Compartilhar via


All you need to know about SQL Server build numbers:

If you are using the SQL Server database option with any of the Microsoft Dynamics products you will know that the SQL Server engine is a critical component of the overall Dynamics solution. Many of the issues we work on can be traced back to the behaviour of SQL Server rather than anything specific to the Dynamics product. Therefore, the version and build number of SQL Server deployed at your customer site can be just as important as the Dynamics product version details. The easiest way to establish the SQL Server build number is to simply run the following TSQL statement and include the result with any Service Request placed with Microsoft: SELECT @@VERSION.

The result will look something like this:

Microsoft SQL Server 2005 - 9.00.3200.00 (Intel X86)   Oct  2 2007 11:33:27   Copyright (c) 1988-2005 Microsoft Corporation  Developer Edition on Windows NT 5.1 (Build 2600: Service Pack 2)

In fact, the only part we need to know from the above information is the number in bold, ie: 9.00.3200.00. Including this detail when opening a service request can expedite the response significantly. We can tell a lot from this build number; see below for the corresponding SQL version information for all major releases of SQL Server going back to version 7.0:

image

Please note that the above is a simple list of all the major builds of SQL Server since version 7.0 and does not show what builds are supported for each Dynamics product and version. Such details will be the subject of future blogs and can be found in product documentation and Knowledge Base articles in the meantime.

See the following KB article for more details about recent SQL Server version history: https://support.microsoft.com/kb/937137/en-us

See also: https://mbs.microsoft.com/knowledgebase/KBDisplay.aspx?WTNTZSMNWUKNTMMYUTMZWVZSQTWWUNTTZXKQWXQXNTVSKNTTXMKRSOYRZRUZXVRV

I hope you find the above information helpful.

Best regards,

Gerard Conroy
Microsoft Dynamics NAV Support Engineer

Comments

  • Anonymous
    April 01, 2008
    The comment has been removed