

Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)

New database from backup

I am going to build a new website and I have all the data in a sql-backup file - and I have a new installation of SQL Server - how do I install it? I try to use Restore database from SQL Server Manager, but I just get the errors (I think because of that I do not have the database in the server).

I am totally beginner with SQL Server - so coudl anyone help me?

What errors are you getting, exactly?

If you want to restore the database on a second machine (instead of the one where the backup was made), you probably need to modify the path where the files will be stored. On the restore database dialog, go to the second tab and check the file names. (This is in SQL 2000 Enterprise Manager, the dialog may look different on the 2005 version).|||Thanks.
You made my day.