General discussion of SQL Topics; aimed for the novice-intermediate level Microsoft SQL Server User. Currently focuses on using SQL Server 2005.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Backing up directly to a network share

Over the past few weeks I’ve seen many users who’ve complained that they can’t directly backup to a network share drive. They’ve all expressed, at one point or another, how disappointing this is for a SQL Server product that boasts about best practices, high availability, and security…yet, you have to backup locally then use a separate script to get the backup file to a network share (seems a bit of a risk involved for the brief time the backup file is stored locally; as well as using up precious local resources to do all of this).

Well, I finally intervened in one of those discussions and pointed out that SQL in fact can backup directly to a network share. In fact there are multiple methods that can be performed to accomplish this simple feat! First, you must create a “backup device” that is located on a network share and backup to that device, this is done by one of two ways you can specify to backup to a “disk” (or file) and point to a network share drive/location. Or you may create a backup “media set” which is stored on the network share. These are just two of the methods to accomplish this, which are easy enough to perform; as well as documented in Books Online (BOL). I’ll briefly cover this method here; you’ll want to refer to BOL to find more detail on it, as well as other possible methods.

Some terminology to help…

NOTE: Be sure to understand the differences in terminology here. Notice that I’ve quoted “backup device” and “media set”.

A “backup device” is not necessarily a physical device (i.e. tape drive, DVD media, etc). A “backup device” is a virtual device to SQL, meaning that you tell SQL if the ‘device’ is a “DISK” or “TAPE” (understand that DVD-ROM, USB, etc are considered “TAPE” devices in this context). Depending on the ‘device’ you choose will depend on where SQL stores the backup.

A “media set” is a logical name of a collection of (or a single) “backup devices”. This means that you could have multiple locations on a “DISK” to where SQL stores the backup (this can be used for striping, to increase your speed of backups…as well as to increase your data integrity capabilities).

See the “References” section for BOL definition and details on both “Backup Devices” and “Media Sets”.

Network Share Backup Requirements…

First things first, if I’m pointing out that it’s relatively simple enough to backup to a network share, then why are there so many people claiming they can’t (or believe that SQL can’t)? Well, as with all other features in SQL…most of the problem is either permissions or lack of knowledge on how to implement (accomplish) the required task.

Now, to make this all work you need two ensure two things happen.

1) You have to know how to tell SQL to make the backup to the network share. As mentioned earlier you need to specify a “backup device” located on the network share. Here are the links in BOL describing this in detail. Note: There is a section in BOL dedicated to this subject, review it!

2) Ensure that the network share you are attempting to make the backup to can actually be seen and written to. A simple test is to open up SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) and attempt to backup the database using the “Back up…” task wizard. You’ll want to backup to “DISK” and then browse to the network share location, or enter the Universal Naming Convention (UNC) path. If you can successfully backup to the network share through SSMS, then you know at a minimum that you have the permission with the account you logged into SSMS with to make the backup to the network share. Even if you can’t pass this test, it doesn’t necessarily mean SQL can’t backup to the shared drive; scheduled jobs and various other methods to create regular backups often times will use different credentials than your local account uses. Regardless you’ll probably want to look into the permissions you are given for the folder you are trying to backup to, or discuss this with the responsible party that sets up the shared folder permissions to ensure that the appropriate SQL services has the required credentials. Now you either will want to set up your back up to use the proper credentials, or ensure that the proper SQL Service account has the permissions to write to this folder (check BOL for service account information for SQL Server).

Performing the backup…

The following is a quick script to backup a sample database called “Backup_Testing” to a folder called “Backups” on a server called “DEV-CLUS-07”. This is a “script” created after using the task “Back up…” in SSMS:

Backup to Network Share using UNC path (T-SQL example):
BACKUP DATABASE [Backup_Testing] 
WITH  DESCRIPTION = N'Backing up the database to a network share drive',
NOFORMAT, INIT,  NAME = N'Backup_Testing_Full_DB_BkUp_to_Network_Share',


Notice that the strings are prefixed with “N” to designate unicode strings; this is an important part to use when specifying the UNC directly.

Now, instead of entering the UNC each time you want to create a backup you can create a “backup device” that specifies the UNC path for you; the drawback is that you must also specify the file name. This is ideal if you want to continuously use the same file over and over, and especially if you make heavy use of expirations for your backups and or want multiple choices of backups in a single file location (maybe for easier file administration).

You first create the “backup device”. This is a backup device called “Network_Share_Device_01”, located in the same location as the previous example (except the file name has been also specified, which is “NetShareDev01.bak”).

Create a “backup device” that points to a network share location (T-SQL example):

USE [master]
EXEC master.dbo.sp_addumpdevice    @devtype = N'disk', 
@logicalname = N'Network_Share_Device_01',
@physicalname =

With this device in place you would use the same T-SQL as the first example; except instead of using the “TO DISK” option you’d use the “TO [device_name_here]” option…

Backup to Network Share using backup device (T-SQL example):

BACKUP DATABASE [Backup_Testing] 
WITH  DESCRIPTION = N'Backing up the database to a network share drive',
NOFORMAT, INIT,  NAME = N'Backup_Testing_Full_DB_BkUp_to_Network_Share',



The next time you setup your database backup schedule, remember that you can directly backup to your network share and lower the risks of keeping the backup locally…and especially, lower the overhead of resources used on the local instance of SQL to get the backup to your final destination.

As you can see, the T-SQL is straight forward; the only complication is in the setting up SQL properly to allow you to directly backup to a network share location, and really the only complicated part for the DBA is ensuring the proper permissions (at the OS level) are in place. This only becomes complicated in the scenarios where the DBA is not in control of permissions for the location of the database files and backup files. With some cooperation between database administrators and network administrators this can easily, and painlessly, be overcome.

This is a win-win situation for everyone; it streamlines the process while improving the performance, security, and data integrity of the database!


Microsoft: Backup Devices (SQL 2008) - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179313.aspx
Microsoft: Media Sets, Media Families, and Backup Sets - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178062.aspx

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

What are Tables in SQL Server?


The following is a general overview of tables within a SQL Server database; it is by no means a thorough discussion of this subject. This is intended to be a primer for future discussions and covers only the basics, in no particular order.

Table is a database object containing a column definition (or a collection of) in which data is stored row-by-row. You can think of this very similar to a spreadsheet; with a little extra power.

A table is generally designed to handle most relational data in an organized manner; however, SQL Server has evolved to allow handling of data that is not organized.

A table must include the following (at a minimum):

  • A name for the table
  • A column to store the data

A table may include many other attributes/properties, such as:

  • A description of the table
  • A schema the table belongs to
  • An identity column
  • A filegroup the table belongs to
  • Check Constraints, to ensure data integrity
  • Multiple columns
  • Relationships to other tables and/or objects within the database
  • Indexes


The following is the bare minimum T-SQL syntax for creating a table:

[ database_name . [ schema_name ] . | schema_name . ] table_name 
( { <column_definition> | <computed_column_definition> 
| <column_set_definition> }
[ <table_constraint> ] [ ,...n ] ) 
[ ON { partition_scheme_name ( partition_column_name ) | filegroup 
| "default" } ] 
[ { TEXTIMAGE_ON { filegroup | "default" } ] 
[ FILESTREAM_ON { partition_scheme_name | filegroup 
| "default" } ]
[ WITH ( <table_option> [ ,...n ] ) ]
[ ; ]

See the "References" section at the end of this blog for the complete syntax. If you don't fully understand the text/symbols used in this syntax please reference my February 2008 posting Understanding MSDN Syntax Conventions.

Here is a CREATE TABLE command, at it's simplest, issued in T-SQL:

(myColumn TINYINT);

This is a very simple T-SQL command that will create a table called "myTable". The table will contain 1 column called "myColumn", this column's data type is "INT" (which is short form for Integer); thus only allowing whole numbers to be entered. The numbers are limited to a range of numbers between 0 and 255.


A column definition will include the following (at a minimum):

  • The name of the column
  • A data type, and any attributes required to define the data type
  • If it allows NULL values
  • If it is Identity Specific

A column definition may include other attributes/properties, such as:

  • A default value (or binding)
  • A description
  • A computed column specification


As mentioned earlier a table will include, at minimum, a column definition. In most cases you will find multiple column definitions within a table. An example customer table for a small business might include a column indicating the CustomerID, CustomerName, BusinessName, Address, PhoneNumber. The table might be called "Customers". To create this example table the T-SQL command might look like this:

CustomerName VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL,
BusinessName VARCHAR(100) NULL,
[Address] VARCHAR(500) NULL,
PhoneNumber VARCHAR(10) NULL

Notice that the column named "Address" is enclosed in square brackets "[]", this is because "Address" is a reserved keyword in Transact-SQL and can only be used as an identifier object if it is called using one of the "Delimited Identifiers".  There are other acceptable delimited identifiers that may be used, you may have to set the SQL Server configuration for quoted_identifiers, or follow other methods to use these. Refer to Books Online (BOL) Delimited Identifiers (see resources at end of posting) for further information.

Also, you may have noticed that this table construction isn't the best there is. Logically the "Address" column currently would contain a complete address in the field (such as: 123 Anywhere St, Anyplace, State, 12345). If we wanted to search this field for all customers that are in the state of California or Hawaii then we would have to search using a LIKE operator (this will be discussed further later); this can take quite some time in SQL depending on how large the table is. Also, if we want to further list our customers by city alphabetically and group them by state then we introduce a complex T-SQL query to obtain this seemingly simple information.

To make this better we would perform what is known as "Normalization" on our tables. Normalization will be discussed in further detail in a future blog. Right now, the grasp of what a table is, what is does, and how the data is stored is the important information to know.


As you can see a table is very much a corner stone to any database, without a table there is no where to store your data in your database. A table can be very simple to setup; while also can be very complex to maintain a great amount of integrity and Business Intelligence rules. This is just a primer discussion, if you want to delve deeper into tables you will want to start your exploration with BOL's Understanding Tables section and follow the appropriate links to further your knowledge. You will find that tables can be very powerful if you setup the structure properly and utilize the appropriate techniques to ensure data integrity. I've already discussed some attributes of tables in earlier postings, such as my postings about Indexes. There is a wealth of knowledge out there on this subject and may seem like you already know most of it, but you will find that there are many aspects of tables that you may not have known about. I encourage you to take a few moments and review the BOL sections mentioned here, at a minimum. You may also want to look into Temporary Tables and for you SQL 2005+ users look into the new data type Table.


CREATE TABLE (Transact-SQL): http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms174979.aspx
Understanding MSDN Syntax Conventions: http://sqln.blogspot.com/2008/02/understanding-msdn-syntax-conventions.html
TechNet - Tables: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189104.aspx
Understanding Tables: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189905.aspx
Creating and Modifying Table Basics: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177399.aspx
table (Transact-SQL): http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175010.aspx

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

New Article: Transaction Log Growth, do you need it?

Yesterday, SQL Server Central had published another article of mine: "Transaction Log Growth, do you need it?". It got some good reviews, and just over 8,000 views before 9 AM; I've been told anything over 4,000 views (total) is pretty good.

Be sure to look it over when you have a chance, it may prove helpful in the future or just might provide you a little more insight about Transaction Logs and how they work with SQL Server and your databases.

Until next time, Happy Coding!!!



Article: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Transaction+Log/65255/
Discussion: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic629390-1157-1.aspx

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Updated: Search Stored Procedures for Dependencies / References

In a discussion on the MSDN Forums I had posted my original code to search a Stored Procedure (search any object within SQL really) for specific text (http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/transactsql/thread/847b421d-332d-40f8-9649-b26fc2306920). You can view my original blog post describing this code block at: http://sqln.blogspot.com/2008/10/searching-text-of-programmable-objects.html.

Adam Haines had posted a wonderful enhancement to my T-SQL code. He had returned the matching text result as an XML instead of a text, this allows the user to click on the returned text and have the resulting text appear in a new window.

The new code, with the XML returned results, is:


OBJECT_DEFINITION(obj2.object_id) AS [text()]   
from sys.all_objects obj2   
where obj2.object_id = obj1.object_id   
) AS Obj_text,   
[type] as ObjType    
FROM sys.all_objects obj1  
WHERE OBJECT_DEFINITION(object_id([name])) LIKE '%' + @StringToSearch + '%'
--Optional to limit search results....    
--AND [is_ms_shipped] = 0 --Only search user & post SQL release objects
--Change above to 1 if want to search only Microsoft provided objects released with SQL Server
--AND [type] = 'P' --Search only Stored Procedures
--AND [type] <> 'V' --Exclude Views
--See referenced article for listing of additional object types

Thanks again for this enhancement Adam!

Until next time, Happy Coding!!!

Friday, December 12, 2008

Books Online could be better...and we, the users, already can make it better!

Yesterday, Kalen Delaney wrote a small article discussing if MS should or shouldn't build in more warning messages or taking better actions in warning users about potential problems from performing tasks/commands within SQL Server. You can read her article at: http://www.sqlmag.com/Articles/ArticleID/101033/101033.html

I agree that to a certain extent the DBA is responsible for the database and should know how to use the software thoroughly...so ideally the database would never be at an unknown risk of data loss. Unfortunately, SQL Server has jumped from the realm of an application to the realm of a data platform! This changes things quite a bit; there is no realistic expectation that a single DBA (or even a small team of DBAs) can possibly know the database software and all of its commands and internal workings 100%. So there is some portion of relief that Microsoft must provide...rather it is a method of warning the DBA from messages, errors, or warnings I don't know or speculate a foreseeable method. I do agree that Books Online (BOL) is considered the SQL Server documentation and it is Microsoft's responsibility to ensure that the documentation provides all of the information (including inner workings where necessary) of commands and features that have potential unsafe effects.

The question is where does this responsibility end? Also, where does it fall onto the DBA (or end-user) shoulders to piece together all of this information and understand how they are utilizing the data platform and the data loss potential is created by this usage?

The first thing that comes to my mind is that Microsoft has taken a step in adding a way for the user's of BOL to add in their content that can point this type of stuff out. Why is it that we DBAs aren't doing this? I hope after reading this maybe our community will take a moment or two to place a useful comment (especially warning of potential data loss areas) in BOL for the other less knowledgeable DBAs.

Until next time, Happy Coding!

Thursday, October 23, 2008

TSQL Code: Compare Tables of Databases on Separate Servers

NOTE: This script was originally developed to compare table row counts, but with the below mentioned modifications this could be helpful if you have a database that is shipped to another server and often times needs to be ETL into the other database and you are worried there may be records that aren't getting transferred properly (or at all).

The other day I came across a question on how to compare the tables in one database to the tables in another database, this was in concerns to a migration project. This person had a database that existed on an older server running SQL 2000 and they chose to migrate their database to a new server running SQL Server 2005. They had wanted to be able to somehow be able to visually display a comparison of the two databases to prove the conversion was successful, and also to display the comparisons of the tables. Results meeting above requirements are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 (results of running sp_CompareTables_All)

In response to this I had started to develop a TSQL script that created a stored procedure that would allow you to run it from the current database and specify the location of the original database. The script would then collect the tables and count the records within each table for both databases. It will display the table names on the outside (left and right) of the results, and the record counts will be next to each other on the inside (next to their table names); which will allow for a very simple and pleasing visual comparison. I wanted, and did, avoid using cursors or other techniques that will potentially bog down the system resources (such as the stored proc 'sp_MSForEachDB' and 'sp_MSForEachTable').

Now, this is a rough draft that I had thrown together and tested over a lunch period; so, there are some issues that can still be cleaned up on the script and it lacks the ability to detect if a table exists on one database, but not the other.

At the end of the script I'll also provide a quick comment that will allow you to change the results from displaying all tables and their row counts to display only the tables with mismatched row counts (which may be useful if you want to use this script as a method to troubleshoot databases that tend to not migrate all records).

The first problem faced is how to best access the server with the original database; while there are many options I chose to use the built-in stored procedure "sp_addlinkedserver". This procedure seems to be simple to implement and allows for seamless integration into TSQL code. Testing for this script was performed on the AdventureWorks database (developed for SQL 2005) on both test systems. The 'originating' database was on a SQL 2005 instance (although testing was briefly performed on SQL 2000 and SQL 2008 to validate compatibility). The 'originating' server is called TestServer35, the database is on an instance called Dev05; the database for both instances is called AdventureWorks2005. This information becomes important when using the sp_addlinkedserver command. I used the following TSQL code:

EXEC sp_addlinkedserver   

As you can see, the linked server is referenced as TestServer35-5. We will use this reference, in a four-part identifier (Server.Catalog.Schema.Table). The next obstacle is to obtain a listing of tables and their row counts. I used a script I had modified last year to perform this since this script will run both on SQL 2005 and SQL 2000 (you can view my script on SQLServerCentral.com's Script section at: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/scripts/Administration/61766/). I then take the results of this and store them into a temporary table; I also do this for the new database (on local server where this stored proc is running at).

Then comes the simple part of joining the two temp tables into a final temp table. I chose this route because I wanted to have the two database in separate temp tables in the event I want to work with that data, which I will be working with the data in my update to determine if a table is missing from one of the databases.

Here is the TSQL code I used (remember if you want to use this you will need to change the linked server information to the correct information; as well as to create this stored proc in the appropriate database):

--Change the database name to the appropriate databse
USE [AdventureWorks2005];

CREATE PROCEDURE sp_CompareTables_all
( tblName varchar(50), CountRows int )

( tblName, CountRows)
SELECT o.name AS "Table Name", i.rowcnt AS "Row Count"
FROM sysobjects o, sysindexes i
WHERE i.id = o.id
AND indid IN(0,1)
AND xtype = 'u'
AND o.name <> 'sysdiagrams'
ORDER BY o.name

( tblName varchar(50), CountRows int )

( tblName, CountRows)
SELECT lo.name AS "Table Name", li.rowcnt AS "Row Count"
--Replace TestServer35-5 and AdventureWorks2005 below with your appropriate values
FROM [TestServer35-5].[AdventureWorks2005].[dbo].[sysobjects] lo, 
[TestServer35-5].[AdventureWorks2005].[dbo].[sysindexes] li
WHERE li.id = lo.id
AND indid IN(0,1)
AND xtype = 'u'
AND lo.name <> 'sysdiagrams'
ORDER BY lo.name

( OldTable varchar(50), OldRowCount int, NewRowCount int, NewTableName varchar(50))

( OldTable, OldRowCount, NewRowCount, NewTableName )
SELECT ol.tblName, ol.CountRows, nw.CountRows, nw.tblName
From    #tblNew nw
JOIN #tblOLD ol
ON (ol.tblName = nw.tblName AND ol.CountRows = nw.CountRows)
SELECT * FROM #tblDiff


You simply execute the code with the following TSQL:

EXECUTE sp_CompareTables_All

The results of this script are shown in Figure 1 (above).

Now, this is great if you want to have a list that you can go through yourself to verify each table matches in row counts. But, what if that database has 1000 or more tables? What if you are just, simply put, lazy? Why not utilize SQL Server to process this information for you?

Well, I sure enough did just that. With a very small modification to this script you can easily have it only display any tables that don't match up in record counts.

All you have to do is change the INSERT INTO #tblDiff block's "ON" statement to join if the CountRows are NOT equal. The following is the modified block of code; the remaining stored procedure remains the same:

ON (ol.tblName = nw.tblName AND ol.CountRows <> nw.CountRows)

I did also rename the stored procedure from "sp_CompareTables_All" to "sp_CompareTables_Diff", but this is optional for your own ability to clarify which stored proc is being used.

To get some results I had made a few modifications to the AdventureWorks2005 database. I had added a couple of rows to a table, and removed some rows from two tables. The results of the stored proc showing only the different tables are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 (results of running sp_CompareTables_Diff)

As you can see the ability to change this script to show all tables or only different tables is very simple. Even setting up this script is simple, where the hardest part of the whole thing is adding a linked server (which is fairly simple also).

In a future post I'll revisit this script and include the ability to display tables that exist on one database, but not in the other. Be sure to check back for this update.

Until next time...Happy Coding!!

Friday, October 17, 2008

Searching text of programmable objects...

This is a follow-up posting to my article "Finding and Listing ALL Procedures, Functions, and Views in SQL Server 2005" I wrote for SQLServerCentral.com (http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/63471/). This will work with both SQL Server 2005 and SQL Server 2008.

I've found a few instances where I would've liked to be able to search through a Stored Procedure or a View for specific text in the definition; specifically to check to see if there was a reference to another Stored Procedure or View. Originally to solve this problem I had just queried the syscomments legacy view for the search string joining with sysobjects, while this was effective it has its limitations...such as this only searches objects created post-release of SQL Server. So, what happens if you want to search for a specific string in ALL of the programmable objects? Well, then we fall back to our trusty view of sys.all_objects! We can join it with sys.all_sql_modules and get almost all of what we need...almost.

Now, we can do a clever query that will join sys.all_objects and sys.all_sql_modules. Something like:

SELECT [ao].[name], [asm].[definition]
FROM sys.all_objects ao
JOIN sys.all_sql_modules asm
ON [ao].[object_id] = [asm].[object_id]
WHERE [asm].[definition] LIKE '%' + @SearchString + '%'
--AND [ao].[is_ms_shipped] = 0 --Only search user & post SQL release objects, or
--Change the above value to 1 to only include objects provided by Microsoft with the release of SQL Server
--Optional  to limit search results....
--AND [ao].[type] = 'P' --Search only Stored Procedures
--AND [ao].[type] <> 'V' --Exclude Views
--See referenced article for listing of additional object types

This would do the job for the most part, the only missing items would be constraints and rules for the most part; which how many times do you really need to search a constraint for a specific string of text?

Now, the execution plan shows that this can be a little bit of a resource monger. Here's the estimated execution plan I get for this:


This Execution Plan is OK; there's a lot of Clustered Index Scans and Compute Scalars. You might be able to improve upon this with some ingenious Indexing, hints and such...but, again...why bother? You'll have to upkeep it and monitor yet another query plan. So, I'm not too keen on this plan myself and I don't like that this query still doesn't do everything...I want everything or nothing (start my pouting and tantrum).

As I said, I want it all. So the problem for me here is that there is that 1 in 1,000,000 chance I'll need to search a constraint and then that means I'll have to either modify my code or discover a new method...why bother doing it again later if we can just make it do what we want now. Plus, and this may be more important for myself; I want something that is easier to read and understand at a later time and uses less resources. Time and resources is the name of the game we play as DBAs!

How do we solve this? Can it be done? It sure can! Enter the sacred "OBJECT_DEFINITION" function! This little function helps us out a lot by eliminating the need to manually join tables and the return results is the exact column (definition column) that we are wanting also! Let's take a look at the same search function using this syntax instead of joins:

FROM sys.all_objects
WHERE OBJECT_DEFINITION(object_id([name])) LIKE '%' + @SearchString + '%'
--Optional  to limit search results....
--AND [is_ms_shipped] = 0 --Only search user & post SQL release objects
--Change the above value to 1 to only include objects provided by Microsoft with the release of SQL Server
--AND [type] = 'P' --Search only Stored Procedures
--AND [type] <> 'V' --Exclude Views
--See referenced article for listing of additional object types

As you can see, this is a lot cleaner to read. We can easily tell what is being queried and how the query results should be returned to us. Not much to look at here; we query the sys.all_objects view to find the proper object and then tell SQL that we want to view the object's definition...simple enough.

Now, let's look at the execution plan for this query. We know the query is straight forward, I'm guessing the execution plan will be also! Let's see:


Well, it definitely is a smaller execution plan. Almost 1/2 the plan of the original query! Not bad at all. I'd venture a guess that this will be much less resource intense on our machine, and that means less time! I like less time!

Now, we can see that using SQL Server's "Object_Definition" function improves the ability to search the definitions. I'm sure you can see with the above that when possible use a SQL built-in function, these are here to help us. As they say...'why reinvent the wheel?'; I'd say for sure that this object_definition function is already optimized to run in SQL and that it's a fairly safe bet that we DBAs wouldn't be able to optimize our JOIN statement to this level...and if you happen to be able to even come close to the same optimization, I'd be willing to wager that you spent more time than it was worth to get to that point. With that said, it brings me back to my original statement...why bother?

Keep looking for those built-in functions, you'll find there are many of them inside SQL Server that will not only make your DBA life easier and quicker, but also more fun!

Until next time, Happy Coding!!!