I need to take the records from my MS Access DB and migrate them to SQL 2000

I need to take the records from my MS Access DB and migrate them to SQL. I have both db table structures somewhat mapped out and its only about 43 records or lines. The data in Access is all kept in a single table and in SQL I need to have it populate seperate individual tables.

I've successfully imported and exported data in SQL by doing simple DTS and queries. With this transfer I don't know how to write the correct query or statement.

Try the links below for options because Microsoft bought a migration tool company you can test drive it or use ready DTS packages from the second link. Hope this helps.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/migration/default.mspx

http://www.sqldts.com/?220

I need help about two server configuration

Hello I have one sql server 2000 and one MSDE , I need a database replicated
in two servers, but I can't modify table structures.
I need to make data modifications in SQL Server and in MSDE, what type of
replication can I use ?
Thank you .
Guillermo
Guillermo,
there are several choices, depending on your setup:
If you are expecting conflicts then the (out of the box) choice is between
queued updating and merge replication. Queued updating won't work if you are
replicating BLOBs but it is generally much faster than merge, especially as
you only have one subscriber.
If the data is completely partitioned, you could use bidirectional
transactional replication (not out of the box though).
If there is continual connectivity (unlikely as you are using MSDE as the
subscriber) then immediate updating subscribers could be relevant.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
|||Thank you Paul, but I can not use Merge because that type of replication
make changes in my table structures.
And transactional replication from sql server to MSDE is ok but what can I
do for MSDE to Sql Server?
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> escribi en el mensaje
news:%23ynvRF95GHA.3592@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Guillermo,
> there are several choices, depending on your setup:
> If you are expecting conflicts then the (out of the box) choice is between
> queued updating and merge replication. Queued updating won't work if you
are
> replicating BLOBs but it is generally much faster than merge, especially
as
> you only have one subscriber.
> If the data is completely partitioned, you could use bidirectional
> transactional replication (not out of the box though).
> If there is continual connectivity (unlikely as you are using MSDE as the
> subscriber) then immediate updating subscribers could be relevant.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
>
|||Guillermo,
if you go down the transactional route, you'll still have schema changes for
updating subscribers. You're quite right that bidirectional transactional
replication isn't an option as you have MSDE and hence can't publish from
it. So, for merge or transactional you'll have another column added. If you
want a solution that doesn't alter the schema at all, then for your
requirements you could consider Redgate DataCompare which just uses Primary
Keys as identifiers. BTW, what is the problem with the schema being altered
to add the extra column?
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
|||"what is the problem with the schema being altered to add the extra
column?"
I fear that it causes errors in my applications
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> escribi en el mensaje
news:uFjTFnF6GHA.1256@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Guillermo,
> if you go down the transactional route, you'll still have schema changes
for
> updating subscribers. You're quite right that bidirectional transactional
> replication isn't an option as you have MSDE and hence can't publish from
> it. So, for merge or transactional you'll have another column added. If
you
> want a solution that doesn't alter the schema at all, then for your
> requirements you could consider Redgate DataCompare which just uses
Primary
> Keys as identifiers. BTW, what is the problem with the schema being
altered
> to add the extra column?
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
>
>
|||I would only think so if these applications use "select * from ...", which
is pretty unusual. In other cases you'll be OK.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .