x

Backups of SQL 2000 restored as SQL 2005

When a backup of a SQL 2000 database is restored as a SQL 2005 database it normally comes up with a property compatibility level of 80. If a script was applied to this using SQL 2005 TQL, would it still parse?

We have a supplier who repeatedly sends scripts written in SQL 2005 not SQL 2000 which is the database version. I am trying to find any reasonable explanantion as to why they should do this on so many occasions

more ▼

asked Oct 29, 2009 at 10:58 AM in Default

hodkinss gravatar image

hodkinss
33 2 2 2

(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left

1 answer: sort voted first

Why they do it is simple: they have poor quality control. It also ought to make you think that you could move this db into SQL 2005 mode without issues.

If I set one of my test SS2K8 databases to 80 mode, it still compiles and executes 2005/2008 based scripts with CTEs. My guess is that it is forward compatible.

more ▼

answered Oct 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Steve Jones - Editor gravatar image

Steve Jones - Editor ♦♦
5.1k 78 79 82

'Poor quality control' I thought this was the case but, before I waded in at the project board, I thought I'd better check I had not missed anything. We are moving it to SQL 2005 as soon as we can
Oct 30, 2009 at 07:31 AM hodkinss
(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left
Your answer
toggle preview:

Up to 2 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 524.3 kB each and 1.0 MB total.

New code box

There's a new way to format code on the site - the red speech bubble logo will automatically format T-SQL for you. The original code box is still there for XML, etc. More details here.

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

SQL Server Central

Need long-form SQL discussion? SQLserverCentral.com is the place.

Topics:

x1951
x476
x193
x69

asked: Oct 29, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Seen: 1538 times

Last Updated: Oct 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM