I've downloaded SSMA for DB2 V8.2.0. I kept all the default setting and tried to convert couple of Stored procs from DB2 to SQL 2017.
I've selected one SP and clcik on convert Schema and I got special characters just like below.
%####�������#�������
%####�������#����#��
%####������#�
%####������������#���
%####�����������#��������#������#������
Do I have to change any setting? Why is this happening?
I need to get a copy of a SQL Server 2008 table into an Oracle RDBMS. I have database link for SQL Server, database has a table which contains LONG BINARY type column.
When I issue
create table test_ora as select * from mssqltable#dblink
I get the error
Can't convert LONG
I tried to use to_lob, to_char, hextoraw and a ream of Oracle conversion function but still hasn't defeated the issue. Do you have any ideas?
p.s. I'm out of work now so can't tell exact ORA- error number.
There is a way to do that with undocumented Oracle's package:
http://tonguc.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/how-to-transfer-long-datatype-over-dblink/
I would recommend tool called Pentaho Data Integration. This is free, small and superb ETL tool.
Download page: community(.)pentaho(.)com
It will recreated all tables and types for you. How to do it:
pldwh(.)blogspot(.)co(.)uk/2013/03/pentaho-data-integration-create-tables_1(.)html
I want to create a text field in the database, with no specific size (it will store text of length unknown in some case) - the particular text are serialized simple object (~ JSON)
What is the most database independent way to do this :
- a varchar with no size specified (don't think all db support this)
- a 'text' field, this seems to be common, but I don't believe it's a standard
- a blob or other object of that kind ?
- a varchar of a a very large size (that's inefficient and wastes disk space probably)
- Other ?
I'm using JDBC, but I'd like to use something that is supported in most DB (oracle, mysql, postgresql, derby, HSQL, H2 etc...)
Thanks.
a varchar of a a very large size (that's inefficient and wastes disk space probably)
That's gonna be the most portable option. Limit yourself to 2000 characters and you should be fine for most databases (oracle being the current 2000 limiter, but be wary of old mysql versions as well). I wouldn't worry too much about disk space, either. Most databases only use disk for the actual data saved in the field.
Do you really need to support all six of those databases? (hint: No.)
I've come to the opinion that writing universally portable SQL DDL is not worth the trouble. YAGNI.
You should support the databases you are currently using, and be prepared to adapt to a database that you adopt in the future.
Re your comment: The only standard SQL variable-length data types are VARCHAR and BLOB. VARCHAR is for string data and its declaration includes a character set and collation. BLOB is for binary data and does not support charset/collation.
Other data types such as VARCHAR(max), CLOB, or TEXT are vendor extensions:
VARCHAR(max): MS SQL Server
NVARCHAR(max): MS SQL Server
LONGVARCHAR: Derby, H2, HSQLDB
CLOB: Derby, H2, HSQLDB, Oracle, SQLite
NCLOB: Oracle
TEXT: MS SQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite
NTEXT: MS SQL Server
Use a BLOB. JDBC2.0 API supports it and so any driver that supports JDBC2.0 (J2SE 5.0 on) should support it.
The advantages of BLOB are :
1. Size can be as large as 4G-1 (Oracle. other databases not so sure)
2. Can store any data you wish (even images serialized into some field in your JSON structure)
3. Completely neutral to transport across OS
4. You can still take advantage of indexes on keys that reference the BLOB so that searches on ids etc, don;t have to be done by getting at the structure.
Use a framework like hibernate, so you won't have the problem to find a universal solution. I don't think that you can use one universal type in every mentioned database. The databases differ to much, I guess.
text is perhaps best but to be removed shortly from SQL Server and there is no DBMS independent option for all you listed.
Saying that, portability is overrated when it comes to SQL. You're more likely to change your client code before you change DBMS. Pick one and go with that....
I need to convert a non-unicode SQL Server 2005 database to a unicode based database. I have hundreds of stored procs and of course the data is stored in varchar. I know that I need to change all the data types to the unicode equivalent (varchar to nvarchar) but don't I have to change how the stored procs are written or will they continue to work as before? I am trying to figure out what is necessary to change from non-unicode to unicode for a large database with many stored procs.
Yes, you need to update your data and stored procedures, but an important thing to remember is that you only need to change some of your columns to UNICODE. For anything that is "internal", you don't need to pay the UNICODE cost.
There is a lot of work to do for this change, but don't change everything blindly. I've been on the receiving end of that kind of change before, and it's painful. (Using nvarchar(1) to store 'y' and 'n' is stupid.)
This is the second time it happens to me and before modifying a 3rd party Database structure I wanted to know if anyone knew a better solution:
I'm accessing a MS SQL Server 2008 from a Lotus Notes Agent (Notes 7) to retrieve some data. I use LSXODBC and my "Select" statement works perfect... Except that my agent cannot "understand" Nvarchar SQL Field types. Any other data types work ok (can get the values from number and dates fields without a problem).
It took me a while to figure it out, and I couldn't find a solution (other than modifying the field types on the SQL table to Varchar instead of nVarchar)
I could replicate this both in MS SQL 2005 and 2008.
Last "elegant" solution was to create an SQL view -instead of modifying table structure- with the varchar types instead of nvarchar. Works ok but I have to create a view for each table I'm retrieving data from.
I tried to set the Field type using FieldExpectedDataType Method but didn't work. Still got a DB_TYPE_UNDEFINED.
I thought there might be some configuration issues? or maybe I'm using an old LN Version / ODBC Driver version?
Any hint would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance.
Diego
An old ODBC driver may not support unicode. It was not added until SQL Server 2000 (I'm fairly sure)